When the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) first wrote to the British National Party threatening legal action over our constitutional position in favour of the indigenous British, we replied setting out our position and inviting them to enter into discussions with a view to resolving the issues at stake through negotiation. They ignored the important points we raised and proceeded straight to legal action.

As regular readers will know, we changed our Constitution as ordered by Judge Collins — in good faith, believing we had done what was required — only to have CEHR return with a threat of contempt proceedings. Our letter of reply to CEHR (sent within 14 days despite it being in the middle of the election campaign) asked for details of what they were still complaining about and again requested dialogue.

The law is that a body such as CEHR should not interfere with a political party during an election campaign. But despite that they rushed to tell the media that they were going to issue proceedings for contempt, and doing so without even commenting on our call for discussions, let alone replying to our letter and making an appointment.

At Tuesday’s hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice, however, Nick Griffin approached CEHR’s barrister, Robin Allen QC, and asked for his “shopping list” of what CEHR believes is still at issue. Nick also proposed an immediate meeting to discuss the matter face-to-face. Mr. Allen in turn spoke with CEHR’s John Wadham, who agreed to the requested meeting yesterday afternoon.

“The long overdue Without Prejudice meeting was at times a little tense but overall was frank and courteous,” Nick Griffin told BNP News.

“We explored various points both of disagreement and agreement. One area of potential dispute that can easily be cleared up, for example, was CEHR’s refusal to believe our assertion that we sent the Judge’s Order to all our members,” Mr Griffin said.

“Now we know that, of course, it’s very easy to fix. For a start, we need about a dozen members to volunteer to swear simple affidavits (this through a local solicitor, at a fee of £7.50) that they received their July British Nationalist bulletin and that it did indeed contain a sheet carrying the ruling of Judge Collins.”

(Please email membership @ bnp.org.uk if you are willing to help us out on this point. We would especially welcome at least one such offer from among our recently joined members of non-indigenous stock — what the skin colour-obsessed CEHR call ‘non-white’).

“Another bone of contention is CEHR’s determination for us not only to post up the Judgement and Order on our website, but also to put a prominent link to them on our home page,” Mr Griffin continued.

“The Order was that this should be done until our 12.1 Constitution was changed as required, and since I made those changes immediately, and believed (as I still believe) that we now complied, I took the view that we did not need to make any such posting.

“However, since this seems to be so important to CEHR, and is a matter of non-consequence to us, I am asking our web editor to post this article pointing out that the Judgement and Order are indeed online at the foot of our Constitution and to arrange as quickly as possible for a prominent link to be placed on our home page explicitly drawing attention to their presence, and to leave it there in full public view until the whole affair is completely resolved.

“I reiterate that, in my opinion, and in the opinion of our lawyers, we do not need, and have never, under the circumstances of my having legally changed the Constitution on the afternoon of the Judgement, needed to do this. That we are doing is simply by way of removing an unnecessary bone of contention and facilitating further negotiations now that we have finally succeeded in persuading CEHR to talk.

“We will be writing to them very shortly setting out our understanding of their remaining concerns and asking them to confirm that these are accurate and that there are no other issues that they intend to pull out of a hat and hit us with at a later date (as they have done during this case),” he continued.

“At our meeting CEHR also told us that, whatever the outcome of these current proceedings, they intend to bring a fresh action against us on aspects of the Constitution about which they did not complain before. Our letter will therefore ask them to confirm this threat in writing and to tell us in proper and precise terms what their problem is. We will then seek a further meeting with them to discuss the matter face-to-face with our selected negotiating team.

“With the issue of the Constitution thereby being addressed, and clearly capable of being settled without costing either us or the taxpayer another single penny, we will be able to turn unencumbered with the way in which CEHR secured the injunctions in the first place, and the lawfulness or otherwise of their subsequent contempt action. This is the purpose of my application to strike the Orders of 12th March on the grounds that they were irregularly obtained and/or unfairly oppressive,” Mr Griffin said.

“The Judge on Tuesday directed that my application to strike must be heard first on 8th November. This is not just about deciding who is to bear the costs of the case, as there are fundamental issues of English law at stake here.

“The question is whether we will continue to be protected by the traditional English definition of the rule of law or whether we will be subject to arbitrary rule. I believe that we are fighting not just for our rights, or even for the rights of the indigenous peoples of these islands (my prime concern) but indeed for the rights of every British subject, regardless of race, creed or colour.”