If you haven't yet seen it, I advise watching last night's Question Time with first ever BNP panellist Nick Griffin.
I have always supported this move. I have no sympathy for Griffin, or ANYONE who voted for the BNP for whatever reason, it is simply inexcusable. But having these views and policies clarified, exposed to informed and rigorous public debate and eventually shown for the toss that they are is the best way to undermine movements like this. Anyone who, after such an examination, still supports them is beyond help, and quite frankly can fuck off out of the political system. Sadly, we didn't get such an examination tonight, certainly not in an undiluted form. The show cannot be said to have been a resounding success for several reasons:
- Griffin was all too often shouted down or heckled instead of being calmly and logically dismantled, as would have been easy to do on more or less every occasion.
- There was still far too much political point scoring by all three of the major parties, in the vein of "Oooo, it was the Tories who started this" and "Errr, it's Labour's fault that..."
- When directly questioned about the reason for the BNP's rise in power and popularity, not one of the MPs, especially not Jack Straw, put their hands up and said "Well, we ALL dropped the ball. That's how this happened. Our people feel disenfranchised and disconnected from politics and that is everyone's fault, government and not."
- The audience were bordering on loutish at times - stupidities like the "Dick Griffin" comment are not only childish and facile, but such vacuous and emotional attacks can only help to foster the "man under seige" image which will empower, rather than weaken, the BNP.
- The protestors outside were ironically trying to curtail freedom of speech by preventing a democratically elected politician from appearing, by invitation, on the show. The irony comes because they did this under the banner of "Unite Against Fascism". What is more fascistic than using fear and intimidation to censor and silence those with whom you don't agree?Griffin was absolutely right when said that they were "attacking the rights of millions of people to listen to what I've got to say and listen to me being called to account by other politicians". That is, after all, the point of Question Time.
Furthermore, the protest and the subsequent fallout has brought various idiots out of the woodwork, as you can see in this BBC article here:
"Also in the crowd was Lia Deyal, 62, who works with immigrants and asylum seekers.
She was clear that a Question Time appearance gave Mr Griffin a new political status she was unhappy with.
"Question Time is a very legitimate programme and the BBC represents the British people," she said. "So by having him on it's making his voice legitimate and that's exactly what he wants."
I totally reject arguments about an appearance on Question Time "giving legitimacy" to the BNP, as peddled by Lia Deyal and the frankly absurd Peter Hain - if the British public really are that malleable and stupid, then we're all fucked anyway, so what's the point in fighting it? As Bonnie Greer said, the public have more common sense than to be so easily swayed, or so one would hope.
Obviously, there were good things to come out of tonight. Griffin was exposed as a slimy, manipulative, homophobic, paranoid bigot. He barely put an argument together in response to any question or allegation; some of those he did were logically undercut. He clarified some of the beliefs of the party, or attempted to, but was shown to be flip-flopping like a motherfucker, especially with regards to previous quotations. Some of the things he said were outright laughable, such as defending former KKK leader David Duke on the grounds that his chapter had been "non-violent". Bonnie Greer's presence helped enforce the point that you don't have to be in politics to recognise this guy as a fraud and a cunt.
One of the biggest problems of the night though was the audience. This was a West London audience, which is fair enough - London is the capital of the UK, and undoubtedly the most important city within it. Any argument against is simply deluding oneself. But the problem with a London audience is that they are, almost by definition, the sort of multicultural that Griffin is seeking to eradicate. They were never really going to give him a fair cop, because they feel threatened, and the two obviously sympathetic blokes in the audience were swiftly hushed by the overwhelmingly aggressive majority.
