Controversial Political Parties - removing them from politics?

There are those who believe that parties like the BNP or others that hold controversial views and policies should not be allowed to exist in parliament. I disagree. Although not a BNP supporter myself, you cannot remove somebody's right to run for election and express their views simply because they differ from the majority of the population's views. There is no right or wrong if something is simply an opinion.

If a party holds highly disagreeable policies, it is most likely that it will not be voted into office if its views are not supported by the majority of the population. It is all a matter of opinion, and we seem to be very good at creating words to brand people with that disagree with the 'basic' views that most of us express.

For example, we have racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists to name but a few. Very soon it seems we may even have 'thought criminals' the way things are going (yes that is a 1984 ref.).

People also seem incredibly eager to protest about anything that is even slightly controversial. Personally I think it's a waste of time - protesters are rarely listened to and even when they are it is only if there are incredibly large groups of them causing a lot of trouble. People seem so eager to protest that they cannot see that what they are fighting for is exactly what they are fighting against.

For example, it is widely feared that if the BNP were to gain office in the UK, many basic human rights would be removed from people (as there is no way of knowing this, it is a matter of opinion as I said earlier). The leader of this party was due to appear on TV on a political Q&A session and there were thousands of protesters that were attempting to remove his right to free speech and right to run for office because what he is rumoured to believe differs from what they believe and could well remove some of the human rights of many people if he ever gained office.

However, by attempting to remove his right to free speech they are simply doing the same thing that he is rumoured to attempt if he becomes PM: remove human rights. People do not think enough about the effects of their actions before they act. They simply see something they disagree with and march into London letting everyone else know that they disagree with it.

Politics has always been and should continue to be a matter of opinion and no party should be disallowed to run for office simply because their views are disliked by others. It's as simple as that. I think that if a party's policies are confirmed to strip people of their human rights, they should not be allowed to run for office. This is because it has gone beyond opinion and begun to impinge upon basic, established human rights. However if it is just a controversial viewpoint, it is down to opinion again and should not decide the fate of a political party.

If there ever was a prime minister or president or national leader who attempted to strip people of their human rights, there would probably be a body of people with the authority at their disposal to overthrow him/her and remove them from office, so there isn't much to worry about. Also, new laws undergo a vast and extremely complicated new process before being passed, and I doubt that any law that impinged upon our human rights would make it through this process.

To summarise then, I believe that anyone, no matter what their views are, should be allowed to run for office, but if their viewpoints conflict with basic human rights then they should be denied office. If their viewpoints are ambiguous, they should be watched over closely if they ever gain power and if they ever attempt to limit or remove the population's human rights, they should be overthrown and an immediate election should be held.