the union man and his little BNP secret

[Holden Caulfield]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/STNK37AQz8I/AAAAAAAABY4/20AR2IdWeYw/s400/tim_47822a.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/STNK37AQz8I/AAAAAAAABY4/20AR2IdWeYw/s1600-h/tim_47822a.jpg)
Tim Clarke - yet another BNP member who seems reluctant to admit to it

Civil servant faces calls to quit Nipsa after list leaked

This is the outspoken BNP member who faces the boot from his frontline trade union role because of his hardline views. Right-wing activist Tim Clarke isn’t usually ‘behind-the-door’ about his opinions — but he’d kept his British National Party membership a secret from his colleagues in the Nipsa trade union.

But the Social Security Agency civil servant was outed along with thousands of supporters of the right-wing organisation when a disgruntled former member published their details on the internet.

Now Clarke’s union colleagues want him booted out of their trade union . . . and out of his civil service job.

They’re understood to have complained to the union’s hierarchy about Clarke’s continuing role as a branch secretary in the public service union. Nipsa’s general secretary John Corey yesterday confirmed that inquiries had been received from local union branches about the BNP membership issue. He said that the matter would be raised by the union’s general council.

Said Mr Corey: “Across the UK, trade unions have made clear they consider BNP membership to be incompatible with trade union membership. Trade unions stand for upholding the rights of every person, equality for all and against any forms of racism.”

Clarke has represented Nipsa members at the union’s annual conferences in his role as the secretary for Branch 34 of the union, which covers workers in the Social Security Agency in Lisburn. He describes himself as a Nipsa member of more than 25 years who has been a constant target for “abuse” from the union’s left.

Our exclusive snaps show him taking his seat at this year’s annual Nipsa conference in the Slieve Donard Hotel in Newcastle and standing behind the union’s leaders — including Mr Corey.

When Sunday Life called at his Lisburn home yesterday, the BNP man denied even BEING Clarke.

“I don’t know who you’re talking about,” he said from behind the door.

He later called our office to complain about being “rudely awakened” by our reporter. “I didn’t want to say anything incriminating. The media are very biased against the BNP,” said Clarke. “I joined the party because I’m concerned about levels of immigration and the way I see things developing. But it’s a perfectly legally-constituted party so I don’t see anything wrong with joining it. It’s accused of being racist. I’m certainly not (racist) in any shape or form. I don’t consider the BNP to be an extreme party. They are the only patriotic party there is.”

In relation to suggestions that there could be a conflict of interests between his membership and the civil servants’ code of conduct, he said: “I deal with everyone fairly and impartially, regardless of their views.”

And he said he intends to challenge fight any attempt by Nipsa to expel him, saying that they had “no evidence” he was a member of the BNP...even though he CONFIRMED it to a Sunday Life journalist!

Said Clarke: “They don’t even know for a start that I am a member. They can’t accuse me of anything they don’t have any evidence of. If I thought the BNP was as racist as people make out they are, I would not be a member. If they had the same image they had years ago when it was a completely different party — they were knuckle-dragging skinheads — I would have nothing to do with it. I believe anyone should be entitled to be a member of a trade union because they pay their membership fees to protect their employment rights.”

But Clarke’s Nipsa colleagues don’t agree.

Said one union official: “Membership of the BNP is completely incompatible with the code of conduct of the civil service which requires full respect for equality and diversity. Membership of our union and all public service unions demands we adhere to that code. If you’re a member of a racist party such as the BNP, you clearly have no right to be a member of Nipsa and you shouldn’t be employed by the civil service.”

A spokesman for the Department of Social Development, which oversees the Social Security Agency, said: “The Social Security Agency does not comment on the individual circumstances of staff.

“The civil service is permitted to take the view that they judge an officer by what he or she does — not what group he or she belongs to.”

Nipsa’s members aren’t alone in wanting BNP members out of their trade union. Trade unions throughout the UK have backed a recent amendment to the Employment Bill currently before the House of Lords that would allow them to ban racists.

