"So, instead of talking about racial purity, we [the BNP] talk about 'identity'." - Nick Griffin, BNP Leader.
This Thursday evening Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's Question Time show. The BBC has come in for loads stick for this, being criticised for giving the far-right, racist and fascist party a legitimate platform from which to broadcast it's views.
I got an email from the Hope Not Hate campaign asking that i appeal to the BBC not to allow Mr Griffin on the show. I don't think that's the way forward. Indeed, to ban the presentation and exploration of any given ideal usurps the values of freedom, liberty and democracy. This looks a lot like anti-fascist groups adopting fascist practises. Personally i want him on the show; give him all the rope he needs to trip up, tie up and hang up his and his party's unGodly ideology.
On the other hand the BBC is talking about its responsibility to impartiality, which is fair enough. It then however extends this argument to defend a pro-BNP / anti-fascist movement split in the audience it selects (this has obviously sparked concern over what incidents might arise in the studio). It seems to me that such a move is a perversion of what impartiality is about. Let's not forget that, despite all its controversy and growth, the BNP is a minority party and therefore granting them and those in their favour a 50% stake in the audience gives them a much bigger piece of cake than they're due. This is neither impartial nor neutral on the part of the BBC, but rather it frames the discussion in a very negatively skewed way. Thus the real problem is not the actual appearance of Nick Griffin, but the assumption of the BBC that 'fair' means the same as 'half each'.
My hope is that Mr Griffin is given enough screentime that the lights shine through his flimsy spin and exposes the dangerously malicious and desperately shortsighted core for all to see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Andy, I disagree with you on no platform policy in general, but surely even if you're a liberal on no platform, Question Time is about the worst forum for "debate" possible? The format pretty much guarantees you can get away with soundbite politics & the odd dose of populism. What's more, all Griffin has to do is soft-pedal, try to appear moderate and let the others rant and rave. It's an easy gig.
Quite apart from that, the BNP tend to go up in the polls after they've been on the telly. How many more times to we need to prove the "give him enough rope to hang himself" strategy doesn't work?
I agree that there's little point in appealing to the BBC, but I still think it's worth protesting, so am intending on being there. The best reaction would've been for all political parties to refuse to go on the show, let him do it on his own with a collection of half-witted minor celebrities desperate for publicity, and dominate the news cycle with explanations of why they wouldn't go on the show. That way we get to get an anti-fascist message across, exposing the BNP while refusing to treat them as a legitimate political party.
Also, I think it's a bit harsh to accuse anti-fascist groups of "fascist practices". There's a difference between not inviting Griffin onto the show, and "banning the presentation and exploration of any given ideal". Griffin can find his own platform. He can exercise his freedom of speech (within limits, providing he doesn't break the law) at his own rallies; I don't see why the rest of us should specifically invite him onto other platforms.
I don't think there is a difference between not inviting him on the show and a ban from presentation and exploration because the BBC isn't about the 'rest' of us, it's about all of us. Yes the BNP will have other platforms they can use but Question time is not a pre-designated 'un-BNP zone'. It's an arena for political discussion and the BNP are now very much operating in that arena. Since that's the case that's where they need to be tackled, exposed and brought down.
You're absolutely right about how it's a potentially easy gig for him, but as you point out, that does depend on how effective the other folk around him and their questions are.
The 'give him enough rope' argument may well be wearing thin, but so is the argument that says 'let's pretend they're not a political party like the rest of us'.
The view that they're not a political party like the rest of us is predicated on the belief that fascism isn't just one end of the political spectrum, it's qualitatively different from all other political views & ideologies. It's not just that they're a bit more racist, or a bit more right-wing than other parties. That difference matters more than the fact that they're technically a legal political party under British law (although even that has come under question recently).
I agree that getting the BBC to take that position is difficult (although they have to either agree or disagree with it: there is no middle-ground). For me the responsibility lies more with the other major parties - and certainly with Labour, as we actually have a no-platform policy. Those people should not be inside with Griffin, they should be outside exercising THEIR free speech by protesting against Griffin.
