standing up for the…bnp?
in norwich, posties are able to “opt out” of delivering bnp election materials.
As part of a “conscience clause”, postmen and women in Norwich can choose whether or not they deliver the canvassing material if they find it offensive or for personal reasons.
And some have refused to deliver the BNP’s controversial leaflets, which set out the party’s policies regarding immigration, out of fear of being threatened by members of the public.
…
Workers were asked to start delivering the material this week ahead of the European elections on June 4.
Within BNP’s pamphlet, it sets out that the far-right party is constitutionally opposed to racial integration, campaigns for an immediate end to immigration and the voluntary resettlement of immigrants living legally in the UK “to their lands of ethnic origin”.
as much as i detest the kkk bnp, the problem with this, is, of course, the slippery slope. where does it end? the postie who decides that s/he finds delivering porn objectionable? or pro-choice literature? or certain prescription medications? it has unsettling parallels to the “conscience clauses” for pharmacists in the u.s., or the case brought by the registrar in islington who refused to carry out same-sex unions.
your job as a postal carrier, is to deliver the post – not pass moral judgement on either the contents of that post, or the people for whom you deliver it. as election material, no matter how repulsive i find it, (and as an aside: how is it not considered “hate speech”? **), as long as it is legal, it should be delivered. as for feeling threatened, well, surely that’s a matter for the police, isn’t it?***
it’s reprehensible stuff, to be sure. but in a democracy where the bnp is <*gag*> considered a legitimate political party, they have the same rights as any other party. censorship and politics is not a role royal mail wants to take on.
**whilst i am on record as being opposed to hate speech laws, if they’re on the books, shouldn’t they be enforced?
***oh, right – not in this country, where the onus is always put back on the victim to try to protect themselves better next time.