Nick Griffin, BNP, and Question Time
I heard a representative of the BBC on the Radio this morning saying that it was right that the BNP should be included in the Question Time Panel because the BNP is an organisation with two elected MEPs, and the responsibility of the BBC is to be impartial.
I understand that in the general run of things, impartiality is a good thing, and that listening to people who disagree with you is important. But I also think that there are times when you shouldn't be impartial. And I think this is one of them. What do you think?
Edit: Well, he bombed. I'm still turning over in my mind where you draw a line in allowing public space to extremists. I believe in free speech, but I'm also thinking about how swiftly the far right took power in various European countries in the 20th century, how much bloodshed ensued, and how difficult they were to shift. If we allow extremists to speak, we also need to state loud and clear that we don't agree. Three cheers for those who spoke up last night. And in particular for the brilliant Bonnie Greer – once again demonstrating that it's often the panelist who is not a politician who seems to be most switched on to the issues.
15 Responses to “Nick Griffin, BNP, and Question Time”
Comments
Reply
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
I firmly believe that the BBC is wrong to include the BNP in Question Time.
Whether people see this as cenorship or not, by allowing the BNP to appear on the show they are giving voice to racism no matter how subtle or discreet we all know what they stand for.
As for the recent ruling that the BNP allow other ‘ethnic’ groups inti their Party is in my opinion a farce.
I sincerely hope that this is not the start of the BNP gaining a greater voice.
It’s is right for the BBC to include the BNP; they have elected members of parliament so some people obviously agree with their points of view. If we exclude them, the issue becomes one of free speech rather than of what they have to say which people should be able to hear and form their own view. Far better that these views are expressed in an forum where they can be challenged and exposed for what they are. Let’s hope the other panelists are of sufficient quality to challenge in an intelligent and constructive manner. The BNP won’t go away and without a voice through democratic means or public debate represent far more of a threat as they doorstep vulnerable and ignorant people which will only propagate extremist views.
I’m with you on this Maggie. Yes the BBC should be impartial in the main but there are some things that are clearly wrong and therefore, as you say, there are times when we should not be impartial.
I know that may mean we have a difficult task of deciding where to draw the line in the future, but for now and with the BNP which spouts racism and hatred towards people in our communities merely on the basis of the colour of their skin, or on the colour of the skin of their ancestors, is sickening and should be deprived of any platform in which they may air this.
But how do you make the decision when NOT to be impartial, Maggi?
for example, I would strongly argue that global, free market thinking is an abomination that condemns the majority world to poverty. I could argue that no one who propounds an economic approach that is so damaging to the majority world should be given airspace.
So, I call for a ban on all those who implicitly or explicity promotes free market economics!
hmmmm, not sure I’m being reasonable here…
I suspect there is a boundary to what should be debated… but I don’t know where it is…
I’d say it depends on whether he gets a platform or an examination.
I wouldn’t be delighted to see him on a soft interview programme.
We shall see…
I think that the BBC is correct in inviting any political party with MP’s/MEP’s etc onto question time it shows openness and freedom of speech. I would always want the BBC to do this, i also expect them to be questioned and exposed in ways that the BNP had not imagined
For me the major problem is those individuals who did not vote at the European Elections. If they are so appathetic again in the national elections who knows what sort of fringe parties might end up in parliemant. I hope that having BNP MEP’s is a wake up call to the vast majority of the country who cannot be bothered to vote.
The problem with the BBC decision to include the BNP is that they trailed it to the media to cause controversy and to wave their impartial credentials around.
This is the BBC which having been humbled by the Government and losing its independence, is now trying to claw back the moral high ground of impartiality.
Unfortunately, to little, to late and the wrong cause.
The BNP is a racist, party, whose morality and policies need to be aired, but not at licence payers expense.
Of course the real problem with extremist political parties is that they are capitalising on the woeful antics of the mainstream parties. Trouble is that mainstream politicians’ answers to the extremist threat is to also be woeful. Take for instance Jack Straw’s attempt to belittle the BNP leader with his stirring account of this realm being defended by an equal number of multi-faith/racial/cultural forces when it was HIS government that shamefully ATTEMPTED to stop Gurkhas residence in this country after fighting for it! Perhaps we should update the ‘lions led by donkeys’ to mean ‘main stream politicians and the majority of the population’ and for the BNP and its followers ‘donkeys led by donkeys’!
As the BNP have 2 MEPs in the European Parliament, like them or loathe them they do have power and therefore they need to be included in public debates. It will then be left to the democratic process to determine what is right and what is not.
It is an important part of the democratic process to allow people freedom of speech whether you agree with their arguments or not.
They clearly do represent opinion from the voting electorate and therefore the arguments of the BNP must be listened to and debated.
