The BNP should not be on Question Time
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
So tomorrow we will be 'treated' to the spectacle of seeing Nick Griffin on Question Time on the backs of licence fee payers. I've dithered on this a bit but I just can't accept having a fascist on our airwaves.
There are 3 main arguments for them which I want to look at:
1. Freedom of Speech - Apparently just because they are not illegal they have a right to be heard but it's a nonsense. Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot go into a cinema and shout 'fire' and more importantly you cannot incite violence.
David Cameron rightly wants to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir because they entice racial and religious tensions. They technically don't actually promote terrorism but they stir up hatred in such a way that people 'graduate' from the group to committing acts of mass murder. In a similar way the BNP don't technically promote violence but stir up their supporters into such a wild frenzy.
2. You will expose them - Apparently the power of debate is so great that you will expose their wicked ideas. But as Anas Sarwar has said Question Time is not the medium for such an expose.
Question Time is about grandstanding and when you see Nick Griffin talking about education policy or on how to reduce the deficit you make him seem like just another politician. But he's not. As Parties we all have our own problems and get too tribal sometimes but we should unite to say the BNP are not one of us and never will be.
And even if you do convince 99.99% of people of the evil of the BNP what if you stir a handful of people into a racial frenzy which leads to a chain of events which leads to them going out and attacking someone they blame for all their problems?
3. The BNP are elected - The BNP got only a few more votes than they did in 2004. It is just the other parties falling back. They have don't have a massive increase of support at all.
I'm sure everyone in this debate means well and no one wants to collude with them but 'debating' them is a massive strategic blunder.
And frankly I'd rather not a representative of my own party - the party that was famously described as a moral crusade by Harold Wilson - will be sharing a platform with fascists.
The fact that until they change their constitution to allow non-white members they are an illegal party doesn't exactly help either.
Posts
14 comments:
I find it strange that Labourites in general oppose one fascist grouping in the BNP yet seemingly are silent when the Orange order say they will campaign for them.
I don't know any of your older colleagues personally but hear from good sources amongst Glasgow Republicans that some used to be of some standing before losing themselves in new labour, a modern 'taking the soup' if you will. What intrigues me is just how far are these guys willing to go in pretending that they support the union?
Seems to me that all this faux rule Brittania nonsense is a recent development. Is the union worth having if you need the support of atavistic supremacist elements to maintain it? Oh and could you ask your guys are they willing to be as welcoming as this;
"Michael MacMahon, the Labour MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill, and a Catholic, said that he welcomed the support. He said: "I have a good relationship with the Orange Order. They understand the importance of the Union and they understand the threat."
Honestly this uncle Tom business goes too far even for the careerists in the Scottish offshoot of new Labour.
Labour did in any way solicit any endorsement and Glasgow Council are in fact looking at ways of curbing the number of marches to cut policing costs.
"1. Freedom of Speech - Apparently just because they are not illegal they have a right to be heard but it's a nonsense. Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot go into a cinema and shout 'fire' and more importantly you cannot incite violence."
But the BNP aren't going to shout fire, and if they try to incite violence, then you're going to get an audience full of people and a video tape recording of the crime. Pretty cut-n-dry court case, I should expect.
If you want to make a counter-argument to FoS, it's perhaps worth arguing something more robust, like this:
Freedom of speech entails the right to say what you will, not the means. As such, the BNP are free to say what they please, but not where they please or when they please. They have their own outlets for their free speech in their electoral literature and newspaper. There is no requirement or obligation for the BBC to provide them with a platform under FoS.
Yousuf, you make good points and I don't like the idea of them being on a TV screen any more than you do, but I would simply suggest this: we've tried "no platform", we've tried ignoring them and we've even tried stooping to their level with glorified bovver-boys like UAF disrupting their events. None of it has worked: they've got District/Borough Councillors, County Councillors, Assembly Members and MEPs now, so we need a new approach.
