Spare a thought for the poor ol’ fascists.

I’ve been quietly watching the BNP membership list saga unfold and I’ve been fascinated with the different perspectives and opinions I’ve heard.

My initial reaction was “Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha,” but now I’m not so sure.  I’ve seen the actual data, and it’s pretty rough for the people on it.  Names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, family members’ names, notes and memos (“discretion required re: employment” – oh the irony), there’s loads on there.  Someone even did a Google Maps mashup to show the location of every member on the list.

So what issues have come out of this?

1. Personal security

I can imagine most of the people on the list are a little more fearful for their safety, apart from the knuckle-heads perhaps.  But I can’t help thinking back to the mid-90’s when my comrades in Democratic Left and the Anti-Nazi League (and myself for all I know) found themselves on a hit list from the local NF and Combat 18 thugs.  They weren’t that worried about it, and by definition non-BNP members probably aren’t going to be as militant and vindictive.  I would be surprised if there was any serious trouble from the publication of this list; I suspect the most that its subjects will experience is a bit of embarrassment.  Very clever of the BNP leader Nick Griffin to claim that some non-members’ details were maliciously added to the list before publication, thereby giving people a way out if necessary.

2. The shame of being a BNP member

The rage and indignation of some of those “outed” by the leak was an interesting phenomenon.  Aside from the potential safety and employment concerns, this would indicate that they’re rather ashamed of being a member.  If, as the BNP claims, they are a mainstream and inclusive party who have ditched their old racist and militant ways, why would there be so many red faces amongst the membership this week?  Have pride in what you believe dammit!  One contributor to a radio show I heard said that humiliating these people would just send them underground.  The presenter made the point that they in their shame they’ve proved they’re already underground.

But of course, imagine the shame if the Tories’ or Labour’s membership lists were published!

3. Employment

No-one on the list employed in the private sector is likely to suffer – apart from being instantly alienated by those of their colleagues pilloried by the BNP – but this episode has reignited the debate about whether a BNP member can be part of the public sector.  The classic argument is the fear that their prejudices will interfere with their public duty – perhaps with fatal consequences.  But I don’t buy that.  Basic Sets Theory would show that not all racists are BNP members (but all BNP members are racist haha) so how do you then weed out the non-members?  No, I think that the ban on membership from some public sector agencies is more to do with the PR crisis that would emerge if something did go wrong.  I’m pretty sure anyone applying for an affected job would just ditch their membership – but they can still continue to donate time and money to their cause.

And if someone’s political membership precludes them from a job, where does it end?  One of the guys in my office asked “would a Christian be barred from working in a hospital because she believes that abortion is wrong?”  I think the bottom line is, judge people and their performance on their actions, not their political affiliations.

So in conclusion, I think that the BNP is a vile and unfortunate by-product of democracy and something we sadly have to live with (until we can get rid of democracy).  I hope that the worst that happens to those on the list is that they get struck by a few rotten tomatoes as they walk through town, but I pray that they and their families are safe.  And I hope that no-one loses their livelihood or liberty if they genuinely deserve not to.

But I think I’ll leave the last word to the BBC News website:

Now I’m back to “ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha.”

Thanks for reading.