At an extraordinary general meeting on Sunday 14 February the British National Party (BNP) approved its new constitution allowing people of all ethnicities to become members.The new constitution, groundbreaking for a party whose appeal is largely based on fostering distrust of immigrants and foreigners generally, was approved by an overwhelming majority of the 300 BNP members attending, with just five votes against and four abstentions.

The change of heart was in response to a court order following legal action taken by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in which it accused the BNP of contravening discrimination legislation – specifically, the Race Relations Act.

BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP said nobody was ‘happy about being denied the right of self-association’, but the party now had to get on with the ‘serious business of saving Britain from the ravages of the establishment parties’.

What are the policies behind this ‘serious business’?

The BNP’s policies paint a picture of a downtrodden British populace struggling against the evils of immigration, the Euro and the politically correct. The overall impression is one of xenophobia mixed with a rose-tinted vision of the good old days. These were the days when, or so the policies’ authors claim, we did our own thing without the interference of politicians, globalisation and foreigners from our former colonies setting up home in our green and pleasant land.

One of the party’s policies, for example, advocates introducing ‘voluntary resettlement’ for these latter legal immigrants and deporting the rest. It has no truck with ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or could find refuge much nearer their home countries.

On Europe, by which the party presumably means our membership of the EU, it supports what it calls the ‘overwhelming majority’ of British people who want to keep the pound sterling and ‘our traditional weights and measures’.

The police will be freed from their ‘politically correct straitjacket’ so they can do their jobs properly.

The party also calls for the ‘selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets’, the ending of ‘trendy’ teaching methods, a reduction in foreign aid, a boost to defence spending, putting pensioners before asylum seekers (them again) and allowing the people to decide about capital punishment.

These policies – in particular the ones about unleashing the police and the possible reintroduction of capital punishment – are scary to the more liberal-minded among us. They have a definite resonance, however, with many of the nation’s voters, including some members of the black and ethnic minority community. A Sikh, Rajinder Singh, 75, in a protest against what he sees as the Islamification of Britain, is already reported to have said he wants to be the first non-white BNP member.

Singh is not alone. Peter David, 56, an elder of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, who came to Britain in the 1970s from Trinidad, told Times journalist Dominic Kennedy that he supported the BNP’s policy of stemming immigration. There are so many immigrants here, he said, that our little island might sink. Kennedy recorded these words just before he was forcibly expelled from the extraordinary general meeting for having previously written a critical piece about the party.

Which perhaps speaks volumes about the reformed BNP.

The BNP has every right to promote these policies, of course, providing it does not incite racial or religious hatred, discriminate against any section of the community or break any other laws.

Its policies might remind some people of the bilious inanities of a saloon bar bore, but it’s a free world – and all that.

But with the BNP having had to change its rules, that has got me wondering whether any other organisations – even, perhaps, some involving lawyers – might have to do the same?

I wonder about the status of a group such as the Association of Women Solicitors (AWS), whose membership is restricted to women solicitors or trainees who are Law Society members or associate members.

Why, when the BNP has to toe the racial discrimination line, was the AWS allowed to get away with ‘discrimination’ on the grounds of gender and exclude men from its ranks?

For that matter, how can an organisation calling itself the Black Solicitors Network (BSN) be allowed?

It turns out that it is because there are different rules for clubs or associations and political parties. The former can confine membership to a specific group so long as their main purpose is to provide benefits to their members. Neither the AWS nor the BSN discriminates on the grounds of colour. The AWS campaigns on behalf of women of all races and the BSN specifically states on its website that people of all colours and race who share its values are welcome to join.

The BNP, on the other hand, is a political party whose main aim is not just to benefit its members. It also aims to win elections, gain political power and represent the public – and so, like any other political party, has to comply with colour and other discrimination legislation. So there you have it.