We ban parties/groups that go against our values of democracy, such as the EDL and the Muslim extremists who go around burning poppies on remembrance day.

Why is a party that incorporates unprovoked hatred onto a small percentage of the UK's population, (something like 8%), that builds its whole aims around the topic of RACE (yes apparently if you're a UK born Black you're not British), who promises NOTHING to its people other than some comfort to twisted minds that foreigners will be prevented from invading their country, stealing their jobs and homes and living off your tax money like parasites - still LEGAL?

I thought we were supposed to have laws against groups who take away our values of democracy?

I thought this country was supposed to maintain equality of opportunities. Yet parties who repeat propaganda like "British jobs for British people", while defining British as White, indigenous people are allowed to stand for seats as councillors? Why?

If an area has a problem of hate crimes and racial discrimination, surely it would make sense to ban the BNP where in these places most people would vote for them? How would that be improving the situation?


@ Killzion - errrm excuse me? standing up for WHITE rights. like WTF?? if there should be a political group that stands up for the rights of ANY race it would be for races OTHER than white people. Believe me.

listen d.i.c.k.h.e.a.d.

92% of the population is White.

How can a White person be discriminated against in a job interview for instance, when most businesses are owned by White people anyway?

Where do you think you're living in - Africa? Afghanistan?

Are you so tripped up by the cocaine your snorting from one of your BNP sessions that you think imams run Parliament?

In a country the dominent, majority population would rule.

This country is governed BY White, British people. They dont need to be protected against those 8% of the population who you have the idiocy to calll mongrels. Your mums a mongrel.

15 Answers

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    since when were the tory lib dem and labour parties democratic.

    they have brought in between them unjust tax laws in income tax

    vat, council tax, insurance tax etc, all biased against the poor

    and working classes.

    the general laws on misdemeanors are just the same, why should

    for example a speeding working class motorist get fined one fifth

    of his wage when a premier football player pays less than 1,000th

    of his.

    the crown court laws are the same if you are rich and can afford

    a barrister or two you can even get away with murder, yet they

    are trying to abolish legal aid for the poor.

    and as for the laws on wages, the three totally undemocratic parties

    have not only crushed the unions but also made it almost impossible

    for people to fight for a decent income.

    so although I am not a lover of the bnp, I will fight and even vote for

    them or any other party which will help destroy these tyrannical

    three dictator parties.

  • 8 years ago

    Freedom of speech is a basic right of people in the Uk. Baning people from being able to voice their opinions and be members of organisations that are wholly undesirable is wrong and should never be sanctioned by anyone..

  • guiri
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Because a ban would go through the courts until the end of time thus giving them loads of free publicity.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I am a member of the BNP.I joined after the riots, feeling I had no other choice. No-one hates any-one.Its just a myth put about by left wingers.We hate such things as mass immigration with no check on the criminal or healt record of the immigrant.We hate gun and knife crime which is carried out more by one section of the community.

    Why dont you follow Nick Griffin on Twitter as I do.You will get to uderstand race is only a tiny part of what our party is about.

    Because of the rigid race laws there is only a very narrow window in which right wing parties can legally operate. No-one goes on any marches any more,not in the BNP anyway.Its nothing more than a pressure group.

    So many laws,especially Labour has made it seem that native folk often feel like strangers in their own dear land,a land my Uncle gave his life for in 1942 and many of my ancestors have fought for.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Each of our three parties lied when they promised to control inflation.Under each of the parties immigration has grown so much our country now is unrecognisable and our services can no longer cope.The government find it easier to blame the unemployed for the drain on public finances.The BNP are gaining popularity on the back of this lack of government control.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Because as a country we believe in Free Speech including the right to their views of people who don't agree with us and while they do not incite violence as party, the BNP as the right to spout their drivel. More importantly if you ban them then people are more likely to believe that they actually have something of value to say.

    The groups banned have been banned on the basis that their behaviour is morally reprehensible or more commonly because they have preached or exhorted people to violence. Whilst individual BNP members may do this the party itself has a veneer of respectability.

