The Nefarious Affiliations of Britain's Next Prime Minister

On the face of it, the traditional gentlemen’s club and the BNP have a lot in common. Though both must be allowed to exist in a free society, both are commonly regarded with some level of distaste or repulsion. Both are based on exclusion: the BNP politely requests that non-whites “respect our right to an organisation of our own, for our own,” while the East India Club (a gentleman’s club in X) doesn’t even explicitly mention its men-only policy on their site: it’s a given. While the BNP is reviled for its racist attitudes, and gentlemen’s clubs are the embodiment of sexist, nepotistist old boy’s networks, the differences between the two are more illustrative than their similarities.

An interesting difference between the gentlemen’s club and the BNP is the existence of Ladies’ Cards and Ladies’ rooms. No equivalent part-membership exists for the BNP- there is no Blacks’ Card. This is partly because the BNP want people of colour completely out of their lives and country, while the gentleman just wants the lady in her proper place- out of the way, when he chooses. It’s also because the gentleman can’t fully exclude women from his life- he may have a wife (while in modern day Britain even the most diligent white racists can’t own black people,) and if by happenstance he needs to visit the club while she is with him, he needs somewhere to put her. Finally, Ladies’ Cards and Rooms exist because some women don’t mind them- a preference for excluding women is near normal enough to be tolerated by these woman, whereas it’s harder to imagine many black people taking up an opportunity to affiliate themselves to the BNP.

Another difference between the BNP and the gentlemen’s club: the BNP exclude people of colour because the organisation’s main activities involve denigrating and plotting against them. It might get rather awkward doing all this with the people in question hanging around the place disapprovingly. But gentlemen don’t sequester themselves in clubs to complain about women and plot their expulsion from Britain- that’s not their motivation. Most of the gentlemen don’t want to hide from the women so that they can talk about them in privacy- quite the opposite. They just want women to not be there, in a very pure and simple way. Racist white people who want black people not to be there don’t have to try particularly hard to find a white-only space, given the poor state of racial integration in the UK. But sexist men who want to have a men-only space will find this hard: women are everywhere these days, not just in the home, but in the workplace, on the street. Gentleman now need not only a home from home, but an office from office, and a pub from pub, to escape the hordes and gaggles of girls.

A final difference between the two is their influence. The BNP has 48 councillors in local government around England, and has some political power. However, they are generally perceived as mad extremists- too extreme to ever be a real threat. In order to make the political gains they have, they have had to dilute and hide their racism: in 1993, their leader Richard Edmonds proudly claimed “We are 100 per cent racist”. In contrast, their campaign video for the London Mayorship made no mention of their racism until the final seconds, with the heavily veiled “we have some very sensible immigration policies”, and with Nick Griffin stating “We are not racist”. Even given tensions over immigration, most British people are uncomfortable with racism- at least, with explicitly hate-filled racism. Gentlemen’s clubs are not political organisations. They have no policies beyond ‘a member’s son needs no seconding’ and ‘public school alumni encouraged to apply.’ However, given their membership - David Cameron, Prince Charles – the influence of a place where powerful people come together, make connections, and exchange ideas may be decidedly political and far reaching. The fact that our leaders belong to these men-only clubs itself endorses their old fashioned sexism.

What does it mean, this exclusion of women? What are the motivations, and what are the benefits? A free society has to allow it, along with the BNP, but shouldn’t it be just as shameful to belong to a sexist club as a racist one? David Cameron could never be a member of the BNP. Why does no-one really mind that the future Prime Minister is a member of the East India Club?

IVF Mothers Destroy British Fatherhood

Mothers having IVF in the UK may soon be able to name anybody as the second parent to their baby. It need not be the man who donated genetic material: it need not even be a man at all. Needless to say, the Daily Mail is outraged. Traditional family values, such as the right to a part in a child’s life based on nothing more than the ability to produce sperm, are being attacked! Bit by bit, timeless values are being replaced by queer, progressive notions: the most unsettling being the idea that the most suitable second parent to a child is the one selected by the mother, on whatever loony, unexamined grounds she considers to be correct. Horror of horrors! She might select her ‘best friend’! We can only imagine the hellish life of the offspring, raised in a freakish world of girls’ nights in, popcorn, and movies starring Colin Firth. What kind of monster would emerge from this? We can only imagine, tremblingly.

The Daily Mail, conscientious member of society that it is, raises the spectre of these female second parents fighting for visitation rights and being chased for support payments when their ‘fragile’ relationship with the birth mother breaks down. And I agree with the Daily Mail: these relationships are bound to be exceedingly fragile, compared to the normal, natural, healthy equivalent. After all, on the one hand, we have a woman who chose to undergo all the complication and difficulties of IVF, and subsequently defied a huge social stigma by naming a woman as the best co-parent. On the other hand, we have a man and a woman who had unprotected sex. I know which seems more fragile to me! The weird one!

Those objecting to all this have a number of solid, well-reasoned arguments, which I think deserve a little consideration. To give you a quick précis: ‘true genetic identity’, ‘biological heritage’, and ‘family values’. I think we all know exactly what those things are, and why they matter so much in our hearts. And on the other hand, what the hell IS all this stuff about responsible adults deciding on an individual basis what is best for their family, having given the matter careful consideration and committed to it on a mutual, legal binding basis? Personally, that does nothing whatsoever for me.