That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
It’s a week now since the European elections, and we’ve had several days to mull over the results. Most consternation was caused, of course, by the election of two MEPs from the British National Party - which, nationally, received almost one million votes.
So how can we try to stop the party from achieving such success in the future?
Unite Against Fascism, for example, believe that the BNP should be prevented from gaining any kind of public platform. They protested at Nick Griffin’s press conference outside the Houses of Parliament, throwing eggs and forcing him to abandon the event. Whilst such anger is understandable, it was not a success. For a time, video stories entitled 'BNP leader pelted with eggs', 'Nick Griffin talks about eggs attack' and 'Protester explains BNP eggs attack' were the top three in the ‘Watched/Listened’ category on the BBC website, obviously failing to deny the BNP their much wanted publicity. A spokeswoman from Unite Against Fascism then spoke to the BBC, explaining "we don't believe in free speech for fascists".
The protestors’ actions and demands have clearly been anti-democratic, illiberal and, dare I say it, fascistic. No matter how well-intentioned their aims, any protest which causes journalists to defend Nick Griffin and make his party appear to be reasonable-minded victims of thuggish censorship must be judged a failure.
Indeed, the entire policy of ‘no platform’, by which BNP speakers are denied the opportunity to speak at public events - and have not been invited onto shows such as ‘Question Time’ - in an attempt to starve them of the oxygen of publicity has failed. Their electoral success has demonstrated this, and with so many votes behind the party, such policies cannot continue.
So where does that leave us?
With debate. With freedom for all sides to talk and lay down their arguments to critical analysis. Indeed, the newly appointed Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw recently said, "My own view is that usually when you give these people a platform, they condemn themselves through their own mouths."
So let's begin, shall we?
A quick glance at the BNP's constitution should put an end to any argument over whether the party is a racist organisation - perhaps it should be quoted to Nick Griffin next time he argues otherwise?
Sections 2a and 2b are as follows:
"[The BNP] believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples."
And
"The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."
The only way in which the BNP will see their vote share fall in future elections is if they are allowed to engage in open debate.
We can also look at the policies section of the website, and a cursory glance exposes a range of other contradictory and damaging proposals.
For example, the party argues for "the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets", clearly damaging us in terms of freedom of choice and undermining the gains of economic specialisation. At the same time as damaging British people, such protectionist policies also block the road to economic development for poor countries. Combined with a pledge to cut all development aid to such countries, the BNP’s policies, if implemented, would clearly condemn millions to poverty.
The party also calls for a move to quality over quantity in British agriculture, as well as a move towards self-sufficiency - clearly contradictory, as our population size obviously requires vast food imports. The result of these policies, combined with restrictions of imports, would also lead to increases in the price of foreign and domestic food on our shelves, making us all poorer.
These are but a small handful of the multitude of arguments which can be made against the BNP’s repulsive manifesto. The only way in which they will see their vote share fall in future elections is if they are allowed to engage in open debate. Their own articles and documents show them to be a racist party; their policies are those which would damage the prosperity of people both in Britain and abroad.
So let them speak, and watch their success falter.
Spot on. There are two basic kinds of action we must take against the BNP.
The first is, as you say, open debate. Those who restrict the party's opportunities to speak publicly seem to imply that the average voter isn’t trusted to make a good informed decision, or, worse, that there's a conspiracy against the BNP 'truth'; just as Griffin has said, the media and the whole political mainstream is arguing for free speech whilst depriving the 'voice of the people' of its free speech. Whilst the BNP manifesto is not, by any means, the voice of the vast majority of people, his point introduces an 'us and them' mentality in some of the electorate which will only go to polarise a proportion of potential voters more towards their barbaric views.
The second, which will also go some way to countering the mentality is for ordinary people to speak to and persuade others of the BNP's Nazism at a personal level. Many campaigners already engage directly (and politely, not by hurling abuse… or eggs) with the electorate during election season, and we ought to aspire to this at all times. The siege mentality of the BNP supporter will be best countered by one-to-one discussion as by public debate.
Whilst some scary individuals seem unflappable in their views, most BNP members aren't monsters, and I’m sure we’re right to have faith in their potential to be reasoned with. Openness and education are essential. Put stupidity on a pedestal and it will show itself; talk politely and reasonably to the enchanted and they’ll come back to reality. It’s never too soon to start fixing the situation. We ought to feel some regret for not having done enough before, seeing as how it’s left us in this mess.
