Harriet Harperson, hectoring harpy

A couple of days ago the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Christian Legal Society v Martinez. In a nutshell, the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law is withholding funding and benefits from the Christian Legal Society (CLS), a student organisation, because they will not agree to accept into their organisation all students regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief.

Consequently the CLS is suing the school in order to receive such benefits and funding.

They believe that atheists and non-Christians should not be able to vote on the selection of officers and lead Bible study groups. Such a requirement for openness from the university could lead to a great deal of turmoil in organisations built around a specific belief. Should students who hate Muslims, for example, be allowed to join an Islamic group? You just know what would happen if that were the case.

It must be pointed out that the CLS is not arguing for the ability to exclude students on the basis of status, just beliefs. For example, they cannot exclude women, minorities or handicapped persons – nor, we suspect, would they wish to. But the university is not happy to leave things at that.

The University’s lawyer, Gregory Garre, has proposed that CLS can exclude people on the basis of merit, such as knowledge of the Bible, to avoid an organisation takeover.

The CLS argues, however, that militant atheists can and do have a great deal of knowledge about Christianity and the Scriptures, and also that Christians may wish to join CLS in order to improve their knowledge – so clearly a requirement based on merit would not be workable.

Surely, an academic student society, as any other formalised group, should be allowed to set legally acceptable entry or qualification criteria for its members?

Not in the nascent leftist world of ‘equalities’ – a sinister and divisive Marxist-derived notion that all must win prizes; and nobody should ever be excluded from anything.

The logical conclusion in this case, should the Supreme Court rule against the Christians, is that any organisation, whether a student society, and employer or a political party shall be forced to throw its doors open to absolutely anyone – including those that wish to undermine it. The ramifications are mind-boggling.

Which brings us to Britain – where insidious groupthink such as that described above is already threatening to make its way onto the statute books.

Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the current British Labour government (often jokingly referred to as ‘Harriet Harperson’, for her strident politically-correct and anti-male views), has been the driving force behind a major new piece of legislation which, ostensibly, has been put in place to consolidate a larger swathe of anti-discrimination law, but which also has some worrisome additions.

The Equality Act 2010 creates whole new classes of protected people: from non-drinkers to vegans – and paves the way for ‘positive’ discrimination (i.e. discrimination against men and indigenous Britons) for women and ethnic minorities in employment matters.

We believe that Labour are already using earlier Race Relations legislation in a bid to eliminate a rival political party – and getting a quasi-NGO to do the work for them in doing so – and the new act could make things even worse.

The British National Party (BNP) is a Nationalist political party that campaigns on behalf of indigenous Britons. It is a completely democratic and legally-constituted organisation, although it has a racist past that it alleges it is trying to shake off; but nonetheless is undeniably fully focused on protecting the rights of white people in Britain from the effects of mass immigration, Islamisation and globalisation.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a statutory non-departmental body (one of the endless classifications of agency the Labour party has introduced in order to outsource policy to unelected officials), is conducting a legal campaign against the BNP that has already resulted in it being forced to open its membership to ethnic minorities.

The BNP duly changed its constitution and, somewhat surprisingly, some ethnic minority members have already joined. However, the changes are clearly not enough for the EHRC, who have already succeeded in having its newly-amended constitution declared unlawful on the grounds that it is now ‘indirectly discriminatory’.

We don’t support the BNP here at Un:dhimmi, but do recognise their rights – and it is clear to us what is going on here. The party has, in recent months, been highly successful in taking disaffected, mainly white working class voters away from the Labour party (their traditional home in British politics).

Despite overwhelming venom and slurs from the mainstream media (particularly the BBC) and leftist groups, they succeeded last year in getting two Euro MPs elected to the European parliament last year – and it is a strong possibility that they may deliver their first Westminster MPs in the upcoming general Election next month.

Harriet Harman’s Labour government are without doubt attempting to eliminate a threat from a rival party, using legislation they sponsored and deniability cover from the pseudo-government agency that is doing their dirty work for them.

In doing so, they are themselves discriminating – against the freedom of association of BNP members.

It is clear, as few ethnic minorities would be interested (or indeed have an interest) in joining the BNP in the first place, that there’s not much discrimination, in the real sense at any rate, going on here.

Any actual discriminatory acts committed by the BNP in future would, of course, be subject to scrutiny under the new rules anyway – so why litigate now?

Additionally (and curiously), the Black Police and Black Lawyers Associations and other similar race-specific organisations don’t appear to be in the firing line from Labour for similar court actions. Surely the government isn’t prescribing their social cohesion elixir only to those organisations they don’t like?

An object lesson, then, in the workings of the left and how they enable forces that act in their interests against those who disagree with them – in particular, it seems, those perrenial uninvited guests at the multikulti, right-on party – Christians and nationalists.

Please consider supporting Un:dhimmi by making a small donation to the site, in order to show your support and help us with our work.

Get Your Copy of The Documentary the Iranian Régime Doesn’t Want You to See

Comments are closed.