| Author |
Message |
    
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 156
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 02:52 pm: | |
Myob, we will have to agree to disagree. ‘No Platform’ would starve the BNP of the respectability they crave. I don’t trust the mainstream media to adequately challenge the BNP and expose them for who they are.
I still don’t quite understand your point about Andrew Gilligan, though I won’t irritate you by requesting yet further clarification. Just to say for now that Gilligan has been proven to be correct and the BBC has been proven to be an utter disgrace. |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 206
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 09:03 am: | |
Freedom of speech - an ideal for some, only ever a relative phrase at its very best. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 478
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 08:49 am: | |
To my mind, the squashing of the BNP and giving them ‘no platform’ will aid them. The lack of any significant challenge in the mainstream media - which can often come from a platform, undermines them; keeping them down allows them to spread their lies without challenge.
Some examples: I have spoken to several people (prior to QT) who said things along the line of "they're not that bad are they?" and one who voted for them as her only knowledge about the BNP was what they said whilst canvassing, without mainstream media challenge. Thanks to discussions we have had and a raised media profile they now know what the BNP really stand for. I was also recently somewhat shocked to discover a friend is an ex-BNP voter. He started associating with them when convinced (by the BNP) that they were just “defending jobs” and fighting against the "oppression of the white working class". He left when he was assaulted by his 'new friends' for having a black girlfriend. This was the first overt racism he saw. He is very clear that had he seen Griffin on QT he would have never have gone near them.
If there are more racist attacks on our streets then we need to ensure that the Police charge those responsible. If Griffin and his lackeys are encouraging this behind closed doors then we can only hope that investigations uncover this and he is prosecuted. I’m surprised to hear that you want to live under a regime that oppresses its political opponents Revolter. I wonder if you know where to draw the line? As you say, Thatcher lead the most right wing regime this country has seen – who next? First they came for the BNP…? Universal Human rights are just that – not rights for the people you choose. Yes, we should ensure that the law is obeyed, but you sit on the top of a VERY slippery slope to my mind. You say I should "learn the lessons of history"; well I think that is precisely what we ALL need to do. We should struggle against the fascists, but not by using their own tactics. They should be opposed wherever they stand, and whenever they speak. They should be exposed for what they are, and not allowed to sneak into power due an ignorant and apathetic electorate. The answer is education and debate and actually voting, not sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" - because that is what 'no platform' is to me.
TB - The Chairman, Director General, and Gilligan all lost their jobs for taking an indefensible (although that may be down to a conspiracy) stance against the war, and one of the producers of Today left in protest. That isn’t very pro-war from my perspective. From those I know at the BBC, they are generally a bit left of centre but try to be impartial and honest.
Rant over, I must now just give up, because frankly I don't think we will reach consensus and we are just rehearsing the same tired arguments. I suggest we agree to differ! |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 155
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 - 10:52 am: | |
“Banning and discriminating against them will only strengthen and harden their support.”
I’m not saying ban the BNP! I’m supporting ‘No Platform’, which is a simple decision not to speak alongside the BNP. Indeed, the Labour Party subscribed to ‘No Platform’, though Jack Straw opportunistically decided to go his own way (and was disappointingly supported by Jon Cruddas MP). The policy of 'No Platform' doesn't stifle anyone's free speech. It simply urges people, out of simple solidarity with the BNP's victims, not to assist the fascists.
The BNP are deliberately trying to portray themseslves as a right-wing populist party, while distancing themselves from their formerly explicit antisemitism and Holocaust-denial and avoiding discussing their history of violence, terrorism, and criminality. They are pretending to be a respectable organisation for disgruntled 'patriots'. As fascists, they believe that truth is established through superior force not debate.
The BNP wants respectability today so that they can control the streets tomorrow. The point of them wishing to be included in debate is not that they want to express their point of view (as indicated, the last thing they want to do is say what they really think), but that they want to increase their chances of attracting new recruits, a minority of whom can be steeped in the party's hardcore ideology and thereafter become the basis of a fascist street gang. If you want to know what that looks and feels like, try asking the Roma in Italy.
