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

Thank you to feverish for the chance to debate this interesting topic. As a Brit, I know he is interested in discussing this party and the issues surrounding it, and as a Canadian I am grateful for the chance to learn about another's politics. Hopefully, what we discuss in this debate will teach us both a thing or two about how to deal with the BNP and others. _ 1. My opponent begins this contention with a point about the fact that other democratic states have banned political parties; I would like to note that the majority of these parties have either been associated with on-going or past violence (as is the case with the Basque separatists[11]) or have outright expressed the intent to cause harm or violence in a given country (as is the case with many Islamist parties [12]). While the British National Party is far from a party that I would support, they have yet to commit acts of violence, or even promote it. I agree with my opponent that individuals should be free to hold their own opinions and express them, and that organized groups designed to promote civil unrest and militant activity should be universally denounced and stripped of their right to stand in any election as a legitimate group. But, the BNP has yet to fit into these definitions, and while their policies are certainly distasteful and controversial, controversy alone is not enough to de-register the party - otherwise the Scottish National Party, Sinn Fein and several other parties within Britian should not be allowed to stand, on the basis of their clearly controversial, and at times instability-driven policies, such as the drive for Scottish independence [1] or an IRA-related bank robbery in 2005 [2]. To make case and point here, Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, has already denounced several racist attacks [3] and is an avid defender of the British way of life [4] - just not the same Britain feverish, or I for that matter, believe in. But it is hardly violent. Idiotic, yes, but not violent, so grounds for banning the party based on any precedent are negligible. 2. I can't say that I have any way to defend the words of Nick Griffin or any other BNP members. 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. I am not a Griffin or BNP apologist, but I do contend the issue of "incitement to racial hatred" as basis for legal claims against the party. Before I begin, I will say this; I am not one to defend the words of racists. If I could reasonably do so, I would make sure all of them shut their mouths for a good, long time. But I can't, because even though I will not defend their words, I will defend their ability to say what they want, as long as it does not promote violence. But where does that leave the BNP and Nick Griffin? As near as I can tell, they have not yet come out asking for explicit violence. Nick Griffin certainly has not, and in facts condemn violence unequivocally. He condemned the neo-Nazi website Redwatch (http://en.wikipedia.org...) for what they have said and done [5]; and so far, even trolling the internet where you expect many bloggers and news sites showing actions of the BNP and its leaders, I cannot find anything where violence has been espoused and promoted on the part of the BNP. If my opponent can find ones with verified sources, then I invite him to share. But that still leaves us with the "incitement of racial hatred." I can't say the BNP hasn't done this, so I'll ask this; is the "incitement of racial hatred" a true crime? Not in the legal sense of the word, but in terms of the rights granted to citizens in Britain. Now, I don't know of a British "Charter of Rights," so I will instead us the treaty-bound European Union Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, if it is allowed by my opponent. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights states: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."[6] This is clear indication that the right of Freedom of Expression is alive and well in Britain, at least under the EU Charter. And because the right to receive and impart information and ideas is fully protected against interference from the state, and because the BNP has yet to cross any lines concerning violence, I see no reason why the BNP should be banned under this point. And in a rather ironic twist, I am using the EU Charter of Rights, something Nick Griffin hasn't necessarily been a fan of, to defend him. 3. The next point my opponent brings forward is one about historical background and the affiliations of the BNP. I'll split this up into two parts. History: While the BNP has certainly come from less-than-ideal backgrounds, this doesn't necessarily mean anything. The past is what happened in the past; to note, sometimes there is definitely a major impact of your historical ties upon what you do in the present, but I do not believe this is the case with the current incarnation of Britain's fascists. To the slimeball's credit, Nick Griffin has moderated the party. No longer are they associated with John Tyndall, a man who was an absolute abhorrent racist [7] and organized marches, fights and etc. Unlike his predecessors, Griffin has stated that he believes the Holocaust has occurred, and in fact there is a Jewish BNP Councillor [8]. This is worlds away from the past BNP and NF, where something like this could not be dreamed of. So, despite the horrid current party, to associate it with the even more horrid past parties is disregarding the progress made. And yes, I said progress; because even a little is better than none. Affiliation: My opponent makes note of the BNP's affiliations with various racist and far-right groups across the globe. Agreed; they're horrid, and this excuse of "we share a platform, but not beliefs" is quite flimsy. But, I'll again refer to the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, Article 12: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests."[6] It is the BNP's right to associate with these people, so long as they do not give their unqualified support for violence and other actions. While I fully support the idea of exposing their ties to these right-wing nuts, I do not support the idea of chastising them for exercising their right to freedom of association. Indeed, they reap what they sow; if they choose to affiliate themselves with these people, then it shall be their own downfall. 4. My opponent would almost be correct in stating that they are illegal as constituted, except for the fact that, as he himself stated, the BNP has agreed to change its policy. The fact that they have are now voluntarily legally bound to make the changes means that they will fall in line with the letter of the law, and therefore no longer be committing illegal discrimination based on race. This makes the BNP legitimate as any other party, sadly. 5. To note, the BNP is not explicitly a Christian party, and their idiotic persecution of Muslims is also not based on Christianity. It is, rather, based on the "traditional British" view that, while incorporating Christianity, is not explicitly religious-based. In fact, there is no mention of religion on the BNP's mission statement at all. [9] As well, before my opponent can claim that secularism is a reasoning against the BNP being apart of the British political process, the United Kingdom first must have Church and State separated - they currently are not.[10] ____ Closing in comments.