The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,565 times Debate No: 9839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)




Hello and welcome to readers and to my esteemed opponent Volkov. It is a pleasure to be debating someone with such an excellent grasp of international politics and I hope that his depth of knowledge does not show me up too much in this debate!

We agreed to this debate in the comments section of a debate instigated by my opponent (sadly sabotaged by a troll).

This is a subject close to my heart as a British citizen and the parent of a mixed race child. Although my arguments may seem emotive at times, I will attempt to keep them firmly grounded in logic and reason.

I don't think there is much need for definitions in this debate as I believe my opponent and I understand each others positions very well, however I would like to clarify that the inclusion of the bracketed phrase "as constituted" is intended to make it clear that if they were to radically alter their constitution they could perhaps justify their existence.

There are four main points I wish to discuss in this opening round.

1. Banning political parties:

As a proponent of free speech it may seem strange that I am arguing for a political party with democratically elected members in the European parliament to be banned outright. This is not however a unique position as many democratic states which uphold the right to free speech have succeeded in banning political parties before.

The fact is that if a party has unlawful policies then they should not be allowed to promote a political agenda. Aside from the legal issues with the BNP, which I will discuss in due course, there is also the more general issue of social justice and promoting peace and harmony.

People should be free to hold their own opinions and express them but organised groups who promote civil unrest and militant activity should not be permitted to endanger the public.

The closest comparison I can find between a banned party and the BNP is the case of the inappropriately named Socialist Reich Party. This was an openly pro-Hitler, post-Nazi openly racist organisation with policies not dissimilar to the BNP that was banned in West Germany in the '50s.


2. Inciting Racial Hatred:

Racism itself is not of course a crime but in the UK at least, 'incitement to racial hatred' is.

Several individual members and activists of the BNP have been found guilty of this crime, including party leader Nick Griffin in 1998 (although he was subsequently acquitted at re-trial) and the parties other current MEP Andrew Brons.

What I believe needs to be addressed however is that the entire foundation and manifesto of this party is based on inciting racial hatred.

Their condemnation of sexual and marital partnerships between different ethnic groups, their immigration policies which would allow white immigrants but not those of colour and their attacks on various specific ethnic groups all fall under this category, as do many of the activities and attitudes they promote in a more subtle way which you won't find in their official literature.

Their demonisation of Islam ("a wicked and vicious faith" is the standard refrain) could also be said to be an example of the related offense of inciting religious hatred.


3. History and affiliations:

The BNP has it's roots in the British National Front (more commonly known as the NF) having been formed in response to internal homosexual outrage within the NF (lol). The NF were too tolerant of gays for most insecure British bigots to support them so the bigots jumped ship and formed the BNP (although other groups of varying degrees of obnoxiousness had used the same name since the 60s).

Going further back though this kind of racist anti-immigration and anti-minority policy goes back to Oswald Mosley a man who idolised Adolf Hitler and after building a political reputation among the ranks of both the Conservative and the Labour party of his day, formed his own British Union of Fascists with an openly anti-semitic, racist and violent manifesto. He was imprisoned during World War Two for national security as he was suspected of Treason.

Hypocritically, despite being holocaust deniers (openly up until about a decade ago, Griffin coining the phrase "holohoax" the modern BNP promote themselves with British military designs and images of Churchill.

In the '90s the BNP supported the racial terrorist group Combat 18 who provided security at BNP rallies. This group also firebombed communist party head quarters and have been involved in numerous serious assaults motivated by race or political ideology. They first published the magazine Redwatch which became the notorious website that still exists now exposing the identities of anti-fascist activists and their families.

They have also been affiliated with many extreme right-wing groups internationally including the KKK, loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland and groups in Germany, Italy and Spain.


4. Membership requirements:

It is a well documented fact that the BNP restrict membership based on race.

They refer to a mythical concept of "indigenous white people" although Britain has been subject to wave after wave of immigration over the last 2000 years.

In the past week the BNP have agreed in court to change their membership criteria, as new laws have rightfully come into place to prevent race-based membership policies for political parties. This has thrown the BNP into some turmoil and although they have agreed to make changes they have not done so yet and it is unclear how they will solve the dilemma they now find themselves in.

As constituted, the BNP are now (at last) an illegal party in the UK and altering their admission policy would clearly force them to redefine almost all of their key policies. This is not a legitimate political party.


4. Secularism:

The BNP pushes a Christian agenda. As well as being offensive to true Christians, this kind of fusion between religion and politics is anti-democratic.

Their persecution of Muslims on the basis of their faith does not have a place in politics.


These are my opening arguments but I may possibly present one or two additional points in the next round depending on my opponent's response.

Over to you Volkov.


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.


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.


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 ( 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.
Debate Round No. 1


Volkov has made some great points in his first round but overall he is far too willing to accept the empty rhetoric and lies of this disgusting group of individuals.

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.



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.

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.)

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.

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".



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 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.


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 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.

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. 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.


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?


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."

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.





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:


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.


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.


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]


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 ( with all Caucasian members be dotted with individuals of other races now. Griffin's face won't be in such a big smile.


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.


Debate Round No. 2


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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.




Thank you feverish for your response; I wholly enjoyed this debate so far, and wish me good luck!


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 ( 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.



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.



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.



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.

3. http://www.policeoracle....
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debateZurZdonkeyZoff 5 years ago
im surprised con got so many votes
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
That is pretty odd. I wonder whats up?
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
Something wierd is definitely going on though. Nails gave me 5 points and L gave me 3. Yesterday you got the 7 which made it 8-7 to me.

So how come it is now 9-9, still only having 3 votes cast?!? This only makes sense to me if L or Nails changed their vote... Strange.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Psh feverish, maybe I'm just that good!

Or maybe Nick Griffin joined DDO.... XD
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
7 point vote for Con? Maybe Nick Griffin has joined DDO!

Thanks for your comments below missy.
Posted by missyt 7 years ago
The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration …
BNP constitution
There are videos and proof of people supporting or working the party doing NAZI salutes and the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin was seen with these people. There is also a link between the BNP and terrorists. DAVID COPELAND – London nail bomber David Copeland brought havoc to London when he set off three nail bombs in 1999. He was a BNP member and activist in East London. TONY LECOMBER – Nick Griffin's chief lieutenant Tony Lecomber was convicted and imprisoned for three years for five offences under the Explosives Act after he tried to blow up the offices of a political party.
MARK BULLMAN – arsonist Mark Bulman, a BNP activist, was jailed for five years in January after trying to set fire to Swindon's Broad Street mosque. He used a BNP leaflet as a fuse for his petrol bomb.
JOE OWENS – gangland hitman For three years until summer 2004 Joe Owens acted as the personal bodyguard to Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, as well as being the Merseyside organiser of the BNP. However, Owens was also known locally as a gangland hitman, whom police had linked to several underworld murders.
A former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux, is very close to Nick Griffin and the BNP.

A former Alabama Klansman, Don Black runs the world's largest white supremacist website – slogan "white pride, world wide". BNP members run the British section.

We have gone back in time and are allowing people like this to hurt humans because of there colour just like we 50 years ago.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
Thanks for the RFDs people. Whoever wins the debate I am seriously chuffed to have got people thinking and especially to have changed at least one persons mind.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
I voted pro in convincing arguments, AFTER, and sources. The rest were tied.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
Nice one mate. Great last round and top debate overall, definitely do another one some time.

Posted by Danielle 7 years ago

Before -- Con
After -- Pro
Conduct -- Tie
S/G -- Tie
Arguments -- Pro
Sources -- Tie

Great debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50