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

Thanks to Volkov for a fantastic debate. As the clock runs down, I hope that this last round will do justice to the preceding ones. I would like to point out that while most of my arguments have been made on a legal basis, my position on this issue is also a moral one. While the freedom of expression is an essential and valuable part of any true democracy, we can not let this right be abused. We must demand integrity from our politicians and allowing a party of violent hate based racism a political platform because it has coated itself in a thin veneer of respectability is not freedom of expression but freedom to deceive. The same way advertisers are not allowed to blatantly lie and mislead us about the products they endorse, we should not tolerate transparent deception from politicians. Free speech should not be extended to veiled threats and implied support of racial violence as exhibited by the BNP. _____________ 1. I have already given several explanations as to why comparisons between the BNP and Sinn Fein are largely inappropriate. Volkov has not refuted my assertion that the comparison with the unlawful Socialist Reich party of Western Germany is a more fitting one, so I can only assume he accepts it. Remember this was essentially an attempted re-birth of Hitler's Nazi party but at least Germany had already learned (at great cost to many nations) the dangers of allowing this kind of hate based politics any legitimacy at all. My opponent brings up more of the history of Sinn Fein and the IRA to attempt to establish a precedent for allowing parties associated with violence a political platform but the history of these parties is entirely different. The British invaded, conquered and occupied Ireland by force. We raped their country and basically made them our slaves. When we developed post-Empirical guilt and pulled out of southern Ireland we annexed the country and kept the top bit for the 'loyalists' who refused to leave. Catholics in NI remained second class citizens and armed militias have always been at least as prevalent on both sides of the political divide. The IRA may have evolved into degenerate bombers and gangsters but they began as a legitimate freedom fighting military. When I travelled to Belfast in the early 90s there were still British soldiers patrolling the streets with assault rifles and by all accounts things were worse in the 80s, so Danny Morrison's comments have to be placed in this context. This was a war. Yes he was urging party supporters to hold onto their weapons but at a time when they felt threatened and unprotected he was urging them to have faith and embrace the possibilities of vote based political reform. The case of comparison between Sinn Fein and the BNP is a misguided one as the legal and morally just situation is entirely different. Like the German SRP, the BNP should be prevented from spreading their poisonous ideology. As for my opponent's request for "proof that the leadership of the BNP are literally out to harm UK citizens" aside from all the obvious associations with violence and the physical harm entailed, if the party ever came to power they would inflict severe emotional harm on many UK citizens by tearing families apart. Current party leader Griffin is shown on a video in the previous round expressing the opinion that people like my daughter (or certainly like her mum and many of her family who were not born here) should be deported. _________ 2. I acknowledge and appreciate the general concession by my opponent of this central point, as he says: "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." His only contention amounts to condoning deception and subterfuge in politics: "they do frame it in such a way as to really bypass those laws." The fact is while we can punish individuals for their crimes, we also have an obligation to deny political parties the opportunity to promote crime. We would not allow a politician to vaguely hint that assassinating a political opponent could lead to substantial rewards, we would not allow a political party that advocated murder or a party running on a pro-rape ticket to exist but we have permitted a manifesto of racial hatred to become legitimised in British politics. ________ 3. On the contrary my "conjecture and suspicion" have been backed up by hard evidence including the video footage of Nick Griffin's statements. My opponent notes Lecomber's involvement at a high level in the party as recently as 2006. Yes he was chastised and thrown out but this is not due to his actions themselves (see his earlier terrorist activities) but due to the fact that he was caught. I've provided further video evidence this round: (1) An ex-BNP members testimony of their incitement agenda. (2) Griffin discussing how to "sell" the message of racism and be "subtle" about it while sharing the stage with a KKK leader. (3) Testimony and evidence of the BNP's ongoing association with Combat 18 despite their pledge to ban dual membership in the 90s, including reports that Griffin was meeting with racist thugs in the build up to the Oldham riots. (4) Their links and contributions to Redwatch, including Mark Collett explaining to someone how to get an image on to the site. Collett was once being groomed as a future party leader but a succession of filmed faux pas such as this one, have seen his status as an acceptable young face of the party shattered. There is plenty more of him on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... ________ 4. My opponent concedes that I am "sort of right" about the BNP being an illegally constituted party because it can not be denied. This alone affirms the resolution as does point 2 (also conceded). Comparisons with the recent expenses scandal are not really befitting, that was a case of the entire political system being at fault, rather than an illegal constitution of any specific party. _______ 5. Regarding integration of religion and politics, Volkov is correct in saying: "there is nothing explicitly condemning this in British political law". My point is that perhaps there should be. As my opponent also says that "it offends all sensibilities considering" I can only assume that he agrees with me. ____________ Summary: I believe I have presented strong arguments in this debate which my opponent has not successfully rebutted, he has conceded that the party is illegally constituted and that there is evidence of them breaking racial hatred laws. I urge voters to suspend their preconceptions on this subject and vote for whoever they think argued best in the debate. Thanks. Pro.