I appreciate that it's an issue people get emotional about - I was shaking with adrenaline and anger for much of the show. But we cannot allow emotional responses to rule what should be logical debate. Politics can benefit from passion, but it should never be based upon it. We should always seek to engage people on a primarily intellectual level - granted, there are a great many supporters of the BNP (who knows the precise number) with whom this is not the style to which they are accustomed, and some who are simply incapable of such engagement. Much like the portrayal of the rednecks in South Park, their politics are entirely reactionary, based on primitive and immediate responses to stimuli. Such people we probably have to discount - I can't imagine they are anywhere near numerous enough to be a significant section of the voting populace, or that the time it would take to reeducate them as to how to engage with the world around them would be politically justifiable, though it would almost certainly be worthwhile on a humanitarian level.
The upshot, and the downside, of letting emotion get the better of you is that the audience, and, indeed, some of the panellists, were basically attacking Nick Griffin. Which makes him the underdog. And boy, do we Brits love an underdog! Here are some of the top voted comments by readers about this topic on the BBC Have Your Say forums:
I'm afraid I can't hear you Mr Griffin, the BBC appear to have 'inadvertantly' allowed in a whole bus load of Guardian reading social workers to shout you down from the audience!
Martin, Leeds (approximately 650 recommendations at the time of writing)
______________
If I could get a word in above the howls of protest from idiots in the audience I would ask how he is going to tackle the out of control population problem in the UK, how to curb young idiots in too powerful cars endangering everyone else and how he'll deal with antisocial behaviour. In all cases I would expect a straighforward answer unlike the other main parties who seem happy to watch this country go down the drain happily aided by the PC brigade. The silent majority are fed up!
solomondogs (approximately 550 recommendations at the time of writing)
______________
Would you stop immigration immedietly,because as a normal member of society who is sick of seeing immigrants who have not paid one penny into our once great country,getting every benefit going,and seeing our pensioners struggle to survive.I say this as a proud Briton,who now fears for his childrens future because it is now clear that none of the 3 main parties just dont get it,what problems immigration is doing to to society.
Grumpysleepless, Newcastle (approximately 300 recommendations at the time of writing)
Now these are sad and disturbing, not least because it could lead me to believe, if I had a worse opinion of humanity, that the minority I identified above as basically being beyond help might not be so small. But years of frequenting the BBC forums has both inured me to the idiocy of man and taught me that a good many more people will complain about something than praise it, whatever actual support for something may be. These forums are very much the haunt of the right, so much so that I sometimes suspect the Daily Mail has a link to the BBC on its homepage.
Let me set out my stall right now - I do not read the Guardian or the Independent, they are often stiflingly and cloyingly left, and sometimes filled with an air of smug self-righteousness I cannot abide. Nor do I read the Daily Mail, hate-filled diatribe that it is - it's not fit to wipe my arse with. The Sun caters to such a low common denominator that the presence of any nuance of impartiality, journalistic integrity or skilled writing is like finding a diamond in your cereal - not fucking likely. In fact, I avoid almost all newspapers, and plump for the BBC website. Even if true impartiality is impossible in the relation of any news story, I'd rather read an account that tries to give the facts undiluted by opinion than what is essentially propaganda. If I have to read a paper, I take the Metro, because it's free, or the Times, because it's well written, and its politics do not far deviate from my own.
But to return to the point, these comments are seriously unsettling. Firstly, anyone who claims to represent the silent majority is either a) an idiot, b) being ironic, or c) to be watched very carefully. Coupled with the use of the phrase PC brigade, it would be all too easy to discount this opinion as the solitary rantings of option a). But just shy of 600 people agree with this. It is the second most popular comment about Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, as voted by readers of the BBC forums. So it is not an isolated opinion.
