The BNP (as constituted) should NOT be allowed to exist as a political party.

I thank feverish for his quick response and apologise for my rather slow one. After spending awhile sifting through the information, I have come back with what I believe is a good counter argument, based not only on precedents, but some interesting information concerning the history of British politics which I never really knew about. So, even if I lose this argument, which at this point is very possible, I'll have gained something from it, thanks to my opponent's instigation. Now, on to my argument: ______________ 1. While my opponent has made several good points about the actions and words of some members of the BNP, I question whether any of it has much bearing on whether or not the party should be banned based on the contentions presented. Consider this; while Sinn Fein is no longer associated with violence as the BNP has been characterized to be, their members, and its past, is far from saintly. The best known example is Sinn Fein's support for the Irish Republican Army[1], a group associated with violence and extremism in Ireland and the UK. While my opponent was correct in noting that the party was banned up until 1974, and it has moderated itself, it is clear that there has been a constant link between them in the past, and that many important organizers for the party were known extremists that supported the use of violence. For example, in 1981, a party organizer named Danny Morrison said that "Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite (AR-18 assault rifle) in the other, we take power in Ireland?"[2] These are not the words of a moderate, and while they were said almost 30 years ago, take into account that current Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams, was considered apart of the IRA's Army Council during the 2005 armed robbery, in which the IRA took off with 26 million.[3] That is far from being non-associated with non-violence and moderation. So, how are the associations and actions of Sinn Fein different from my opponent's contentions that the past instances of violent rhetoric in the history of the BNP are cause to ban the party? There is no difference, and therefore there is no argument; what was said and done in the past was said and done in the past, and while it may stain the image of the BNP, it doesn't necessarily conclude that it is how they are today. The precedent has been set, and the BNP has met it. And even if it did, I disagree with my opponent's belief that we need to actively go against the BNP in order to prove that they're unfit to be a proper political party in Parliament, Councils or anywhere else. There is a clear reason why the UK has a democracy, and it is so the views of the populace are represented in government. My opponent's argument is mainly built around the idea that because the BNP is or was violent and hateful, it must be banned, but my counter is that if it is a proper democratic choice, which the BNP and Nick Griffin has, for better or for worse, proven to be, then there is no reason to ban it, despite its controversies. The same argument can and is applied to the existence of Sinn Fein or any other number of political parties, and I do not see how my opponent can argue against it, without presenting recent proof that the leadership of the BNP are literally out to harm UK citizens. ________ 2. I must take my hat off to my opponent, as I can find no other argument against this contention, which in some ways is the core part of this argument. What the BNP does can indeed be constituted as an incitement of racial hatred, and I would be wondering why British authorities have yet to take out many members of the party for this crime. That being said though, one of the genius factors with the idea of the BNP and Nick Griffin's leadership is that they do frame it in such a way as to really bypass those laws. While racial hatred can certainly be implied, the BNP talk about the "protection of indigenous British," and are focused on reducing immigration and on the feelings of resentment against the government's supposed policies of support for immigrants over natural-born British. They're all actual legitimate political positions, sadly, and this could be the reason why the BNP has yet to be disbanded. Griffin has yet to really talk about hatred against other races, so much as the disenfranchisement of Caucasians in Britain. It would be quite interesting political maneuvers, if it wasn't so rotten. _______ 3. My opponents arguments here are all conjecture and suspicion, with little proof to back any of it. Indeed, all PRO does is admit that Griffin has created a more moderate image of the party, but that it is simply a mask over their hidden agenda, and that their past associations with violent associations or actions (a subject I already dealt with) or international affiliations are a sign of their "true intentions." Conjecture isn't enough to overcome proper evidence, as I provided. But in response to my opponent's talk about Tony Lecomber, I would like to note that he also resigned as the BNP's "Group Development Officer" in 2006 for approaching another BNP member and asking him to perform an assassination, and hasn't appeared to be apart of the party's leadership or machinations since. Lecomber is therefore not of much use against the BNP, as he was rightly chastised by Griffin and most of the BNP leadership, as told by the man he approached, Joe Owens.[4] ____________ 4. While my opponent is sort of right, in that as currently constituted the BNP is illegal, it is very unreasonable to disband them considering that they have agreed to change their policies. This is similar to asking that Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and other parties with members associated with the MP expenses scandal should disband those members, including party leaders and ministers, until they've paid their full dues. They have agreed to pay for their offences as well as change their policies, and as such they're allowed to stand because of their acceptance of the ruling. The BNP has done the same. And my opponent also brings up the point that with open memberships, the BNP will be facing quite a few quagmires; I don't know how they'll deal with them, but I bet it will be mighty amusing to see that banner on the BNP homepage (http://bnp.co.uk...) with all Caucasian members be dotted with individuals of other races now. Griffin's face won't be in such a big smile. _______ 5. While indeed Nick Griffin talks about "traditional Christian values" at times, there is nothing explicitly condemning this in British political law, as near as I can tell. So while it offends all sensibilities considering, there isn't any legal issue with the promotion of religion in politics in the United Kingdom. ___________ Thank you again to feverish for this debate, and I await his rebuttal. Sources: 1. http://www.number10.gov.uk... 2. http://polsc.anu.edu.au... 3. http://www.independent.co.uk... 4. http://libcom.org...