Seriously, by championing the BNP’s right to speak in front of millions of people, YOU are, albeit indirectly, strengthening and hardening their support. Allowing the BNP such a public platform simply emboldens their thugs on the streets, and while we are chatting away in cyberspace people are getting their heads kicked in. |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 - 10:07 am: | |
Sorry Spike, but I completely disagree with you. If you allow fascists to prosper they will destroy the system you seek to protect. I don't place store in faith, I believe in taking action against fascists because I know what they are about. As has been said countless times on this thread already, if you give primacy of place to freedom of speech without even being critical of it as a concept - i.e. if fascists are given a platform - then you run risk of losing the very freedom you advocate, at the hands of fascism. We cannot afford to advocate freedom of speech in such an idealist, doctrinaire way - cos that helps fascists prosper. By the way, the "Great British public" voted for Thatcher and the most right-wing regime this country has seen - so what? |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 07:05 pm: | |
TB, Revolter, if the fascists were to come to power you are no doubt correct. However there is a long way between that and where we are now. Banning and discriminating against them will only strengthen and harden their support. I have faith in the Great British public to defeat them at the ballot box when it counts - unless you make them the under-dog and stifle debate.
When we lose the democratic freedoms, the free speech, freedom of movement, then those groups be they terrorists, fascists, hard line new labour (closet communists)are winning and we are losing.
Hang all the extremists, that what I say ;) |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 154
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 02:36 pm: | |
"If you simply opress people you deem might be opressive in the future then you are guilty of the kind of behaviour we should be standing against."
As Revolter said, there is no doubt that fascists will be oppressive in the future. The BNP is a violent neo-Nazi organisation that is committed to a regime far more savage, hierarchical and authoritarian than the present one. As has been mentioned, no other party in British politics has the history of violence and criminality that the BNP does - and it goes from the base through the middling layers right to the leadership. This propensity for violence has been established and exposed countless times. So we should be in absolutely no doubt as to how oppressive the BNP would be if it was in power.
I still don't get the point about Andrew Gilligan. I know that he uncovered the Government's Iraqi WMD lies, but I don't know what you mean by saying 'try telling Andrew Gilligan that the BBC were pro-war!' Andrew Gilligan surely wouldn't need telling. |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 204
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 08:57 am: | |
Myob - learn the lessons of history. There is no doubt that fascts WILL be oppressive in the future. The word "deem" doesn't come into it. If fascists are oppressed - great! - then the ideal of democracy you seem to cherish will prosper. Remember, "the fash" have got a choice - they don't have to be fascists. We cannot afford to play democracy-games with fascists. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 476
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 05:02 pm: | |
Revolter - if they get elected, then you have to make a choice about your own actions. If you simply opress people you deem might be opressive in the future then you are guilty of the kind of behaviour we should be standing against. You're right - there are plenty of "democracies" that lock-up political opponents and they are disgraceful. Do you want to be a part of that?
TB - the point about Andrew Gilligan is that he was one of several BBC journalists who worked hard to uncover the Government's lies regarding the War in Iraq. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 152
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 03:38 pm: | |
"I suspect 73% of the UK population have no thoughts on the matter."
No thoughts on Afghanistan or no thoughts on whether statistics reflect their view(s)? |
Rob Palmer
Moderator
Username: Rob_palmer
Post Number: 502
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 11:50 am: | |
That'll be a statistic and most people don't believe them if they don't represent their view and those of the people around them - I suspeoct 73% of the UK population have no thoughts on the matter.
I don't think, therefore I'm not.
|
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 151
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, November 16, 2009 - 12:00 pm: | |
I am used to the reality that mainstream tv news is not "impartial". I find it extremely annoying to hear that the BBC thinks it is impartial and I find it baffling to hear people support this view.
I can't see how the BBC would lose viewers if it allowed a wider range of views on the war. 73% of British people want the troops out of Afghanistan - surely more people would turn to the BBC if they felt that there views were being represented? |
Rob Palmer
Moderator
Username: Rob_palmer
Post Number: 500
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 16, 2009 - 09:52 am: | |
I think we need to get used to the idea that mainstream tv news is entertainment not balanced journalism. If teh BBC geet into slagging of the war, they would probably lose viewers and go down in the ratings which would be failing in their raison d'etre.
I have never known the BBC to be overtly anti-government in a time of war. Its that cross party consensus on 'supporting our troops'. THe BBC has no stomach for those kinds of fights so we need to look elsewhere if we want to see what's what in foreign parts.