Nor is the most recommended comment, and it's clear, blinkered distaste for the left. Now I consider myself centre-right, or, more precisely, a classically liberal social meritocrat. I have a healthy scepticism for both sides of the fence, as well as the idea of the fence itself. But this comment clearly goes beyond scepticism - it pours scorn on social workers, for Christ's sake, people who dedicate their lives to helping others. And yet 650 people saw fit to agree with this comment. That's 5 times the number of friends the average Facebook user has. This comment leapfrogs scepticism and sublimes right into hatred and contempt, abandoning respect on the way. There are some views not worthy of respect. But to write off the entirety of one's opposition, as is implied here, simply by virtue of their not agreeing with you is sheer madness. It assumes and promotes a self-righteousness that again recalls fascism. It negates the possibilty of proper debate, through which one's own beliefs are tested, and either hold fast, become stronger or are shown to be flawed. Without respect by and for both sides, any chance of growth is lost.
The comment from Newcastle is just as disturbing. Identifying themself as a "normal member of society", whatever that means (presumably 'indigenous' white male), they then propagate the frankly bewildering myth that immigrants are coming here and somehow sliding right into the benefits system unnoticed, rather than doing the jobs most British people feel are beneath them, paying their taxes and contributing hugely to our section of the global economy. There is no evidence to suggest migration has led to an increase in benefit claims. Bottom line, we need immigration, controlled or not. To suggest otherwise is folly.
But for the comments, the worst is yet to come:
Having watched questiontime for many years i am still shocked and disguisted at the obvious prejudice from both panel & audience to Nick Griffin, BNP.
Having viewed this programme i only NOW realise my vote is best spent on the BNP as they have clear ideas on race as this is the only issue discussed and i agree with Nicks views on all points.
Thank you BBC for highlighting what good policies the BNP stand for & believe in!
The argument that the elect voted in frustration is unfounded
GRJ, DERBYSHIRE, UK (170)
______________
Having watched question just now, if ever I needed a reason to vote for Nick Griffin I just got it. I have never before witnessed such hatred directed at one panelist. I was shocked at the lack of control exerted by Dimblebly who seemed to gloat at trying to embaress Nick Griffin. I was hoping to hear contributions from Mr Griffin on a wide range of subjects, all I heard was hate directed at one individual for his non conformist views. Ill vote BNP now for sure.
A Connolly, Manchester (130)
Honestly, I was shocked on first seeing these two comments. But if you read through the reader's recommended pages of the BBC forums, a worrying trend begins to emerge. That love for the underdog I mentioned before is actual turning some people towards the BNP. You might argue that these are the people failing to engage intellectually with the subject matter, and you might be right. You might argue that such people are beyond help. Again, you might be right. You might say it's not a representative sample, that, as I admitted, the BBC forums have an unsettling historical bias to the right. Again, you could well be right. But this doesn't undermine my point - attacking Griffin from an emotional, rather than a logical standpoint is counterproductive. Passion should only complement politics, it should never drive it.
Ultimately, tonight was a missed opportunity. Much has been accomplished, but mistakes have also been made. Ammunition has been handed round to everyone, not least both the BNP and those who would deny them a platform. The BBC took a brave and bold move with this programme, and I believe it was the right one, for the right reasons. But if this is to be repeated, and I hope that it will, lessons will have to be learnt. We cannot allow emotion to rule either the panellists or the audience, or even the chairman, as Dimbleby was often visibly compromised by his feelings on the subjects at hand. The audience must be a more representative sample, and the venue more neutral - London, whilst apparently sensible, was, in some respects, a poor and partisan choice of location for a debate which arguably highlights England's age old North South divide. Dimbleby must also better control the audience, who ran riot a little, and clearly intimdated both the panellists and those among their own number who expressed any dissenting views (see the sharp looks round against the applause for Griffin). The Question Time format must hold strong - too many times tonight the focus swung to Griffin, either as a man under seige or as a slippery and dangerous demagogue. It is such focus, if anything, which will provide him with the much vaunted and sought-after legitimacy.
Some of these problems were foreseeable, some weren't. The BBC will know better next time. And, for the sake of freedom of speech, democracy, intellectual rigour and debate, and, most importantly, for the sake of all those million misguided souls who turned to Nick Griffin as their best option,let us hope that there IS a next time.
