Question BNP hard

I had a letter publish in the Church Times a handful of months back. In it I said that we shouldn't be banning the BNP but rather making sure its arguments are heard and their refutation is heard and they have the hard questions posed and are held to answer them. And in this article: Question Time's BNP opportunity | Hugh Muir | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk Hugh Muir identifies a good set of questions to start with: "with his hands on the tiller and the nationalist courts his supporters speak of in place, who would he see thrown out of the country? The party now says it favours voluntary repatriation rather than the rounding up of minorities in the middle of the night, but what if no-one goes? What next? A reign of terror to drive them out or an acceptance of the hated multi cultural status quo?

And who would be invited to leave? The BNP isn't very keen on miscegenation, so all the mixed heritage relationships it sees must be driving it crazy. 'Native' Britons should have priority, it says, in terms of housing and employment. So would a mixed heritage couple fall back while the claims of an all white couple are accelerated? To what extent would the whiteness of the white partner protect their position in the pecking order. Would they be housed separately, for example? Perhaps the white partner could have a nicer flat on the floor above the non white.

What would qualify as white? What about a white person with black ancestors? There is more of that than you might think. How might this differ from apartheid?"
And there's more; go and look.