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.

Why am I an atheist?

I've always been a sceptic, and when it comes to religion and the concept of a 'god' I'm no different. Put simply, I believe in what I can see, touch and what seems most likely to be real.

Most of the arguments that are made do not prove that the deity people are attempting to prove the existence of is the deity that their particular faith describes. Most religions seem to have the same basic beliefs: there was a god or deity who created the world and the universe, there was a human prophet, there were some rules laid down and a holy book.

It seems that a lot of people turn to religion because they cannot possibly understand the big bang theory because the human mind is not capable of understanding the concept of 'forever'. And I can sympathise with that because no human can. It's beyond our mental capability to understand it. But that doesn't mean that everyone should immediately conjure up the idea of a deity that somehow created everything and in such a way that is beyond our understanding - simply because thinking is hard.

The big bang theory and atheism appear to be the most rational beliefs out there. Sure, nobody can understand the big bang theory, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than a magic being creating everything in an amount of time so short that it is scientifically impossible. There is also proof that suggests that the big bang theory is correct. No proof of a god.

I suppose another reason I chose atheism is because I like to question everything. I don't like blindly believing in something and living my life the way that a few scholars wanted people to several thousand years ago. I like to be the master of my own destiny and I'll live my life however I damn well want to.

I also believe that it's nonsensical to attempt to explain a complex universe with a complex being. How is one any different to the other? The universe is so complex that we cannot understand its origins, and attempting to explain this with another complex thing that we cannot understand that is based entirely on blind self-belief in an invisible and unreachable deity makes no sense. It's just like going round in circles..

Also, the world is an unfortunate place to live for the majority of its population, and inventing the idea of an omnipresent and benevolent deity that watches over everyone and looks out for them is a comforting image. But why is it so hard to accept the brutal reality of the world that we live in? It's like putting your hands over your ears and saying 'lalalalalalala everything's great'.

So, these are a few of the reasons why I prefer atheism over blind belief. Other concepts just have too many faults for me, atheism actually makes sense. It just seems as if religions were created to attempt to explain the gaps in our knowledge and understanding that we had two thousand years ago, but we've moved on now. We know a lot more, and there is no purpose for religion any more.

However, the main reason I'm an atheist is because there is no evidence of a deity whatsoever. Every bit of 'evidence' that mankind has attempted to provide has been fabricated and produced by humans. Give me evidence of a deity, I'll be a theist. In the meantime I'm an atheist because I'm choosing to accept what is most probably reality.

The legalisation of drugs

My first reaction to this is to legalise drugs that are currently outlawed. This is probably because I believe that anyone should be allowed by their government to do whatever they damn well want with their body. But thinking this through further, it's much more complicated than that.

There is the argument that drugs are no different to alcohol in the effects they have. You consume them, you go into an unstable mental state and you are much more likely to break laws. So you can see why governments want to keep them non-legal. However if this is the case, why not outlaw alcohol? It has the same effects but is a much larger problem because most people consume alcohol. Personally I'm not in favour of outlawing alcohol, but there is certainly flawed logic here.

When abused, drugs can have far more severe effects on the individual than alcohol can. It can destroy families more easily and it can seriously harm their mental state. One argument is that if drugs were made legal, the crimes people would be more likely to commit under the influence of drugs would still be illegal and therefore it would only be something very similar in its effects as alcohol that the government would be legalising. That makes sense.

However the main reason I am against the legalisation of drugs is that it would almost certainly increase crime. Yes, there have been studies and experiments in countries where drugs were legalised and the results were positive, but I think the effects in countries such as the USA and the UK would be completely different to Portugal. There are many more people who currently make vast amounts of money from selling drugs to people, and they would not like their exclusive products to suddenly become widely available, so crime could well increase.

Usually I take a very libertarian stance on issues like this, but in this case I can only see that legalising drugs in the UK would cause more trouble than good. I like living in a relatively safe and stable society. This would probably cause havoc and misery and cause vast amounts of violence and further crime.

Alternatively, some drugs are used for medicinal purposes and I am heavily in favour of drugs being legal for medicinal purposes. If a doctor knows that a particular thing will help his or her patient, why shouldn't he be allowed to give it to them? It's what doctors are for. Having said that, if drugs were legalised for medical purposes they would need to be under strict regulation and the patients using them would need to be checked on closely so that any signs of addiction could be detected before it could develop into a serious problem.