3:21  |  6 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

BNP - banning of

BNP, banning of
Vote: Should the BNP be banned?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 4% No 96%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 0% No 100%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 1 of 51 2 34 5NextRecords Per Page
underyourfeet 28-Mar-2010 19:10
In a democratic society that we live in everyone should be allowed their say, if you try and ban people you don't agree with their would be nobody left!
Greengorilla 8-Jan-2010 16:40
rjw8652 8-Jan-2010 11:57
No party that does not advocate the overthrow of the freely elected government or promotes violence should be banned. I fail to see any reason why the BNP should be banned as it evidently repreents the views of an increasing number of people. Banning the BNP would be a direct assault on the democratic process itself.
reunion 9-Nov-2009 19:37
Some people don't understand the meaning of democracy and would like to see a number of things banned, usually it's because it doesn't suit their agenda.
Bethemedia 15-May-2009 18:47
No they shouldnt be banned. The best way to tackle the BNP is with debate. Griffin has started to use spin to try and portray the BNP as "non racist" which is patently absurd as they are a White Nationalist (or as they now call it Ethno Nationalist) party. The whole raison d'etre of the party is race politics. They need to be given more exposure in my view, give em enough rope and all that...
GWilliy 7-Jan-2009 23:0
This is a bit of a No Brainer for me.


For those who think they should I suggest they study the philosophy of Free Speech a little deeper.

If they are restrictive as to whom they allow to become members then it's up to them. Same principle for Private Golf Clubs.

If they are, as we are led to believe, a political party promoting Nazi Fascist Dictatorship, then I'm sure they will not get into No.10

Good Grief!

bertiebert 27-Jun-2008 14:8
(1) Operation Black Vote has on its website: "The home of black politics".
(2) The Muslim Council of Britain - Islam is political, as well as a legal system and a way of life.

Both these groups are political.

The BNP represent the indigenous peoples of Britain , who happen to be white!

The same as the indigenous Chinese are all the same skin colour, as are the indigenous Africans.

How many non-muslims would be allowed to join the muslim council of Britain?

How many white people join operation black vote?

Hw many white police officers are in the black police association?

So that is why the BNP happen to have white members. It represents the indigenous peoples of Britain who happen to be white, who would like a say in their own country!!

Their membership web page which stated that, while they “welcomed contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with other non-Whites who oppose enforced multiculturalism”, the BNP asks them to “respect their right to an organisation of their own, for their own”.
The BNP will “multiculturalise” itself when and only when the institutions remove discrimination against whites as a whole.
Just remember if there was a white police association, or operation white vote, there would be cries of racisim.

There is a Black Police Officers Association, a Black Lawyers Association and so on pushing for the interests of their ethnic group while white police officers in politically correct London, Birmingham and Manchester have been threatened with expulsion if they join the BNP.”
Hunter 31-Mar-2008 11:30
If you succeed in banning the BNP because you don't agree with them, who will be next on your list? Anybody who wears red shoes? Drivers of yellow cars? When will it stop?

The various charters quoted by estivboy also mention freedom of political thought. So even the question of banning a legally registered political party is breaking those tenents you would use to ban the BNP.
Andromeda 31-Jan-2008 16:9

Have you thought about your liberties, ie freedom of expression, freedom of contract (choosing whom you want to do business with), freedom of association (choosing whom you want to be members of your club and therefore whom you wish to exclude)?

Is it not nice to be discriminated against, of course, but this is the right we must allow others to do, if we want this right for ourselves.

If we are truly free to choose, then we have the right to discriminate, reasonably or unreasonably, for approved and honourable reasons or for dishonourable and irrational reasons. That, you see, is the nature of freedom.
jeffreymarshall 30-Jan-2008 14:28
Estivboy, you find it confusing that I think it a human right to discriminate. It might help to define the term. According to Chambers, discriminate is 'to note the difference of or between; to distinguish; to select from others; treat differently because of prejudice (with against).'

I presume it's only the last meaning you disagree with, as the law doesn't generally interfere with our right to select – the school we attend, area we live in, type of coffee we choose to buy, etc.

Nevertheless, law does interfere with our right to decide some matters - & I am opposed to this. There may be occasions when choosing one thing or person over another involves irrational or unconscious considerations. You may simply have a good or bad instinct about something or someone. However, should this instinct be grounded in what law may decide is prejudice, it could be judged illegal to have acted on it – for example, in choosing an employee or tenant.

In any case, how are we to know if we are prejudiced? Or – if we do know – can we really be sure our prejudice is always wrong? I believe, rather, that discrimination (against) & prejudice can sometimes provide us with useful, even life-saving information.

The black comedian, Chris Rock, describes the fear black people have of other black people – although progressives are apt to dismiss such fears. 'It's all got up by the media', they say. 'But,' says Rock nervously, his eyes darting in all directions, 'when I'm usin' the ATM in the city center at midnight, I ain't lookin' out for the media. I'm lookin' out for niggers!'

Similarly - & rather more seriously – if one has a daughter it might be a good idea to bring her up as a 'racist', if only for the reason she'll then be far less likely to hang around with a pack of feral black youths in the mistaken belief that this is a safe thing to do (in contrast to someone with kindlier, more 'liberal' views who might well suffer lethal consequences as a result).

Secondly, you mentioned human rights legislation in the context of of allowing us to 'live safe & relatively free lives'. To some extent this is true. Unfortunately it can also provide a poor basis for our collective security. For example – ignoring the fact that the most basic human right of all must be the right to life – civil libertarians are often exercised by government attempts to extend the detention of terror suspects above 28 days – despite the obvious fact that keeping these people locked up longer would better protect the rest of us.

In practice, European countries often disregard human rights legislation in the fight against terror.

In contrast to Britain which - as Michael Burleigh observes - 'scrupulously adheres to the Human Rights Act, on much of the Continent they don't allow civil rights lawyers to turn terrorism into a risk-free activity'. For example, Spain assassinates Eta terrorists in France; France deports Eta suspects to places such as New Guinea, & has been repatriating radical Islamist clerics; Germany deports a Turkish imam on national security grounds without hesitation, even though he had lived in Germany for 30 years... ('Lawyers sap our will to combat terrorism', The Times, 27/7/07.)

So - to return to the question - if this country is signed up to international laws which make it harder to defend our national security, or protect our traditional freedoms (including freedom of association & also to 'discriminate' if we wish) or ensure the healthy survival of our white race & culture (by tackling third-world immigration, for example), then perhaps the BNP might attempt to extricate us from such agreements, or adapt them by negotiation or - in the last resort – simply ignore them – in the same way such laws have been disregarded by some European countries in their efforts to contain terrorism.
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award