Simone Clarke and the BNP

Simone Clarke, a ballerina with the English National Ballet, has been revealed to be a member of the British National Party. The Guardian's reaction has been most interesting.

Two weeks after she was named by the Guardian as a card-carrying member of the far right group, the ballerina hit out at her critics, voicing her belief that the BNP seemed to be the only party "willing to take a stand" against immigration.

The BNP is not a 'far right' party. They're racists, to be sure, but they're socialist racists. Much more akin to fascists of various stripes than anything else, and thus of the left, not the right.

The interview has caused fresh difficulties for the ENB, which was able to deflect criticism about Clarke's BNP membership by insisting that her stance was an entirely private one.

Indeed it is. It is legal to be a member of the BNP nd it is legal to hold whatever views one wishes. Thus membership and her views are indeed entirely private matters. As are the reactions of individuals to her views and her membership, but not those of institutions.

Her views and policies espoused by the BNP appear to conflict with equality policies that operate in the company itself and those laid down by Arts Council England, which subsidises the ENB to the tune of £6m a year.

Ahh, we can see where this is going, can't we? If you take money from the State then you must ascribe to the ideological purities of the State?

Its policy says funded organisations "must be aware of how their work contributes to race equality and promoting good race relations".

It could be argued that the BNP is in fact desirous of promoting good race relations by having as little of them as possible. Not an argument I would ascribe to, to be sure, but the problem is that those doling out the cash only see one possible way of such promotion. If you don't, in your private thoughts, think like we say you should, then you don't get the cash.

Lee Jasper, equalities director for the mayor of London and chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism, said: "The ENB must seriously consider whether having such a vociferous member of an avowedly racist party in such a prominent role is compatible with the ethics of its organisation. I seriously doubt that it is and that should lead to her position being immediately reviewed. I think she should be sacked."

Thanks for putting it so clearly Lee. If people don't think like you think they ought to then they should be deprived of their livelihood. My, isn't that a remarkable advance for freedom, liberty and free speech and the right of association.

A spokeswoman for the Commission for Racial Equality, which polices race relations legislation, said it was monitoring events. "We will be interested to see what action the ENB takes given that it has a member expressing such views in public."

The correct action to take is none.

Or, if action must be taken by the ENB, then it should simply state that as we are a free society, one without the crime of sedition, then whatever passes for political thought in the brain of one trained since childhood to dance on tippy toe is her own business and nothing to do with them. Or any other branch of the State. Private individuals are entirely free to react (wihin the bounds of libel and incitement to violence) as they wish.

It's one of the basics of a free society, that we have the right to think and speak as we damn well please. It's one of the duties that we should also take the consequences. Such consequences do not include tax funded prodnoses depriving you of your living for failing to sign up to current bien pensant opinion.