Right on. But should they be allowed to speak on campus or not? Maybe only as part of a debate?
While I feel the shameful stirring in the pit of my stomach that any right-thinking human being does at seeing the BNP attain any degree of publicity or success, it fades fairly quickly. The BNP, despite their surprisingly strong following in Yorkshire, are a lunatic fringe, and share the fate of all other extremist groups. As Mr Wallace says, as soon as they truly enter the public domain of debate and reaction, they'll be subjected to the scrutiny of real, grown-up adult politicians and their rhetoric will crumble.
This is taking the assumption that all people actually care about rational and well-substantiated arguments, as opposed to their cleverly adopted 'common-sense' rhetoric.
@2: that is a very tricky issue: by saying that a certain political group should be allowed/not allowed to speak on campus are we not in essence trying to legislate AGAINST the liberty of conscience and public opinion?
The whole concept of democracy implies that if a sufficient number of people hold a given opinion they ought to be represented in their government... Of course this becomes a problem when these opinions are RACIST or EXTREMIST, in which case the idea of tolerance and freedom of thought breaks down to allow the intolerable.
Of course they should be allowed to speak on campus, provided they are prepared to be brought into question and enter into dialogue. This goes for all parties speaking on campus, but whereas the mainstream may well have something to defend themselves with, the BNP have nothing. It would only take one decent debater to bring their arguments (if what they have can even be classed as such) into disrepute. We just have to be prepared to act against them in a rational and measured way.
Who will be brave enough to invite them here? (I bravely say anonymously) Will groups like 'Unite Against Fascism' try to shut down debate on campus as well as speeches outside Westminster?
Pete, what purpose would it serve though? I am not saying that they wouldn't have the right to come here - but why would we ever want to invite them in the first place? As an exercise in free speech? Why else would we want to listen to a bunch of neo-fascist claptrap - just to be given the chance of exposing it for what we all know it really is?
I think they mean for a chance at publicly executing their vote via debate.
Do we *all* know what it really is? Perhaps there's no underground BNP presence at the university, but I have no idea, maybe there is. Do you know? If there's no sympathy for them here, an invitation would only be an exercise in free speech. Suppose, though, some people might consider voting for them; surely it would be more valuable to drive the bigots out of the woodwork than to allow them to continue developing their views underground.
Of course, it would be more constructive to debate with them on their home turf, as it were, where they have greater support and a greater difference could be made.
All people are saying about the BNP here is insults, calling them fascists and racists etc, calling their manifesto repulsive, how badly the election system has failed in allowing them to have any seats elected, and saying their arguments are easily demolished, yet I haven't heard a single argument with any substance against them.
I didn't vote for them, and to be honest I don't really know what they stand for, but unless people address their arguments (whatever they are), all these accusations are simply baseless and make it look like people just don't like them and want to do everything in their power (i.e. flinging shit at them) to prevent them having free speech. It all sounds rather childish and undemocratic.
Perhaps somebody could enlighten me in an unbiased way (without resorting to BNP bashing) exactly what the BNP actually stand for that is so controversial.
They say that anyone who isn't white should be deported from Britain; their policy is to "voluntarily repatriate" anyone who isn't white (where Polish counts as white) to their home, regardless of whether they were born in Britain or not. A lot of their support is from people who have lost jobs to Polish workers but they wouldn't offer any solution to that - they have no logic behind their policies except that "black and asian people don't belong in the UK because they can't be British".
They would remove all foreign aid, too.
Also they will increase the military defence budget, close all foreign bases in the UK and also remove all troops from other countries or peacekeeping missions. This seems contradictory to me - increase the budget and then not use the military?
But I think those are the main points behind the criticisms of most people - they want to spend money on the military, cut foreign aid and send all black and asian people to other countries. I'm not going to call them names but it's pretty clear the conclusion most people would make.
>> Perhaps there's no underground BNP presence at the university, but I have no idea, maybe there is.
There is at least one BNP supporter (or someone playing devil's advocate, but the views expressed were quiet strong) at York - one of the pro-BNP comments on the Nouse site was left from an IP belonging to York (I have no idea who though)
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report