The ‘It’s Undemocratic To Oppose The BNP’ Myth

The Myth

Anyone who protests against the BNP or EDL hates democracy and is anti-democratic. Such people are fascists and should shut up.

The Truth

This myth really doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to figure out. Democracy is the free expression of ideas, so to object to the EDL and BNP and what they stand for is democracy. However saying anti-BNP critics and protesters should shut up is anti-democratic. There are some who would argue that the BNP should not be allowed a platform from which to air their views, as suppressing such views is a lesser evil than allowing them to become acceptable and mainstream. However even they don’t say the BNP should automatically be locked up for holding such views.

The BNP also say that the UAF protesting against them is anti-democratic as it has not been elected. That argument falls flat for two reasons.

1. The UAF is made up of people from varied political backgrounds who support different political parties.
2. The BNP are in effect claiming that you have to be a member of an elected political party to be able to publicly express an opinion.

So public representatives of the Church of England or the Women’s Institute for example have no legitimacy, because those are not elected political parties. The BNP also claim that political parties such as Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats (or any party that gets more votes than the BNP) are not legitimate political parties and are anti-British. That’s because they accept multiculturalism and non-white immigration. So in other words objection to the BNP either through protest or through the ballot box, is anti-democratic and anti-British. The only way to be pro-democracy is to vote for and support the BNP… according to the BNP!

The BNP has said that they wish to control the British broadcasting media so that it will broadcast what they want it to. On various occasions they have made it clear that they will put on trial and execute their political opponents. There is a major difference between wanting to keep the views of a certain political party out of government and wanting to make views opposed to yours illegal, as well as killing those who hold them.
In fact the BNP’s idea of ‘free speech’ is decriminalising racist language.

All laws against traditional free speech rights will be repealed, starting with the vague, politicised, and hypocritically-enforced laws pertaining to race and religion, which are virtually never enforced against foreigners attacking the racial and religious groups indigenous to Britain.

Guarantee the right of organisations and individuals who espouse unpopular opinions but have not broken any laws (other than illegitimate laws against free speech) to organise and campaign free from interference from or discrimination by, the police, other state institutions, and bodies such as trades unions, employers’ organisations or commercial entities.

We would repeal the Race Relations Acts and all other restrictions on free speech in Britain.

We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment and the government bodies associated with enforcing them.

A Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and the media would be introduced.

The BNP stands for the revolutionary principle that the printing presses and broadcast channels of the media must tell the truth in their reports…we will create a new criminal offence of “The deliberate dissemination of falsehoods about an individual or organisation for financial or political gain” by any media outlet.

In other words they want to be able to throw racial abuse at non-whites, be able to refuse them employment on the grounds of race, force the media to encourage apartheid, prevent the media from saying anything they deem to be a ‘lie‘ and march around shouting “Pakis out!” without being arrested.
Whilst allowing freedom of speech in terms of racism, the BNP does not believe in freedom of speech when it comes to things they disagree with. Phil Edwards said the BNP would reintroduce Section (Clause) 28 that forbids the promotion of homosexuality as being equal with heterosexuality.

“Our policy is tolerance towards homosexuality, plus we would reinstate Section 28. We would offer counselling to get people away from their deviant lifestyles, or ask them to become celibate.”

Nick Griffin also infamously announced…

“Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle, we got ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their minds and say, ‘Yes, every last one must go’.”

His vision of a ‘free, liberated‘ Britain…

“Rest assured, all those home-grown traitors who have taken part in the war against our indigenous rights will one day be held to account for their crimes. Treason may be acceptable now, but in the free, liberated Britain of the future, treason will be punished in the manner of the old days of our forbears: through Traitor’s Gate and into the Tower!”

He believes such ‘traitors’ – opponents of the BNP – should be given a trial then executed. The cynicism of such a statement really does make you realise that opposition to BNP policies equals ‘treason’, which in turn means death.

“Those responsible for creating this multi-racial hell hole must face trial and pay the ultimate penalty.”

So the BNP claims opposition to the BNP is undemocratic and says if it got in to government it would silence any opposition to it.

© One Million United