The proposal — that has been labelled ‘Stalinist’ by the BNP — comes amid concern that the BNP is using unions to strengthen its electoral footing. It follows a landmark case in the European Court of Human Rights, which upheld the right of the train drivers’ union Aslef to expel one of its members for also holding membership of the BNP. If the law comes into force — and it would apply equally to Northern Ireland — it would come into immediate conflict with Northern Ireland’s fair employment laws which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of political opinion.

Clarke is one of dozens of members of the BNP from Northern Ireland to be identified after a disgruntled former member leaked the names and addresses of more than 10,000 members.

Sunday Life revealed last week how the local supporters of the far-right organisation have included a lonely-heart ex-copper, a soldier who hates England and a former fire chief. Ex-RUC officer Sandy Baxter said he was proud to be a member of the party.

Following our revelation that the Co Londonderry man had won admirers among a string of Thai beauties on an online dating website, the ex-cop quickly removed his profile from the Friendster social networking website. He had previously been seen on the site in a number of photos posing with a sports car, in RUC uniform and even with a heavy-calibre mounted machine-gun.

Squaddie Gary Wilkinson, we were told, had no interest in the BNP literature that had been posted to his former Ballycarry home. He had used his Bebo website to complain about how much he disliked England, claiming that many English people were “ignorant”.

Young professional couple Andy and Lisa Giltrap told how they had attended a number of local BNP meetings but had since left the organisation. Husband Andy told Sunday Life: "I would stress we are not racist in any way."

He added that the BNP had been unfairly branded as a Nazi group by the media.

“I do care about being British and I do believe we are being overrun by immigrants,” said the Bangor man.

Former Dungannon fire chief Harry Martin, a one-time vice-president of the Retired Fire Fighters Association, appeared on the BNP membership list after making a donation to the party. The retired fireman, now a lollipop man, said he had “changed his mind” about joining the party a short time after paying into their coffers.

Lancaster Unity (http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/)
(^Searchlight Affiliated)

[Sean]

From NIPSA General Conference 2008 (http://www.nipsa.org.uk/UserFiles/File/Pages%201-9.pdf):

CARMEL Gates, on behalf of General Council, moved Motion 14, involving an amendment to Section 17 of NIPSA's constitution covering the political fund.
She said that even if the motion was carried, it would not mean the political fund would be set up immediately but “allow us to bring the political objective into the constitution to have a ballot so that every member of the union will have a vote”.
Ms Gates pointed that even if there is a successful ballot, individual members could still choose not pay the 10p a month levy.
She said the political fund would operate under the same rules as every other union and could not be used for “anything that has not been agreed upon”.
Ms Gates added: “At the moment, NIPSA can lobby, cajole and beg but we cannot publicly challenge, and we have not been able to speak out at election time.”
Opposing the motion, Trevor Smyth (Branch 27) asked delegates to reject it as “we are not into party politics”. He claimed a political fund was not needed to have successful campaign.
Tim Clarke (Branch 34) expressed concern about losing members through a ballot on NIPSA embracing a political fund.There couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest in a being a BNP sneak and trying to stop a major union's political campaigning, could there?

[Dr Mindbender]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/STNK37AQz8I/AAAAAAAABY4/20AR2IdWeYw/s400/tim_47822a.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/ulstersocialist/1.jpg


DRINK! :laugh:

[Sean]

DRINK! :laugh:
I think he's far more likely to be saying "FECK OFF!" :)

But seriously, I checked and only seven of the 12,000 records mention anything about being a member of a union, past or present. Jim Clarke's record didn't mention it, so there's plenty more cancer in the unions I'd bet, since the handful of Northern Irish BNP went under far more scrutiny by the media than most.



North - Industrial News
NIPSA conference - Time to build a united left
Paul Dale, NIPSA Civil Service Executive (personal capacity)



The pay, jobs, conditions of NIPSA members, as well as the services they provide, are now under constant attack. These attacks were reflected in the angry mood of most delegates at the union's recent Conference in Newcastle.