    @Sod; have you noticed that Scotland is full of Scottish people or that Windscale in Cumbria has a higher than average number of people who support nuclear power, or worse still if you go to Virginia Waters in Surrey you will never see a black face? People in certain areas are there for a reason. Birmingham and Leciester both have large immigrant communities because when businesses could not get the enough local people to fill the menial jobs they brought in other citizens of the Commonwealth to do the work. In east London many migrants worked in the rag trade and sweat shop garment factories. Over time they have build communities which others see as protection from the louts of the BNP.

    Even in the BNP there is a community, primarily of poorly educated, ignorant white males who have never been able to get good jobs and refuse to recognise that their own actions (like playing truant or not working in school) are often the cause of their problems and decide to blame others (like asians a significant number of whom work hard at school and go to university). However it would be wrong to slander all members of BNP as being of this community in the same way as it is wrong for you to slander areas of London.

    Finally, can you imagine what would happen if every country had the same attitude as the BNP? Where would we fit over 200 million people from the US and Canada (and lets not even think about Australia, New Zealand,etc) since by your definition these people are still British and not really Americans or Candians. Of course they won't count in your book because they are white.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    As said earlier free speech, blah blah. But they are banned from doing certain things. You can't apply to work in my company if you are a BNP member and as well as that all the public services. That is the way to beat them, let them speak but ostracise them and don't vote for them.

    Edit: In fact, no. Make sure you do vote for one of the mainstream parties if and when they do stand in your area, they rely on low election turnouts!!

  • 8 years ago

    Very few parties have been banned in modern times - in fact the only example I can call to mind was the hysterical banning of Sinn Fein for a brief period during the Thatcher tyranny.

    However, a number of the British Nazi Party's members have been prosecuted and convicted for incitement to racial hatred and similar offences, and the police and CPS should arguably take a far stronger line on this type of hate crime - and not only when perpetrated by Nazi madmen - there are plenty of other madmen advocating bigotry and terrorism who should also be prosecuted and punished.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago


    You call for a ban on a party which is intolerant (not that it bothers me), and which does not support equal opportunity. HOWEVER, I submit to you that YOU are intolerant of this intolerance, and do not wish to treat these people equally, and so you are a:


  • 8 years ago

    Because it's a legally constituted political party, whose existence breaks no laws. While a racist party, whose leader has a criminal conviction for 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material', the BNP are good at managing to stay just the right side of the laws on racial incitement.

    While the BNP support violence, they do this through their offshoot, the EDL - an organisation characterised by racism, drunkenness and violence at their gatherings. Again, they put the worst excesses down to the actions of a few isolated individuals. Despite leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon recently receiving a suspended jail sentence for an assault committed during an EDL rally.

    But these are legally constituted organisations, and I believe that banning them would be a far greater assault on personal liberties than allowing them to organise. Neither should be banned.

    EDIT: And 'sod' shows the mindset of the typical BNP supporter with his attitude to black Britons.

    Tell me, sod, why do you think it's important for parliament - our law-making institution - to recognise the difference between "ethnically British" and "civically British". The only reason could be a desire for these groups to be treated differently under the law.

    Straight question, sod. Consider a white and a black Briton. Both born in UK to British citizens, both parents born here. Would the law under your (BNP) rule have any difference between their rights and responsibilities?

    If the answer is no - then why do you think our lawmakers should recognise the difference between "civically" and "ethnically" British?

    EDIT: sod

    What violence is this? - Let's start with the assault on a fellow EDL member which Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (a man who has previously served 12 months imprisonment for an assault on a police officer) was convicted of last month.

    The 'inflammatory material' was NOT the "racism cuts both ways" leaflet. Of course I know that blacks and Asians can be as guilty of race hate as white people. And if they organised into a political party to press their race-hate, I'd oppose that as I oppose the BNP. The inflammatory material referred to the hate-language used in Griffin's holocaust denial in Issue 12 of BNP magazine "The Rune" in 1996. That's why your leader is a convicted criminal.

    You didn't answer the question. What would be achieved by parliament recognising the distinction between the "ethnically British" and the "civically British"?

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.