Here in the UK we have a political party called the British National Party (BNP). For details, see their Wiki entry.
To name all their abhorrent practices and beliefs would take up too much room, but to give you a flavour:
They are racist. They only accept white anglo-saxons in their party. (This, though, has recently faced a legal challenge). They believe in
They want to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation
They deny the holocaust. From Nick Griffin (the party leader)
Nick Griffin was reported on the BNP’s website comparing Generals Sir Mike Jackson and Sir Richard Dannatt with Nazi war criminals hanged after the Nuremberg trials.
They are anti homosexual. On their website, they had a list titled “Liars, buggers and thieves” which grouped several gay politicians in with convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
They advocate violence. Nick Griffin has said
I think you get the picture.
In the past, the general opinion has been to ignore them, in the hope that the lack of publicity would restrict their appeal. Recently, they have been gaining ground, and the BBC (who claim their charter demands that all political viewpoints that have garnered a certain level of support should be represented) have invited them on to a political discussion program called Question Time. There has been a lot of discussion about whether they should be given this publicity. I used to go along with the ‘ignore them in the hope they’ll go away’ stance. Now, I’m not so sure. I think that we all need to know exactly what they stand for. There is a real risk that they will quietly obfuscate their true beliefs behind mild propaganda.
I would hope the BBC’s charter would also demand that they hold the party responsible to their previously stated positions, and that they tell viewers that the Halocaust did happen and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.[sup]*[/sup] As long as they’ll be called on any bullshit they spout, let them be on the air to be seen for what they are.
The U.S. news media seem to believe it’s their obligation to show two opposing spokesmen pulling statistics out of their asses, and settle the debate with “let’s leave it at that.”
And that, of course, is the $64,000 question. Abhorrent is an emotive word, and a matter of opinion; I find some of their beliefs to be abhorrent, but, in my OP, I said I think it would be better if they weren’t stifled.
There are many people who don’t find them abhorrent, and happily vote for them.
I’m with the let them speak camp; if they really are as ignorant and bigotted as you say (and I’m quite willing to blelieve that) people will see through it…at least that is what we should hope in a democracy.
If the reason for not giving them attention (or not letting the media give it) is that you are afraid they may increase their following, we should just quit this silly experiment we call democracy right away.
Sadly, not everyone agrees with you. The Labour party Welsh Secretary Peter Hain has said that Nick Griffin should not appear on the show. The BBC is considering his demand. Cite
It’s a tough call, because there may be a lot of people out there who will nod their heads in agreement with various extremist political parites, adjust their cloth caps, and say “Those Immigrants done took our jobs they did. I was just telling the postman last week that with t’mill closing down there was nowt work for anyone, and we all blamed it on t’immigrants from t’Europe, an’ everyone at the Horse & Duck agrees.”
Having said that, it’s important for a functioning democracy to have informed citizens, and once a political party gets past the Tooting Liberation Front level, it’s as well (IMHO) for them to be able to state their case on (inter) National Television like any other “mainstream” political party.
In this case, I’d say the Public Interest is for all notable political parties to be given airtime to express their policies, as long as they can do it in a civilised and reasonable manner.
If the BNP is a legitimate political party that can legally appear on the ballot and that people can vote for, then the BBC has no right to deny it the same exposure and inclusion that it offers to other political parties. Plus, of course, “denying them the oxygen of publicity” clearly hasn’t worked thus far as they are indeed gaining ground, and it gives them an added unwarranted legitimacy of martyrdom.
On a slightly less principled note, I think Griffin and Co need to be put under the spotlight and made accountable for their views in every possible public venue. Cockroaches breed in darkness; turn on the lights and those that don’t scuttle away get squashed.
In the real world I don’t think it necessarily works that way.
I’d say the bottom line is this: when extremist groups get news coverage, even if that coverage is negative, it’s probably a benefit to them because they will find a larger audience. So these groups should get coverage when it’s relevant, and not in scaremongering or point-and-laugh, “look at these weirdos” fashion.
The trouble with Griffin is that he has this amazing ability to turn around questions that he knows will show him in a bad light; to the extent that while I suspect most participants on the SD wouldn’t be persuaded, there are many people who are. That’s the danger in giving him publicity; some people are racists; some people have the attitude that Martini Enfield put so well, and will be attracted to him.
It’s not just racism either. He espouses violence. Many people don’t see anything wrong in a violent response. They may not know of some of the party’s stance until it gets the ‘oxygen of publicity’. Personally, I think that’s a risk democracy requires us to take, but I have seen it put forward as an argument against publicity.
To perhaps stretch the analogy too far, many of the most loathsome forms of life are anaerobic, and are in fact destroyed by exposure to oxygen. That might be exactly the correct method to use, here.
I know:(, I just think that no one should be in the position to decide what ‘the people’ can handle and what not… If they can ‘suffocate’ the BNP, there is no reason it could happen to some other party in the future. In my opinion part of democracy is taking the risk of following and listening to ‘the people’, even if some of them have opinions and stances that are repulsive to the majority (or some) of us.
About the violence thing, I would think it is illegal to preach violence in a public setting (don’t know if this is true in the UK), so you van let the judiciary deal with it.
As for the first point, you must make sure (as is definately possible with question time) there are other people who can challenge him and can cal BS when needed. If he is a good politician - in getting people to see his frame of view - that shouldn’t mean he is banned from the media, for the same reaon as given in my reply to Marley23.
If he is challenged on his abhorrent views in a public forum and still manages to carry his point, then perhaps we (or the challengers) don’t understand our own side as well as we think.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that immigrants are net contributors to Britain, that racism is bad for all sorts of reasons, that there’s no such thing as being “ethnically British”, and that the BNP are far closer to fascists than the British military they’ve been railing at recently. If the moral high ground can’t be held based on those, perhaps it isn’t Nick Griffin who shouldn’t be on Question Time.
My first reaction is sure let him speak but this article made me reconsider BNP on Question Time: how similar appearance helped French far right. I guess there is a chance some out there who have yet to hear the BNP’s message and may be swayed but then I am not sure the answer to that is to stifle the debate but educate the ignorant. Le Pen is also more charismatic than Griffin which has to be taken into account, Griffin is a poor specimen of his white Anglo-Saxon ideal but, of course, the leaders of these right wing parties (usually) are.
I say let him speak but to be honest this will be one Question Time I will miss, I can learn nothing from man and he will dominate tonight’s episode.
I must admit I’m utterly conflicted about this. As a general rule I loathe censorship but I loathe the BNP & Griffin even more. I see the point about letting extremists hoist themselves by their own words, but… martu’s link about the French far right is worrying.
Like I say, utterly conflicted.
(The BNP are the idiots who recently used a picture of a Polish Spitfire on a… wait for it… anti-immigration poster: Polish Spitfire shoots down BNP)
And Jack Straw doesn’t seem like the best Labour panellist for this job. Why not Dianne Abbott, Peter Hain or someone like that? The Tories seem to have made an effort by fielding Sayeeda Warsi, though.
I’ll watch it tonight but more to see what reception Griffin gets than to try to learn anything.