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

Thank you feverish for your response; I wholly enjoyed this debate so far, and wish me good luck! ________________ 1. The reason why I never refuted the comparison of the BNP to the Socialist Reich Party of Germany was because of the major differences between the two nation's political circumstances, which should be respected. While the Socialist Reich Party was indeed a simple copy of Hitler's National Socialists, it was created in the direct aftermath of World War 2, a time when Germany was occupied by foreign powers and was just beginning the reconstruction process.[1] For these reasons alone, the party was banned because of the fear of incitement on their part - incitement which would have destabilized the interests of the Allies and Soviets who controlled the area. The party had a clear agenda and a very clear base, and in a country feeling a lot of resentment at the time, the threat was very serious. This is not the situation faced today in regards to the BNP. The United Kingdom is not broken after years of war, and is able to stand on its own feet. Voters are resentful of some practices by mainstream parties, yes, but they are not willing to move en masse to this group. Other parties and groups are able to legally and non-violently counter the BNP effectively - something not necessarily able to occur in post-war Germany. The ban against the Socialist Reich was out of necessity; the ban of the BNP is not. I would also like to note that the most similar party to the BNP in Germany is in fact not the Socialist Reich, due to the discrepancies in situations I noted above; the National Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is much more similar to the BNP, and indeed, they have been effectively countered and beaten back without the need for a ban.[2] My opponent then contends that the situation of the IRA was wildly different than that of the BNP (which means he would support my contention above about comparing the BNP to the Socialist Reich Party), which I admit, is very true. But that does not really excuse their actions either way, especially in regards to the continued involvement of Sinn Fein in the IRA, and that now-needless connection that, frankly, should no longer exist. I congratulate Sinn Fein on moderating themselves, and trust me, I can understand the actions in their past; but there is no need for present allegiance to the IRA. The point though, is simple. Sinn Fein has had a rocky past, full of violence, hatred, and morally questionable actions. To this day, Sinn Fein continues to associate with it, as I had shown above and my opponent never contented. And with respect to the BNP, even though they are a horrid, horrid party, similarly with a questionable past and off-putting present, there is no reason to remove the standard that we apply to Sinn Fein from the BNP. Once this standard has been applied to one, then the standard must be applied to all; government should not be actively discouraging positions and ideologies unless they're promoting violence. There are laws in place to stop the government from doing as such, and unless my opponent would agree that Sinn Fein must face the same punishment as the BNP, those laws must be respected. And in response to my opponent's contention about families being torn apart; as much as I hate to say it, because I know this will be offensive to yourself and your daughter, "emotional harm" is not a stable platform to ban the BNP on. Not only because any government of any party can eventually "emotionally harm" one of its citizens, but because if such a thing is true and is noted by the public, which I believe it is, then there is only grounds for noting that democratic will shall determine that awful ideology's fate, and not active government enforcement. _________ 3. My opponent says that because Lecomber was caught doing these actions, he was thrown out, but that only because he was caught that he was thrown out. This is a similar line for my opponent's evidence further down the line. I would contend though that the BNP, when caught, like Lecomber was, has faced punishment and fully agreed to change their policies. As noted with Lecomber, when caught, he was rightly purged from the party; when Collett was also caught, he similarly had his position shattered. This shows the vulnerability of the BNP to popular opinion and reputation - things needed in order to ensure that the BNP moderates and changes, or in fact is kept out of any form of governance. As well, the link to Combat 18 is tenuous at best. If there was indeed ongoing allegiance between the BNP and Combat 18 as my opponent presupposes, then the British government would have already cracked down on it. One example of why they would have; on April 2nd, 2008, Combat 18 members attacked others in a Northern Irish pub, along with other Irish loyalist forces.[3] If my opponent were correct to assume that Combat 18 was still allied to the BNP, the British government, as per its mandate to stop the active promotion of violence, then they would have already questioned the BNP about this. The fact that they have not is my proof against my opponent's contention of continued allegiance. ______________________ 4. My opponent takes a small phrase out of context with this contention. The fact is that the BNP has agreed to abide by the rules set forward from the courts; if we were to ban them now, while they agreed to change their policies, it would be a slap in the face of a fair judiciary. I noted the example of the MP expenses scandal because, as noted, the government does not bar Members of Parliament involved from continuing to participate, because of their agreement to repay for their actions. Unless my opponent wishes to take away the ability of individuals and organization to run when they abide by the law, as the BNP and MPs have agreed to do, then this is a moot point. ____________ 5. I do not agree with my opponent. The reason is because the government should not have a say in which ideologies can be allowed or not. That kind of active involvement in the ideas of individuals is vehemently opposed by myself; not because I agree with what the BNP, Nick Griffin, or several others espouse, but because I wish for my own ideas to be respected, and I refuse to limit that only to myself. ___________ In conclusion, indeed I have conceded that under current British law, the BNP can be considered illegal. If the voters wish to make their decision on that point, then so be it. It is valid, and it is true. But the bigger question at hand is not whether the BNP is really as bad as we think - they most likely are, and then some. The question is whether or not the government has any right to stamp out the ideologies of those that abide by the rights of others, and as much as it pains me to say it, they do. Nick Griffin and his party only say what they think, and what they say should happen within the confines of government powers; fascist and racist, of course, but hardly fighting outside of the ring any other political party fights in. And as such, until they step out of that ring, then we must leave them alone. Not only because of the precedents set by other parties similarly in the ring, like Sinn Fein, but because it is the government's mandate to respect the democratic will of individuals who support the parties, the "fighters." All the government is is a referee; and no referee tells the audience to stop cheering, even if it is for someone he doesn't like. Thank you feverish for this wonderful debate, and I hope to continue parlance with you in the future; you are a great debater with excellent ideas, and I would be honoured to face off with you again. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.spiegel.de... 3. http://www.policeoracle....