Members in the Education and Library Boards face budget cuts and the Conference agreed to take a break to allow two busloads of delegates to attend a picket of the SEELB meeting.

Civil Service members were rightly angered by the strike ballot on pay which was narrowly lost earlier this year. The campaign for a "yes" vote was led by left members of the Executive and it will be interesting to hear what ideas the right wing grouping, who have a majority of the Civil Service Executive, have for this year's pay battle.

As well as condemning New Labour over its attack on pensions and its selling off of government buildings, Conference backed a motion calling for a socialist Venezuela.

The best debate was probably the last with Socialist Party members at the forefront of the call for a political fund. If Nipsa is serious in wanting to confront fascists such as the BNP, or to join other unions in offering a challenge to the sectarian politicians, it needs to have a political fund.

Unfortunately while the argument may have been won, the vote wasn’t. The motion was narrowly lost and Nipsa will have difficulty passing comment on political issues as a result.

The elections saw a left Editorial Board elected and Socialist Party members Billy Lynn, Brian Booth and Carmel Gates returned unopposed as the President and Chairpersons of the Public Officers and Civil Service Executive.

There was a packed lunchtime meeting of the left Time for Change group, which includes the Socialist Party, to discuss the building of a united left in the union able to challenge and defeat the right wing. This is now the key task facing all activists in the union.
I just thought I'd drop this in here too. Its from an old issue of The Socialist (http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/socialist017jun06/13.htm) (June 2006) and kind of emphasises the direct sabotage being carried out a bit more clearly for anyone confused over the idea of the political fund in a Northern Irish Union.

[Vanguard1917]

Should trade unions be expelling workers for their political opinions, or should trade unions be open to all workers regardless of their levels of political consciousness?

[Sean]

Should trade unions be expelling workers for their political opinions, or should trade unions be open to all workers regardless of their levels of political consciousness?
Well, as I am attempting to illustrate, this particular BNP member was actively sabotaging (unsuccessfully in this instance) the Union. Should any group be forced by law to include people who hold an official stance which goes completely against the group, in the case of the BNP and unions, against racial discrimination? Its a grey area and it could certainly be a slippery slope to forcing people wanting to be unionised into certain political views which they may not otherwise hold, but there need to be some vetting procedures in place.

[Vanguard1917]

Should any group be forced by law to include people who hold an official stance which goes completely against the group, in the case of the BNP and unions, against racial discrimination? Its a grey area and it could certainly be a slippery slope to forcing people wanting to be unionised into certain political views which they may not otherwise hold, but there need to be some vetting procedures in place.

I don't think that the state should be allowed to tell unions what they can and cannot do, but that is a separate issue. The issue of 'sabotage' is also separate, i think.

The real issue seems to be whether a union should be expelling workers for their political beliefs. The union bureaucracy in Britain reckons that it should have this right. I think that a union should not be expelling workers for having the wrong views, and that it should be open to all workers, regardless of the level of their political consciousness.

[Sean]

I don't think that the state should be allowed to tell unions what they can and cannot do, but that is a separate issue. The issue of 'sabotage' is also separate, i think.
The real issue seems to be whether a union should be expelling workers for their political beliefs. The union bureaucracy in Britain reckons that it should have this right.I think the issue of sabotage is now a major part of this discussion and perhaps this argument of politics and unions in general is a seperate issue which deserves its own thread. Lets stick to NIPSA and the BNP here.


I think that a union should not be expelling workers for having the wrong views, and that they should be open to all workers, regardless of the level of their political consciousness.Lets have a look at NIPSAs statement:

The objects of NIPSA are:-
a.To represent, protect and promote the interests of its members.
b.To participate in the regulation of relations between its members and their employers for the purpose of furthering and protecting the interests of its members.
c.To provide such benefits and services for its members and employees, and for such other persons, as may be determined by the General Conference.
d.To co-operate with those trade unions affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in order to protect and advance the interests of working people generally.
e.To promote equal opportunities for all members and to develop positive policies to promote equality of opportunity regardless of colour, race, ethnic or national origins, political opinion, religious belief, sex, disability, age, marital status, or sexual orientation.

f.To do anything which in the opinion of the General Council is incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the above objects.

