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

This leopard claims to have changed it's spots but in the cold light of day the familiar pattern of violent race-based fascism is clearly visible. ______________ 1. Concerning the issue of other political parties that have been banned my opponent rightly points out that: Con: "the majority of these parties have either been associated with on-going or past violence. .. or have outright expressed the intent to cause harm or violence". This is true but he goes on to assert that the BNP: Con: "have yet to commit acts of violence, or even promote it. " which is sadly inaccurate. Although the BNP always claims to be against violence this is at complete odds with the reality that a significant proportion of their activists and political candidates have convictions for violence. . http://www.uaf.org.uk... The claim that they do not "promote" violence is undermined by the fact that a history of violent crime and a personal (if not public) enthusiasm for racial violence seem to be the most important qualifications for advancement within the party ranks. A well publicised undercover BBC programme filmed a BNP candidate for local election saying: "All I want to do is shoot pakis" (This refers to anyone of Pakistani origin, including British citizens. ) . http://www.independent.co.uk... In my first round I compared the BNP with a racist German party who were banned for ideological reasons rather than direct violence, this is a far better comparison than either Sinn Fein or the SNP who are perfectly legitimate political organisations. IRA terrorists are scum but Sinn Fein fight with rhetoric rather than violence. The Irish were pretty much invaded and enslaved by the British and we still control Northern Ireland. I condemn the violent acts performed by the IRA (they bombed Birmingham of course) but within NI, the loyalists are arguably worse than the republicans. Sinn Fein were an illegal party until 1974 after a party split when violent extremists were marginalised. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The SNP have a geographical mandate rather than a racial one, they have members of all races (even English! ), they have never been associated with violence and they don't want to kick anyone out of Scotland. Con:"Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, has already denounced several racist attacks" Nick Griffin typically only condemns non-racial violence and racial violence directed at white people. He is on record at least twice advocating the "traditional British methods of the brick, the boot and the fist. " in '86 and a similar comment in '93 about "well-directed boots and fists". . http://en.wikipedia.org... ________ 2. My opponent seems to concede this point: Con:"My opponent is correct in stating that the incitement to racial hatred is against the law, and that the BNP's ideology most probably does fall under that" before saying he contends it and he seems to misunderstand the legal issue by focusing only on violence. The relevant UK law . http://en.wikipedia.org... is very specific about what qualifies and directly promoting violence is not a requirement. It should be noted though that the BNP do indeed promote violence as I have argued already and will cover further elsewhere. Regarding European law, Britain operates it's own legal system and freedom of expression is limited to the point where it starts to effect other peoples rights. The House of Lords Select Committee on Human Rights confirms that "freedom of expression. .. [and other rights] are, however, qualified rights: they may be restricted by the state in certain circumstances, for example, on grounds of public safety, order, morals or to protect the rights of others. " They go on to say that the incitement to hatred laws are much easier to enforce on racial rather than religious matters. . http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk... _______ Con: "The past is what happened in the past". The roots of the party and their more recent associations with violence are entirely relevant to understanding what they mean when they talk about "traditional British values". Con: "To the slimeball's credit, Nick Griffin has moderated the party. " Griffin should get no credit for painting a more palatable mask over the evil intentions of his party. He is worse than Tyndall because he is less transparent. He also organised marches and fights when in the NF . http://www.searchlightmagazine.com... and has only recently backed away from his "holohoax" claims after pressure from European governments and mainstream British society. The video is 12 years old, the mans opinions haven't really changed (obviously holocaust deniers rarely actually disbelieve it anyway) he has just got better at concealing them. . http://www.youtube.com... The Jewish BNP councilor and the turnaround on the holocaust are merely examples of the BNP's strategic 'progression' from traditional anti-semitism to the far more fashionable Islamophobia. The BNP's association with Combat 18 is the only time a comparison with Sinn Fein (when illegal) becomes relevant as this was the armed terrorist wing of the political group. . http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk... This source also notes that BNP number 2 until 2006 Tony Lecomber has served time for attempted terrorism. Affiliation with other international groups may not give us a legitimate case for banning them but it should inform us more of their true intentions. 4. The resolution refers to the party as it is currently constituted, which is indeed now unlawful. The fact that they have agreed to change it is irrelevant as this will not be for several months. They should really be forced to disband and compose a new constitution from scratch without the racist rhetoric. As it stands, they are forbidden from accepting any new membership applications at the moment but in my opinion this does not go far enough they should be at the very least suspended from all current political positions they hold until their revised constitution can be reviewed. How can many other statements in the constitution itself and in other party literature sit alongside an open membership policy anyway? Can they condemn mixed relationships while accepting the offspring of such unions? Can they condemn Muslims while admitting them? Will they seek to deport their own members? 5. The BNP treads a line between hiding behind supposed religious values and being careful not to alienate atheists. In the Question Time appearance, Nick Griffin talks about "traditional Christian values" several times. This article is from 2006: "At their national press conference held on 14 April - Good Friday - they continued the emphasis on religion with their leader Nick Griffin stressing that Britain was a "fundamentally Christian" country. Their election manifesto targets Asian or Islamic communities insisting, for example, that halal food should be banned from school canteens, that Christian assemblies should always be held in schools and It says that what it calls "foreign" pupils should be taken out of classes where their poor English drags down "native British" children. " . http://www.theasiannews.co.uk... Church and politics are separate from each other in the UK. They are technically both answerable to the monarchy but this means nothing in real terms. ___________ Thanks. Pro.