I agree 100% with what you say when you argue that Griffin isn't a normal politician and that the BNP are not like the rest of us, and I share your scepticism that the freedom of speech rules apply in this case but the fact is that they're among us right now. They've waltzed into areas which have felt left behind and taken for granted, and they've gone around peddling their hateful bile, scapegoating honest, hardworking people who just want the same things as everyone else.
Put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig; put a bigot like Griffin in a suit and he's still the same swivel-eyed nutjob that he's always been.
We need to try putting up against genuine mainstream politicians, all of whom will be the voice of sanity and reason compared to Griffin, who - let's face it - has gone even more crackers than usual in his latest TV interviews.
Yes, it's a gamble, and yes, I realise that the BBC aren't doing it to expose a fascist but to draw in viewers, but the bottom line is that our current approach isn't keeping them out but letting them work themselves even deeper into the system. We're running out of options so we have to try this.
PS Jack Straw is an inspired choice to stand up to them: as MP for an East Lancashire Constituency like Blackburn, he's on the frontline in the battle against fascism and it's telling that Blackburn hasn't succumbed to the BNP in the way that neighbouring Burnley has. I can understand why you don't want to see him on the same stage as Griffin, but if anyone can deal with him, Straw's the one.
I actually think that this debate is vital, for two reasons:
1. The previously consistent "no-platform" policy across all the major parties has recently failed in the Euro and council elections. The BNP are a tiny but dangerous party getting huge publicity from the reaction to QT - perhaps giving them more benefit than if we had all just got on with it and confronted their odious policies.
2. In some areas of the North West, Yorkshire and London the Labour Party is perceived as having abandoned & taken for granted the "white working-class" - and that is what is letting these people in - you need to understand as a party that these voters no longer think that you have their interests at heart. You urgently need to challenge this head on: The BNP is a problem for us all, but in reality it is in areas that should be Labour heartlands. How many of these voters actually really understood what they were voting for? And how many were just expressing a wider frustration?
I'm so pleased that Jack Straw is the one appearing on QT - he represents an area at risk from the BNP, has respect across the political spectrum & all communities, and has an abundance of capability to take on and win arguments with intellectual lightweights like Griffen. He's the right man, and more importantly he's a good man, that should be supported by Labour to do this job.
Thankfully in Scotland we don't have these problems - perhaps because we have a diversity of representation on the left that counteracts the Labour Party taking its voters for granted? But in those identifiable areas of England only Labour can fix this - so go and take the challenge on.
So we have come full circle again on this issue?
Yousuf i must have commented on this issue on your blog about half a dozen times and i even did a few articles on it on my own blog explaining the reasons why the BNP should be allowed on Question time, so I'm not going to slaver on it any more but!!!>>>>>
I bet you Glasgow North East the BBC ratings will orbit tomorrow night and how many people like yourself who disagree with the BBC will tune in and watch question time?
Be honest Yousuf, you moan about it(and with good reason) but Glasgow North East says you will tune in and watch!!!! :)
Chris...
"In some areas of the North West, Yorkshire and London the Labour Party is perceived as having abandoned & taken for granted the "white working-class" - and that is what is letting these people in - you need to understand as a party that these voters no longer think that you have their interests at heart"
.....
Labour might take votes for granted but its no excuse for people to turn to a bunch of racist thugs.
Yes i agree some immigration polices need to be challenged and loop holes closed but by voting BNP all its doing is sending out a message we hate you if your not white.
What the BNP don't tell you is that 96% of the UK population classes themselves as white British, hardly the shock horror scenario that we are being over taken by non whites which the BNP feeds from.
The no platform policy has not failed in Scotland and we should keep it.
The BNP have thrown a lot of money and resources into campaigning here; in return the electorate have told them to eff off.
Scotland's political parties should follow suit.
Yousuf,
You're right - you have dithered about this. I thought you'd decided you thought it was a good idea?
Anyway, your 3 points against are fairly weak in my view.