(emphasis theirs)Where your political opinion clashes with the promotion of equal opportunities for all members, you should not be a member. Any other political view which doesn't clash with any of these points should be and is permitted. There is absolutely no reason why the organisation should be forced to permit entry to people who directly oppose what they stand for. Northern Irish politics is pretty diverse and yet members from all communities and political beliefs join NIPSA so there isn't an issue of the union being a political clique. The BNP is the exception rather than the rule.

[Vanguard1917]

Where your political opinion clashes with the promotion of equal opportunities for all members, you should not be a member. Any other political view which doesn't clash with any of these points should be and is permitted. There is absolutely no reason why the organisation should be forced to permit entry to people who directly oppose what they stand for.

So a union should not be open to the whole workforce, but only to those who abide by a certain set of political beliefs? Aren't unions, by their very nature, supposed to be organisations representing the workforce as a whole?

[Bilan]

I'm not against the rank n file voting to expell a fascist from their ranks.
A union is supposed to represent the interests of the mass of workers. Simple as that.

[spartan]

Don't the BNP have their own union?

Why don't BNP workers join that one instead?

It seems that the primary reason for some BNP members to join other unions is to sabotage them (as is seen in the case of this Tim Clarke fellow here).

[redguard2009]

So a union should not be open to the whole workforce, but only to those who abide by a certain set of political beliefs? Aren't unions, by their very nature, supposed to be organisations representing the workforce as a whole?

holy christ, still on your crusade to defend the BNP?

Yes, a Union should do whatever it feels necessary to fight against fascism. I can hardly see how a union is supposed to protect equality, progressiveness and anti-discrimination if it embraces fascists into its organization with open arms. Honestly I don't know what's wrong with you but your insistence on defending BNP members' rights is very, very troubling.

[Holden Caulfield]

Don't the BNP have their own union?

Why don't BNP workers join that one instead?
because it is clearly a sham, based on the IWW apparently, except they are nationalist, rascist, not internationalist etc etc etc

[RaiseYourVoice]

So a union should not be open to the whole workforce, but only to those who abide by a certain set of political beliefs? Aren't unions, by their very nature, supposed to be organisations representing the workforce as a whole?
Yes they should represent the working class as a whole, thats why racists and fascists cannot be tolerated there. Racists and fascists want to divide the working class, are a tool of our class enemy. They dont have a place in working class organisations.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't think that the state should be allowed to tell unions what they can and cannot do, but that is a separate issue. The issue of 'sabotage' is also separate, i think.

The real issue seems to be whether a union should be expelling workers for their political beliefs. The union bureaucracy in Britain reckons that it should have this right. I think that a union should not be expelling workers for having the wrong views, and that it should be open to all workers, regardless of the level of their political consciousness.


Yes they should.

No platformism should be supported at all levels of society, but especially in the unions.

[Fidel Follower]

I totally agree, they should be given no platform, big or small.

[BobKKKindle$]

Unions should not be allowed to expel members for having certain political beliefs. We need to look at this issue in terms of how we can change the views of people who currently hold reactionary ideas. Socialists support industrial struggle under capitalism for several reasons - on a basic level it allows workers to protect themselves against the worst effects of capitalism by forcing their employers to grant concessions such as improvements in working conditions and better wage rates, but a more important impact of going on strike is the way strikes change the way workers view the world and relate to their class comrades. By going on strike together and winning industrial battles, workers can understand that all workers fundamentally have the same interests despite ethnic differences, and the only way workers are able to win battles and ultimately change society is by acting collectively as a class. This relates to the issue at hand because by excluding BNP members from trade unions, we are also isolating them from these struggles and their positive effects on working-class consciousness, and as long as they are isolated from the rest of the working-class they are likely to move closer to the BNP and the kind of reactionary and divisive ideas the BNP promotes, instead of being receptive to ideas which encourage class solidarity.

