Should the BNP be given the oxygen of publicity

It is a question that seems to be of concern to many at present and opinion is divided; should British National Party leader Nick griffin be allowed to appear on BBC's Question Time? The no argument is based upon whether it is right that a group that holds views out of step with those of a multicultural society should be given a public platform and the credibility that goes with that. There is a danger in censoring the BNP in this way, that is that we silence all opinions we do not agree with and that is a slippery slope away from democracy and the ideal of free speech. The yes argument essentially focuses on free speech and the fact that the BNP is a legitimate political party. Peter Hain questions this on the basis of last week's ruling that they need to change their constitution or be outlawed, and interesting twist that could have some truth if they are unable to conform to the ruling. But there longstanding argument is that the BNP should be allowed to take part in open debates in order to expose their true character. If their arguments are contested openly, their validity questioned, particularly their arguments regarding repatriation, then they may have less credibility in the longer term. It is an interesting idea and one I have much sympathy with; but it very much depends on how the debate goes and who is fielded to oppose Griffin on Question Time - makes it almost essential viewing for all those interested in politics! But there is a big question here, should anyone have a say? Should some views be censored? Or should their ideas be given the oxygen of publicity that may give them credence or see them die under the spotlight of public and media opprobrium? Writing to the BBC, Hain argues "In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful." but is he correct?

Bizarre Logic

The British National Party Chair Nick Griffin is not someone I take too seriously too often, though there is a real danger that the party will make gains from Labour, particularly in the poorer, heartland areas, where they can sell themselves as, well, a sort of nationalist socialist party - ring any bells? The party is distancing itself from being racist, and so is tying itself up in knots trying to be non-racist but be nationalist in a racial supremacist manner. The BNP's "Language and Concepts Discipline Manual" for the simple reason that such persons do not exist". Instead the party argues that the term used should be "racial foreigners". In a BBC interview, Griffin argues to call such people British was a sort of "bloodless genocide" because it denied indigenous people their own identity. So the argument is that describing someone as British denies them their own identity: "These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese." The aim remains to repatriate these 'racial foreigners'.

But this logic is so bizarre to me and simply twists words. Firstly it ignores any notion of birth, if you are non-white (who seem to be the targets of the term racial foreigner) but born in Britain does that still make you a foreigner and where exactly would someone be repatriated to. What if you are mixed race etc etc. Then there is that more profound question, if we really decided that everyone who was not indigenous to these islands should be classified a racial foreigner and singled out for repatriation who would actually remain. What about those of Roman, Norman, Angevin, Viking descent, or if that is too far back what about the Dutch immigrants of the eighteenth century. What the position tries to cover up is that the targets appear not to be immigrants generally, as lets face it most of us can trace our roots back to some form of immigrant, but those of a different race as opposed to nationality.

In some ways it is good the BBC give an airing to Griffin and his arguments, personally I would like to see the party given greater air time. Why, because the problem with the BNP is that they are able to take the high ground and say they are branded as racist and neo-fascist and so are unable to give their side of the story. But if they are given air time more people may be able to see through this thin veil of rhetoric and see that by classifying people born in Britain as racial foreigners you are creating apartheid, segregation by colour, and not making any move toward preventing a 'bloodless genocide'. Griffin could be an MEP in the matter of a month, sitting on the same group in the European Parliament as the Conservative Party (a bad decision by Cameron), only 3% more votes are required - there's a thought

Online Democracy?

It is often argued that the Internet facilitates greater democracy, it allows the public to input ot news stories (comments posted to BBC Online for example) as well as start or contribute to existing debates through blogs etc. However there is a flip side to this. It also allows groups to gather data on specific questions that can then be used to promote an idea. The British National Party, for some unknown reason though a couple of insider investigations leading to arrests may give a clue, do not like the BBC. They have a poll on their front page asking about the licence fee, a contentious issue, but any rigor in the poll is destroyed by the two highly loaded questions (see 3, 4 and 5) the latter being purely sarcastic one assumes. While it is unlikely these results will have any impact it gives the notion of online democracy a bad name when the research is a push poll rather than something designed to gather information of any use.