It actually demonstrates the unfairness of the current British electoral system which clearly needs to change.
Extreme opinions do matter in a free democratic society, because otherwise how do you determine what is an extreme opinion and what is not.
The internet has also changed the politic landscape and as people are better connected, debate will go on over the internet anyway.
The BBC had no choice but to allow the BNP onto Question Time and simply reflects a paradigm shift in technology/economics and society.
I’m not from the UK, however this, I think, is a clear case where censorship is inappropriate, since censureship is available.
The BNP stands for just about everything that we hate. However, it’s not the BNP that I’m concerned about, but rather their constituency. I would wager that most people who voted for them are not xenophobes, but hurting people who have real concerns, even if they don’t completely understand the causes of their hurt. (Let’s face it, probably none of us do.)
These people’s fears are being exploited by cynical politicians with an explicitly racist agenda. These people are victims of the BNP’s untruths just as much as Britons who are (or are descended from) recent immigrants. If you censor the BNP, it just feeds the perception that ordinary peoples’ concerns aren’t being heard.
A few years back, here in Australia, we had a similar thing happen. One Nation wasn’t quite as bad as the BNP, and Pauline Hanson wasn’t quite as bad as Nick Griffin, but the anti-immigration, anti-multicultural agenda was still clearly there.
Nobody tried to censor them. We just let them speak, and make their own mistakes. Eventually, the movement imploded in a cloud of public ridicule. They’re gone now.
Admittedly, there is one crucial difference. One Nation was a new movement, whereas the BNP is the latest visible face of the same underlying movement that gave you the National Front. That makes the BNP significantly scarier, so I understand the caution.
I think that David and Pseudonym have hit on crucial points…
mainstream politics has become so focused on the ‘middle ground’ – “Worcester Woman”, “Pebbledash people” or “Mondeo Man”, that there is nobody speaking for the disenfranchised,
the BNP can make noises that sound as if they are concerned for SOME of these people. In Britain we have inner cities and estates where Labour will be the only show in political-town, but they’re in their suits hobbnobbing with tycoons and the like… spouting economics that owes more to Thatcher than others…(ok, a slight shift in recent months, but not huge)…
so, who do those voters turn to? Ok, Griffin and his cronies aren’t the real answer… but who is, or who could be (if we just stopped arguing in our cockpit – see Maggi’s later post)?
I think you are right not to be absolutist about free speech and censorship. Although it is not logically the case that absolutism is always bad (one cannot be absolutistly non-absolutist!), I find a regular overlap between absolutism and jumping to unevidenced, unresearched conclusions.
Just how bad the BNP is in practice was shown by the footage released just before the programme of black and Asian BNP activists (sic) in Nick Griffin t-shirts being refused entry to a BNP local meeting for various trumped-up untrue reasons.
It’s just like the church: smaller ’sects’ will be rightly credible only to the extent that larger ‘denominations’ allow them to be. For the central tenets of the sects (ecclesiastically or politically) correspond to areas which the larger groupings need to re-examine or rediscover. Albeit the smaller groupings over-exaggerate these, often to a ridiculous extent. For example: the Greens have not notably increased their following – but they would have had the larger parties not taken some of their points on board, and they continue to flourish to the extent that there remain important points not taken on board.
So if a Christian finds, to their horror, that an awful, horrible party like the BNP is actually closer to them on (e.g.) abortion or the non-normalisation of extramarital sex in sex education, then this reflects no merit on the BNP but brings dreadful demerit to the main parties, who are of course the ones who have shifted.
“If a Christian finds, to their horror” that they respond to Nick Griffin’s remarks about how “most of us” – and at one point he said “Christians” – allegedly “find two grown men kissing in public creepy” with flat affect and rationalisation like “non-normalisation of extramarital sex in sex education” then said Christian needs to go examine his/her conscience sharpish.
I wasn’t referring to that particular remark by Nick Griffin; he would need to give statistics; whatever stats he gave would not justify the purported majority since to be in a majority does not make one right; for him to base a position on mere emotional reaction as opposed to examining proper statistics on the average outcomes of different lifestyles (tho’ emotional reactions are of course among the good reasons why we oppose, e.g., murder) is inadequate. To approve extramarital sex is to set oneself against every world religion at a stroke, and is therefore inimical to (among many other things) multiculturalism.
Isn’t the problem that when silenced and pushed to the fringe these extremists are free to live in their own fantasy world, excluding them from these things actually aid’s them in falsly describing the world and themselves. Only when their voice has space in wider public discource does the disonance of their reality and description become overwhellmingly clear.
-
Is there a danger that once we create a justification for censorship and exclusion it could be applied to anyone.