[Holden Caulfield]

So a union should not be open to the whole workforce, but only to those who abide by a certain set of political beliefs? Aren't unions, by their very nature, supposed to be organisations representing the workforce as a whole?
what is the historical role of fascism? do you really want fascists, or neo-fascists in the organisational organs of the working class? the workers themselves should push out these elements for their own good,

would anybody support the bosses pushing the fash out of unions? because they have, will, and are doing it to members of my party

EDIT: good post bob, we must have been typing at the same time

[Vanguard1917]

Unions should not be allowed to expel members for having certain political beliefs. We need to look at this issue in terms of how we can change the views of people who currently hold reactionary ideas. Socialists support industrial struggle under capitalism for several reasons - on a basic level it allows workers to protect themselves against the worst effects of capitalism by forcing their employers to grant concessions such as improvements in working conditions and better wage rates, but a more important impact of going on strike is the way strikes change the way workers view the world and relate to their class comrades. By going on strike together and winning industrial battles, workers can understand that all workers fundamentally have the same interests despite ethnic differences, and the only way workers are able to win battles and ultimately change society is by acting collectively as a class. This relates to the issue at hand because by excluding BNP members from trade unions, we are also isolating them from these struggles and their positive effects on working-class consciousness, and as long as they are isolated from the rest of the working-class they are likely to move closer to the BNP and the kind of reactionary and divisive ideas the BNP promotes, instead of being receptive to ideas which encourage class solidarity.


I agree.

The general position of Marxism is that workers with backward political consciousness should be allowed membership of the trade union. Workers are politically educated through struggle, and the trade union should be an organisation of workers' struggle. (I say 'should be' since, nowadays, in the absence of workers' militancy, they tend to look and act more like secondary HR departments than organisations of working class action.)

This doesn't mean that trade unions should not have the right to take action against members actively trying to sabotage strikes and other forms of militancy. The trade union should absolutely have this right and should fight for it. But expelling workers based purely on political views should not be acceptable either. The trade union is an organisation for the whole workforce in its struggle against the employers.



Speaking generally, we Marxists hold that every honest, uncorrupted worker may be a member of his trade union, irrespective of political, religious or other convictions. We regard the trade unions on the one hand as militant economic organizations, and on the other hand as a school of political education. While we stand for permitting backward and non-class-conscious workers to join trade unions, we do so not from an abstract principle of freedom of opinion or freedom of conscience but from considerations of revolutionary expediency.

However, the trade union has



the right not to allow into their midst citizens whose political behaviour is hostile to the interests of the working class. The struggle of the trade unions to debar unorganized workers from the factory has long been known as a manifestation of “terrorism” by the workers – or in more modern terms, Bolshevism.

http://eprints.cddc.vt.edu/marxists///archive/trotsky/britain/wibg/ch07.htm

[Sean]

However, the trade union has


the right not to allow into their midst citizens whose political behaviour is hostile to the interests of the working class. The struggle of the trade unions to debar unorganized workers from the factory has long been known as a manifestation of “terrorism” by the workers – or in more modern terms, Bolshevism. Explain how being a member/activist of the BNP does not fit this criteria of political behaviour. Noone is asking what your political views are in the union. BNP voters aren't excluded, BNP members are. I don't understand why you've argued against this point for so long then quote Trotsky saying the same thing as has been said countless times on this thread.:confused:

[Vanguard1917]

Explain how being a member/activist of the BNP does not fit this criteria of political behaviour. Noone is asking what your political views are in the union. BNP voters aren't excluded, BNP members are. I don't understand why you've argued against this point for so long then quote Trotsky saying the same thing as has been said countless times on this thread.:confused:

Behaviour implies action. Specifically, Trotsky is referring to scab behaviour - i.e. strike-breakers.

