BNP and Question Time

There are serious issues at stake here and it is not enough simply to be in favour of banning the BNP because they are racist or letting them speak on the grounds of free speech. It seems to me that the BBC is in a difficult position. If a legitimate political party is elected to public office within legitimate branches of local, national or international government, then publically funded media have to consider giving them a voice; otherwise no smaller parties would be properly represented by public media. In that sense, the BNP might benefit from the political correctness of minority representation as much as the Green Party or other smaller groups. And while, in my view, the BNP is not a legitimate political party, successive governments have not seen fit to ban or curtail the BNP (or their predecessors the NF) over several decades.

What we have here is an example of how racism has become so endemic that no major political party, no senior judges and no official watchdogs (such as the EHRC) have dared take them on. Racism is, after all, a problem in all our political parties and institutions and to move strongly against the BNP would be to make a symbolic move against racists in other parties; in other words, it is drawing a line in the sand that might disadvantage the major parties electorally. The BNP is seen by other parties as useful caricature against which their own racist tendencies seem mild by comparison.

The EHRC itself has few teeth and judges are prone to take a mild line against racist institutions on the basis of generations of similar precedent judgements and the fear of seeming too politically radical. What needs to happen is that the letter of the law needs to be enforced concerning racism. And for that to happen, racism itself needs to be better understood by the power-elite. It is not enough to see racism in terms of its violent or aggressive symptoms (such as physical attacks or verbal abuse on vulnerable targets); racism must be seen for what it is: the prejudicial advantaging or disadvantaging of particular identifiable groups on the basis of skin colour, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexuality, disability or age. In that sense, anti-racist organisations need to learn from feminism. And if one might reasonably conclude that feminism has taken several steps back over the past two decades in the wake of the continuing successes of white-male-patriarchy in the form of high-consumerism, then it is no surprise that anti-racist measures by government and its agencies continue to back-pedal for the same reasons.

The recession has only made things worse. All manner of disadvantaged groups get the blame in recessionary times and the media are all too quick to sell advertising on the strength of popular fears of otherness. In combination with the fear of terrorist threats, resource scarcity and environmental disaster, the fear of otherness is both consequential and symbiotic. Those of us who are anti-racist must thus keep making the point that it is unacceptable for any group or party to base any policy or action on the grounds that some groups of persons are acceptable and others are not on the basis of their physiology or self-identification. But if we are loath to tackle such problems within out own groups, employers and political parties, how can we expect to see Government, the law or the EHRC do better?

I oppose the BNP appearing on Question Time; not only because the BNP may gain political advantage but because the BNP should have, and should be, banned under existing legislation. The trajedy is that, with racism as entrenched throughout society as it is, the BNP will continue to grow from strength to strength unless existing elected politicians empower the EHRC and the courts to stop them. I fear for the future, it’s going to be much, much worse than you think.

Best wishes

Nick

Perhaps it’s not so much about hypocrist as about, you know, two wrongs not making a right…

@ Douglas #51

Hahahahaha

Yes, brilliant.

Exactly. Someone should challenge him on the size, flaccidity, wrinkledness and general shrivelledness of my penis. He may be right on that, but I’d like to know how he knows!

And I tend to take badly to being threatened, which is what seems to be his modus operandi:

Pack your bags Douglas, because if you dont want to live in a Britain with a dominant British culture based on COMMONALITIES and not differences, then best you fuck off with the Islamists and colonists – as we intend to treat traitors like you just as we will treat them.

Wow!

I take it Lee John Barnes hasn’t read ‘How to gain friends and influence people’.

What a charming man.

Oh, absolutely. If only a reader of LibCon or Pickled Politics could confront him on TV and ask him to stand by the statements he’s made here on the Internet! The man has no self-control.

I wasn’t aware QT was run by liberals.

damn you for posting something just as i have to go home so can’t debate this for another hour or two

Does it have to invite Griffin? It would be a lot more fun if it invited the BNP’s head of legal services instead. A certain Lee John Barnes….

The BNP do that anyway. All day, every day. And the liberals are free to ignore and marginalise the BNP if they wish. And vice versa. What’s the hypocrisy exactly?

Fair enough..just don’t upset the BNP too much. They’re viscious so and so’s…might put a pea under your matress or something. Anyhow, I’ll desist and wait and see if they fade away this time around under the weight of logic…not a particularly effective anti-fascist strategy in the past but who knows?

carrion

“You’ve clearly got some kind of chip on your shoulder…”

If I had a penny for every time…

Which poses a question: will Griffin resort to labelling all his opponents and everyone who disagrees with him as “Stalinists” or “fascists”?

It’s quite possible that the countervailing demands of both make his small head explode.

I actually reckon he’s going to make a massive tit of himself on QT, because he’s just so angry and frothing-at-the-mouth-crazy that a good hard hour of the idiot on TV will do the BNP more harm than good.

Cicero, this guy aint.

Actually, I suspect the Tories might put someone to the Left of the party on because the last thing any party needs to do is to be seen agreeing with him on anything – though I also suspect that the Tories will also play the BNP are socialist’ card as well.

- The mere presence of Griffin will poison the well: everybody will be expecting a punch-up/racist outburst, and will be disappointed if they don’t get one, no matter what the questions are

- Griffin would look stupid trying to turn any question into one about ‘race’, but it probably won’t stop him trying, especially if he won’t be edited when the show is broadcast

- The other panellists: never mind the political selections, the ‘Other’ slot that goes to some random (anyone from Jarvis Cocker to Peter Hitchens via Jo Brand) is bound to be picked to set up a contrast/smackdown: pick any one from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Peter Tatchell, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Inayat Bungawala, Reginald D Hunter; Bishop Michael Nazir Ali…

- Gaming the audience (anyone got the BBC telephone number for free tickets for a bunch of Hope Not Hate activists before the BNP make a block booking?)

- Location, Location, Location: Brixton or Buckinghamshire?

It would be worth it if Griffin was made to look an idiot, but that’s not going to automatically happen by inviting him on the panel, even though QT audiences can be very quick to pounce on bullshit.