I don't think, therefore I'm not.
|
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 150
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 05:23 pm: | |
'I think the BBC - by very dint of its editorial actions and policy - acts to censor what we see and don't see, every day of the week.'
'I listened to the Today programme today which again covered the war in Afghanistan from one side only, the pro war consensus. A pro war US apologist Prof Philip Bobbit had the nerve to say the US are there to "protect civilians" and to "protect Pakistan". Suppose "the most radical elements in Pakistan took over". he said in alarming tones. There were four items on the war this morning every one, although looking at it in different contexts, failed to express any anti-war opinion. It appears the BBC has been ordered to promote the war at a high level because of growing public opposition.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8360000/8360125.stm |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 202
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 05:31 pm: | |
So, what happens if they get elected, Myob? What price freedom of speech [sic] then? I wouldn't call a society that gives no platform to fascists an oppressive regime - I call it one that actually cares enough to have the political steel to make a decision to respect racial equality.
By the way, there are plenty of democracies that lock-up political opponents. The British have been doing it to the Irish for centuries, as well other peoples in their disgraceful empire. What price democracy?
It appears that there are problems with the legality of the BNP (I understand they have not as yet changed their racist membership criteria) - so their legality seems like a bit of a label to me (it's a label in any case, but hey ho). |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 149
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 04:58 pm: | |
Myob, I don’t understand your point about the BBC and Andrew Gilligan. Please could you elaborate?
“Ban them, lock them up, and deny them freedom of speech because you don't like what they say. Hmmm, oppressive regime anyone?”
Once again ‘No Platform’ is being confused with a ban on freedom of speech. The BBC's rationale for inviting the BNP onto Question Time is that it must be non-biased, must fairly represent all points of view etc. We shouldn't believe them when they tell us they only want to be fair and even-handed. There is no obligation on anyone to give a platform to a fascist, or to share one with him. The corporation has already given the BNP coverage way beyond any arguable obligations, and it started doing so long before the BNP had demonstrated 'national support'. There is absolutely no obligation on them to host Griffin on Question Time. This is not about the law, representative coverage, free speech or anything of that kind (although if the BBC wants to cite those points, I think we are more than able to make the case that the BNP is lawless, opposed to free speech and doesn't believe in representation for any group its Nazi ideology oblocutes.)
Myob, you say that there were four other panellists with opposing views. Gary Younge wrote in The Guardian a few weeks ago:
‘Three years ago this month Jack Straw argued his case for urging Muslim women who attend his MP's surgery to remove their niqab. He said that he wanted to start a debate. In this, at least, he was successful...
...And so Muslim women passed, in the public imagination, from being actually among the group most likely to be racially attacked to ostensibly being a primary cause of social strife – roaming the land in search of white teenagers to physically harass...
...The issue of whether the BNP should be given this kind of airtime has been debated extensively elsewhere in these pages. But there is little doubt that once the BNP is on Question Time, Jack Straw – or indeed anyone in the New Labour hierarchy – is in no position to take the fight to it. The same is true for most of the rest of the British political establishment that will be represented on the panel – they have either actively colluded or passively acquiesced in the political trajectory of the past decade...
...There has always been more to the BNP than racism and always been more to racism than the BNP, which is merely the most vile electoral expression of our degraded racial discourse and political sclerosis. Under such circumstances setting Straw – and the rest of the political class – against Griffin is simply putting the cause against the symptom without any suggestion of an antidote...
...The BNP's victories are a product of our politics. Its defeat, when it comes, will necessarily be a product of a change in our politics. But since New Labour's politics enabled the BNP, it is in no position to disable it. The BNP is a bottom feeder. But the system is rotting from the head down.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/jack-straw-bnp-griffin-hain
Thanks for the clarification regarding Rob’s comment about the complaints about the BNP being on Newsbeat. You are right that a quick google search will show that people claim the BBC to be variously anti-Semitic, pro-Israel, right-wing, left-wing, pro-labour, anti-American, and pro-American. I think it can quite easily be demonstrated that the BBC is inherently biased toward power, and instinctively hostile to grassroots democratic movements, protests, strikers, environmentalists, anticapitalists, antifascists, etc.