Arguing that members should be expelled purely for their political opinions is another matter. Of course, you can argue that a BNP member, by virtue of his or her political affiliation, will aim to disrupt and sabotage workers' militancy. And in many cases you might be right. But the argument of the trade union bureaucracy today is different to that: it says that BNP members should be expelled because of their views, which union bureaucrats reckon are incompatible with 'trade union values'. If we can expel BNP members on such a basis, we should also be able to expel BNP voters, since they presumably share at least some of the views of the BNP. Where is the line to be drawn? What about expelling Islamic fundamentalists, whose views probably also run contrary to 'trade union values'? What about, say, homophobes or those against asylum seeking in Britain?

That's the problem you have when you start excluding workers from trade unions for theirr level of political consciousness - when it is precisely through organisations like the trade union that workers can potentially be educated in correct political ideas.

[Sean]

[the trade union] says that BNP members should be expelled because of their views, which union bureaucrats reckon are incompatible with 'trade union values'.
I haven't seen where this has been said. Can you provide a quote/link to back this up? It seems contrary to everything I have heard unions standing for.

[Vanguard1917]

I haven't seen where this has been said. Can you provide a quote/link to back this up? It seems contrary to everything I have heard unions standing for.

Really? The whole issue has been based around the idea that BNP members/supporters should be expelled because the BNP's political views are incompatible with 'what trade unions stand for', 'trade union values', etc.

Tony Lloyd:

"Nick Griffin is a representative of a fascist party and that really is the central issue we are addressing... It is whether a trade union, on behalf of its black members, its Asian members, its white members who don't want to be in the same body as fascists, are going to have the legal opportunity to exclude people whose ambitions are incompatible with that type of union."

Lord Lester (Lib Dem peer in favour of the amendment):

"They [trade unions] must amend their rule book to make it clear that the BNP is incompatible with their objectives..."

Tony Woodley:

"Without amendment to protect unions and their members, this bill will send a big signal to the BNP and other merchants of hate that they have a place in our movement."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7706870.stm

"...active support for fascists and racists is, and should be, incompatible with trade union membership."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/tradeunions-thefarright

--------------

This is not to say that i don't support the right of trade unions to decide their own business free from state interference. I fully agree with Tony Woodley that 'Trade unions should be free to use their own democratic procedures, without state interference, to control the right to membership' (source: guardian article above). What i'm against and think is counterproductive is the notion that unions should use such powers to expel workers for their political views.

[Sean]

Thanks. Again these quotes are quite rightly aimed at members of the BNP not the private political views of individuals. The individual's views are not why they are expelled. Membership of the BNP implies active opposition to the aims of the unions, you are not simply expelled for having contrary views but actively supporting them through membership of this organisation. This is a pretty elementary point that you seem to miss - the members are not expelled for their political views. They are expelled for actively supporting an organisation which acts on these views.

Taig can be a racist and a union member.
Taig cannot promote racism and be a union member.

It is the action implied on the basis of beliefs that is the issue, not the beliefs. This is as simple as the difference between a noun and a verb.

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks. Again these quotes are quite rightly aimed at members of the BNP not the private political views of individuals. The individual's views are not why they are expelled...They are expelled for actively supporting an organisation which acts on these views.

Not just members. Read the quotes again. The word that is used is 'support'/'actively support'. That could mean voters, too.

Even if it did just mean BNP members, that would nonetheless still be demanding expelling workers for their political views, rather than actions. If it was the latter the demand would be something along the lines of 'the right to expel any member who tries to create division, sabotage a strike, etc'.


Membership of the BNP implies active opposition to the aims of the unions, you are not simply expelled for having contrary views but actively supporting them through membership of this organisation.

What about actively supporting the Tories? What about UKIP? What about support for New Labour anti-union legislation? Aren't these 'contrary views'?