1. Freedom of speech not being absolute doesn't have anything to do with it. Griffin isn't going to shout fire. And (arguably) he hasn't incite violence - at least, no court has found that (yet). Hatred yes, violence no. Different.
2. Perhaps Griffin won't have anything to say about education, then he'll look daft. And if he does, why not ask him how he would educate immigrants or something, needle him into saying something racist? That's what this should be about - wind him up and let him expose himself (but not in a vulgar way!).
3. Whether its a result of them winning "a few more" votes than in 2004 or not doesn't matter. They were democratically elected. And they legitimately hold office. Stop them from speaking and we may as well be in Zimbabwe.
I'm with Will - Jack Straw is a great choice. And I'm actually proud of my elected representatives for taking on the BNP, not simply allowing them to enter the political fray by being racists.
Chris I wouldn't be complacent about the threat from the BNP in Scotland. As The Grumpy Spindoctor has said the leaked membership list shows active members in Scotland and they got 27,000 votes at the last Euros, something I think we should all be worried about.
AMW
"Labour might take votes for granted but its no excuse for people to turn to a bunch of racist thugs."
Please read what I am saying carefully - I am certainly not defending or excusing their actions - merely trying to understand what has caused the BNP to emerge in these areas. Labour needs to understand why they have lost support to the BNP in what should be rock-solid Labour areas and then do something about it. Part of that process is exposing the real nature of the BNP, such as holding them to public accountability - which is why I think QT should go ahead. Griffen will be exposed as an inept fool, as well as an obnoxious racist.
The link that Yousuf included to the Grumpy Spindoctor shows one of their methods of operation - pick on a local issue that risks being overlooked, and then use it to convince voters they "are on their side". And it is always the vulnerable groups that they go for. These are areas that also need challenging - the case against the BNP needs to be on more than just the immigration issue: It needs to address the underlying concerns that these people have, because these are the areas that the BNP exploits to push their "everything is the fault of immigration" agenda.
Yousuf, I realise that the BNP is trying to break through into Scotland, but I still hope and suspect that we are lacking in the social circumstances that they would typically be able to exploit. I also believe that we have better democracy in Scotland and a better sense of collective identity at a local level.
I don't see that right now in Scotland they are anything but a lunatic fringe. For now, I think the focus should be on destroying the BNP in their "core" areas - North West, Yorkshire and London - but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I'm also keen that we destroy them in the ballot box and in the hearts & minds of the voters - I certainly don't want to see mass physical confrontation between BNP and anti-Nazi demonstrators because it suffocates the important policy based messages that need to be communicated to those that voted BNP.
This debate needs to go ahead.
1. I'm afraid you can go into a cinema and shout fire. There will be consequences, but you can do it. Similarly, Griffin and co can peddle obnoxious policies, but again there will be consequences. And that's the whole point. We give up our own freedoms when we censor political views.
2. They will be exposed, and in front of those people who voted for them. Contrary to what you say, politicians ARE made to feel uncomfortable on QT. And Nick Griffin has a lot to feel uncomfortable about. As you have pointed out, there are some basic questions he cannot squirm from. Where else should the BNP be exposed? In the Sun and Daily Record? Politicians don't get much chance to "grandstand" on QT. That's why we have conferences. On QT they are generally on the defensive, based on the questions chosen by the BBC. And so they should be.
3. Nearly 1,000,000 out of 15,000,000 people voted for the BNP this year. Whether they got a 'few extra votes' is an irrelevance. They have a right to representation.
This QT should not be about exposing Labour's failed policies in BNP strongholds. That should be reserved for another show once Griffin has been dealt with.
Malc - in fact Griffin does have a conviction for incitement to racial hatred.
I agree with you Yousuf - he should not get this sort of propaganda paid for from the public purse. I totally object to every valid issue having to be brought round to race, lowering the whole thing to his level. I think we're about to find out that the 'no platform' policy works far better than the 'platform' one does.
Post a Comment