Straw is a bright man and quite eloquent I think he’ll be fine. He’s also a party heavyweight which sends a good signal.
I’ll bet it was chunky style.
Did the British people somehow just become more racist in the last couple of years? If not, then it’s obvious that something else(s) is playing a part here.
The BNP may be racist, but that is not the entirety of their appeal. Their stands on a number of economic and cultural issues appeal to some voters, not all of which are racial (surely there’s nothing racist about a call to repeal Thatcherism and reduce income inequality?) The party, like any minority political party, grows when people feel the majority parties are not addressing in the way they want.
If the big parties address the BNP voters’ issues and co-opt some of their agenda (hopefully not the racist parts), the BNP will wane. If they refuse, and the trends that cause the BNP’s rise continue, the BNP will wax.
There are certainly social and economic factors. For example, unemployment is way up. A lot of people are out of work through no fault of their own. Some of these people see immigrants who are working and think “if they weren’t taking those jobs, I and others like me would have work”, something they wouldn’t care about if they had jobs themselves.
The BNP are aware of this and play heavily to that sense of despair and resentment. That it is essentially the scapegoating rhetoric of fascism matters not a jot to them.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” – Louis D. Brandeis
What’s the point of censoring these mooks? If you want to keep the public from hearing their nonsense, you obviously don’t have much faith in the ability of the public to recognize jackassery when they see it.
I’d rather more people know about their racist beliefs than fewer. I’d rather give them the opportunity to demonstrate that they are scumbags instead of making them into oppressed martyrs.
Abhorrent as their positions are, they should have the freedom to express them. We thereby gain the knowledge to treat them with the credibility they deserve.
In general I agree with this. The problem is that Question Time is and always has been an utterly appalling format for holding anyone to account for their views.
For those who haven’t seen it, a panel of politicians and pundits chaired by a neutral journalist is asked questions by an audience of the public. Each makes an initial response and then there’s a brief debate, possibly involving the original questioner, before they move on to the next question. I reckon they get through about 5/6 questions in 30 mins, not counting the “funny” one at the end. The questions tend to be topical and cover quite a few different areas. I have almost never seen any genuine political debate on this program - at best, it’s a soundbite competition.
The key problems in this instance are:
The focus won’t be exclusively on Nick Griffin and his odious views. He’ll probably get more attention than any of the other individual panellists, but it’s not going to be 30 mins of Q&A in which he’s consistently forced to defend his viewpoint. The other panellists will be careful to say that he’s wrong, but they’re also going to disagree with each other from time to time. As a result, he’ll come out sounding like he’s part of the political conversation.
He’s not going to be honest about his views. He’s going to talk about immigration, jobs, how splendid it is to be British etc. He’s not going to come out and say that he wants to see an all-white Britain, that he hates Jews, Muslims, Asians and Blacks, or that forced repatriation of the latter is how he intends to achieve the former. And because he’s sticking to platitudes, he can make it seem very easily that the other panellists agree with him. (Both Straw and Warzi, for example, will be hard to put to disagree with him if he says that immigration needs to be controlled because their parties’ policies on immigration are based on that belief.)
At times, he will out and out lie. And it’s easy for him to say that, e…g. 90% of crime in a particular district of Macclesfield is caused by illegal immigrants, but not so easy for anyone sitting round the table to prove him wrong right there and then.
My prediction is that by the end of the program Griffin: won’t have said anything explicitly racist or fascist; will have spoken so vaguely that at least one other panellist will sound like they’re agreeing with him; will look like he belongs on QT instead in a street brawl. Putting him in front of a tenacious and well-prepared interviewer is one thing - the circus of Question Time is something quite else.
Well they had the backing of the Daily Mail. Kind of like today, really…
As to the OP - the state should treat them as they treat other parties. Private individuals and organizations, however, should starve them of any publicity. I’m all in favor of shunning for people in any way associated with the BNP, as long as it isn’t organized by the state.
Ah, but is the BBC part of the state?
(I’d say no - it’s public funded but it’s independent of government.)
Reports on the news now that anti-fascist protestors have broken into BBC centre. Not the civilized response I was hoping for.
While the Beeb is not a full part of the state, broadcasters generally hold an interesting quasi-state position here.
They are provided use of a limited public resource, the airwaves. In return the government imposes a charter on them. Were that charter to require them not to give publicity to the BNP, I would consider that an unjustifiable use of state power against the BNP.
And the Beeb is in an even closer position to state agent, as it uses the power of the state to ensure its funding.
You’re right: I don’t have complete faith in all of the public to recognize jackassery when they see it. We’re talking as if the BNP doesn’t have any support; they do.
It may be abhorrent to many of us, but there are some people out there who do support his views. For those, the publicity will reinforce their views, and may draw in people who might not of heard of them before.
I also believe that Nick Griffin is clever enough and slimy enough to come across on Question Time and other platforms as reasonably reasonable, as amrussell has said.
I just hope that all this publicity will, on balance, turn more people against him than for him.
The charter can be found here here BBC Charter.
In recent years they have been accused by all 3 main parties of bias in one form or another, usually a good sign of independence in my opinion.
I’m gonna watch this in the hope that someone in the audience runs down and takes a cosh to Mr Griffin.
He’s a political weasel, but if the questioners and the rest of the panel have done enough preparation, they’ll nail him.
If they don’t… well, we’re screwed.
But I do agree with letting the fucker speak.
I can’t say I am overly upset. Direct action against fascists has a long and proud tradition.
The BNP aren’t all that big a party are they? They get way too much attention for their number of voters. I suppose it is a case of the general decent public trying to sort out the problem of the far-right before the horse has bolted. The last general election in the UK they were a little less popular than the Democratic Unionist Party and secured no seats in the Commons.
I’m watching question time as I type and nobody needs to worry about the BNP benefitting from the exposure. Up til now it has been a free for all with people taking turns bashing the BNP. Griffin hasn’t been able to say anything except the occasional murmur of being misquoted.
Griffin when let rant can be all right but there was a certain amount of giving him enough rope to hang himself and his party. It was an interesting debate all in all. I dunno how many more voters he will get out of it all though.
That was actually painful to watch. Griffin got thoroughly squashed. They kept reading out his own words to him.
And I didn’t know that Churchill probably had Cherokee blood!
I thought he came across as evasive and uncomfortable. But there was at least one example when he gave an answer that might strike a chord with some viewers. After saying homosexuals are ‘creepy’ (and that will resonate with some), he said he didn’t want homosexuality - or any other sex education - to be taught in primary schools; there will have been nods of agreement with that. (The concept of ‘teaching’ homosexuality to primary school children is one to wonder at.)
This is the danger. To those of us who disapprove of him, his appearance will confirm our dislike of him and his party. But to his supporters and to waiverers, little snippets like the above will have garnered him support.
Over a million people voted for him. How many more people in this country have like-minded views?
That would be “red indian” blood, in Griffin’s words.
He is being misquoted by the Beeb this morning. They keep on saying he said that indigenous British people “have become aborigines”. This isn’t what I heard. What he actually said was “we are the aborigines” - in the sense that we are the indigenous people of these islands (love how he includes the Irish in this…).
Honestly, he said enough crap to hang himself alone without being misquoted, which could provide further ammunition for his supporters.