After some searching I couldn’t find the Stirling University media study, though I did find this:
‘Did the US and UK governments lie about weapons of mass destruction to promote an attack on Iraq? Did the media hold them to account or act as cheerleaders for war? ‘Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq’ reveals the systematic propaganda used by both the US and UK governments to convince us of the 'threat' from Iraq. It shows how we were deliberately misled into a war that has resulted in a humanitarian disaster in Iraq and threatens to create further instability and resentment of the US and UK throughout the Middle East. Written by some of the world's leading journalists and commentators, it's a scathing indictment of the role of the mainstream media in legitimising government actions and undermining dissent. Critics, activists and journalists from both sides of the Atlantic explore alternatives such as the internet and Al Jazeera and provide analysis and guidance on resisting the media war.’
David Miller from Stirling Media Research Institute is author of ‘Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq’ .
http://www.amazon.ca/Tell-Me-Lies-Propaganda-Distortion/dp/0745322018
Further to what Revolter said, I think the vote is over-rated. Jack Straw does not speak for a majority of people. Indeed, he is a war criminal and he makes me ashamed to be a citizen of this country. Democracy is something we can and should take part in and that involvement extends well beyond putting a cross in a box. The Jack Straws of the world would rather we shut up and let them get on with it. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 473
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 02:41 pm: | |
The BBC were not "labelling the BNP as a legal party" - that is what they are. This is blaming them for reality.
I quite agree that impartiality is subjective - try telling Andrew Gilligan that the BBC were pro-war!
Democratically speaking, you have a choice.
i)Fight against fascism by being politically active and using valid activity to ensure the likes of the BNP are not elected.
ii) Ban them, lock them up, and deny them freedom of speech because you don't like what they say. Hmmm, oppressive regime anyone?
If these people win seats it is not because of the BBC, it is because of an ignorant, apathetic, or racist electorate. |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 201
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 11:12 am: | |
I would argue that, as The Boy observes of the mythological status of the BBC's position, impartiality is non-existent. It is nothing more than an idealist goal and it is impossible to achieve. One person's doctrinaire impartiality is another person's ideological obfuscation. I think, Myob, that the relativism you highlight in you're own argument demonstrates that. The BBC made a decision about Griffin's appearance and tried to give it credence by labelling the BNP as a legal party, and in doing so neatly side-stepped getting into a debate abour fascism.
I was interested in the arguments being put forward by the panellists, not whether or not they had been elected. So Jack Straw is elected once every five years - is that "democracy"? big deal - I think his arguments and performance on QT were woefully weak. I'd rather have seen a victim of the disgusting fascism and racism of the BNP be on the panel.
The big WHAT IF? remains then, doesn't it - what if the fascists get elected as a result of being given a platform? What do we do then? Say "that's democracy folks"? Phooeey. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 472
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 10:44 am: | |
"why wasn't someone from UAF invited to speak on Question Time?" Perhaps the fact that they stated that "no platform" should be given to the BNP might have influenced this. If invited they surely would not have attended in any event (unless you are suggesting the no platform should extend to everyone BUT UAF?!) Just wondering, but are we certain they were not invited?
The fact is that there were 4 other panellists with opposing views who were invited on - 3 of whom were elected representatives.
TB - I think you will find Rob is referring to my point about the complaints, made by people who didn't even listen to Newsbeat, and the fact that we as a union encouraged this.
Impartiality is always going to be a thorny issue, and one much linked to your own perspective. The fact that large numbers people complained about Griffin's treatment has been cited by many as evidence of anti-BNP manipulation by the BBC. A quick google search will demonstrate people claiming the BBC to be variously anti-Semitic, pro-Israel, right-wing, left-wing, pro-labour, anti-American, pro-American, the list goes on and on and covers pretty much every option. Personally, I think that, like democracy, it may not be perfect but it is nonetheless an excellent service. I am very surprised at the Stirling University study you refer to, and would be interested to read it - can you supply a link please. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 148
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 04:39 pm: | |
“I have no problem with campaigners who seek the support of colleagues/peers but those colleagues/peers who respond without arming themselves with the information required to make their own decisions and take their own perspectives on an issue are leaving themselves wide open to manipulation.”
Rob, please could you expand on this? Thanks.