Griffin's basic strategy over the last few years is to try and drive the debate on issues like race, immigration, and Islam, further to the right and simultaneously project himself and his party as moderate, as part of a deliberate attempt to make it seem as if his party is just another party: this whole debacle and the reaction of mainstream parties to it has only furthered that end.
Hey Tim,
I meant to get back to you sooner, but have unfortunately been unable to. I'm aware we are now since past the point (the show aired last night). Hey-ho.
I couldn't agree more that, morally speaking, fascism is well outside the bounds of any political spectrum. But, bear with me here, various horror movies are coming to mind, particularly John Carpenter's The Thing and most zombie films.
The point is this: when evil comes in the guise of something else (eg a recently zombified loved one) it must first be recognised for what it is, and then others must be convinced of this truth. Finally, and this is where the power of the evil in any given guise is, it must be dealt with according to the form it takes.
When facism takes the form of a legitimate, seat winning political party, sadly, those are the terms by which it must be defeated.
On the show, Griffin was way out of his depth and was undone on several occasions. He wasn't anywhere near as effective for the BNP as he has been when i've seen him interviewed in the past. The only thing he seemed to get away with unchallenged was the clever way he used language of 'the elite' in a derogatory fashion, thus seeking to encourage those who would identify themselves as common women and men to side with him. Bonnie Greer was exceptional. Jack Straw wasn't.
The only other thing i wanted to say was that i, in no way, mean any of this as a criticism of the protest you took part in. Indeed, that's something i'm really glad of and i hope it went well.
No worries. Thought you might have commented after the show, so came back to have a look.
Re the protest - I thought it was a bit disappointing, but I agree, you could be there whether you agree with no platform or not. The main point was to protest against the BNP, not the BBC.
I'm sceptical about the success of the show. I still think it will have had a net positive effect for Griffin, although it is a relief that he performed badly. Most people who will end up voting BNP will not be engaged enough to have watched the show (8m watched it), or else will be so blinkered that they agree with his statement afterwards that the whole thing was a set-up made to make him look bad (the whole elitist argument you identify). The impression that most potential BNP voters will have got is simply that he was on QT, not the specifics of how he answered questions. Already the BNP are claiming website hits and membership have soared.
I think legitimacy is something that we give individually and collectively, not that the law gives. To me it is irrelevant that the BNP are a legal party (although even that is in question). But even if I accepted your premise that we have to defeat them on their terms, in the false guise they present themselves in, I'd still note that elections are not won through Question Time or in debates. The best way to beat them is conversation by conversation, doorstep by doorstep, street by street. It requires a lot more effort than the odd debate, but is the only way we can be sure we are reaching potential BNP supporters who aren't hardcore Nazis.
Best comment I've seen so far on this comes from my friend Dan at http://don-paskini.blogspot.com/
I'm right with you Tim, conversation by conversation etc.
This ought to be a two pronged thing. On the one hand the racism and racists need confronting, ie people need to be disuaded from voting, funding, and joining BNP.
Secondly, the apathy that's being exploited (numerically speaking, come election time) by the BNP needs to be challenged. This is about the mainstream parties endevouring to be less interchangable so as to offer the public actual, discernable choice, and the public being encouraged to use its vote regardless.
Whoops, a double post on my own blog!
What i mean to say is that the effect of the show against the BNP will be to hopefully egg on the 8M viewers to vote anything but BNP.
I liked the comments on this blogg. I think I echo entirely what Andy has said. I thought it was great that Griffin was on the show because it is his right given he is elected. We can't choose to ignore him after he wins legitimate seats in politics, simply because we liked him enough to vote for him and his ideas. It's a bit like insisting Palestine have democratic elections and then politically ignoring Hamas when they win. It's a bit daft and utterly pointless.
Question time was also a brilliant arena for this because he has to face questions on the publics terms. He cannot spar with an interviewer and get a bit clever. He must show due care and respect, which early on in the show he showed he was unable to do and he suffered as a result.
I'm glad Griffin did poorly on the show but if it had gone well it would just mean that we would need to work harder in persuit of different social and political ideals. Protest is good, it is part of our privilege to do so but Griffin now must be heard within a political space because he is an elected politician, not because we will 'allow' it. The BBC have done well.
Post a Comment