Revolter is if course correct that the BBC acts to censor what we see and don't see every day of the week – how could it be otherwise? BBC impartiality is a myth because simply by selecting items for a news report or selecting guests for a panel show it is making a judgement on what or who is worthy of attention. Indeed, why wasn't someone from UAF invited to speak on Question Time? I don’t think the response that UAF has not won a million votes in an election is adequate. 1-2 million people marched against the Iraq war before it even began, yet the BBC repeatedly sought views from pro-war sources (according to a Stirling University study, 98% of their sources re. Iraq were pro-war – more than ITV and Sky News).
As Revolter said, if you give platforms to fascists then you have to be prepared for the possible eventuality of being subject to fascism. Jonathan Ledger made a similar point in the latest Napo News. The late Paul Foot pointed out in his defence of No Platform: “The strategy of the fascists then and now is to use the freedoms won by fighters for democracy to gain respectability and electoral support so as more relentlessly to pursue their single purpose: to smash democracy and freedom to pieces.” |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 200
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 02:32 pm: | |
I think the BBC - by very dint of its editorial actions and policy - acts to censor what we see and don't see, every day of the week. There are plenty of legal parties - some on the left - who attract a fair few votes and yet never get this kind of exposure (nay, opportunity). So, in this context, the whole act of inviting the BNP onto Question Time is fraught with questions about the BBC's subjectivity. Why, for instance, wasn't someone invited from the Anti-Nazi League? Ditto Newsbeat, albeit the target audience is somewhat different. The BBC had to make the call about whether or not to give significant air time to a fascist party, and it said yes. If you give platforms to fascists then you have to be prepared for the possible eventuality of being subject to fascism. That is the real danger of liberal idealism and giving self-defeating primacy of place to freedom of speech to fascists. |
Rob Palmer
Moderator
Username: Rob_palmer
Post Number: 499
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 11:16 am: | |
Your original point is a good one, Myob. I was reading something recently about the critical backlash against Tolkien's fantasies from the literartii. One Tolkien advocate reports going through a particularly hostile drubbing on a radio programme after which his greatest adversary admitted to having never read any of JRRT's books.
I have no problem with campaigners who seek the support of colleagues/peers but those colleagues/peers who respond without arming themselves with the information required to make their own decisions and take their own perspectives on an issue are leaving themselves wide open to manipulation.
Its two wrongs not making a right. Isn't it?
I don't think, therefore I'm not.
|
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 471
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 09:25 am: | |
Debate with the BNP is not pointless if it serves to expose them for what they are. Some of the challenges made on QT did that in my opinion. Griffin's inability to respond in a coherent manner undermined them as a party and has caused internal rifts over his performance.
We need to fight the BNP at every level, but you simply cannot do that by demanding the BBC refuse to give a legal party with elected representatives the same air time as other parties. This would be censorship. If you want no platform, then complain to the panellists who also appeared on QT, but I think an hour of him with no other guests would have been pretty disastrous.
Justa - yes, personally I think a very signficant part of the tory party are still racist.
Returning the the original point of this thread - did anyone else share my concerns about the complaints surrounding newsbeat, or was that just me? |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 199
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 09:20 am: | |
I think The Boy hits the nail on the head. It is precisely the populist tactic that the BNP have adopted that makes them more appealing to the more low-brow, less analytical but worryingly mass access media such as Newsbeat. Indeed, one has to ask just who are Radio One employing as journalists and editors if this kind of racist crap can be taken seriously enough to broadcast. There has to come a point at which the well-meaning (potentially, anyway) people who control the media have to make a choice between promoting the freedom of speech or promoting parties such as the BNP who would willingly engineer its downfall.
Spike, I don't think that The Boy is advocating that the views or rights of the million BNP voters should be ignored. We should always take very seriously the fact that such a large amount of people are voting for a fascist party - and fight back. The fight back is down to every one of us. |
justa TPO
Member
Username: Justa_tpo
Post Number: 409
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 07:18 pm: | |
Remember Peter Griffiths quote "If you want a Ni**** for a neighbour, vote Labour".
Then we have to look at Enoch Powell!
Both of these people were Conservatives. So either we accept that values/ideals can change...or the Conservatives are still racist.
Just my tuppence worth. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 147
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:43 pm: | |
I am not ignoring the votes of a million people, nor is UAF, nor are members of Napo who support 'No Platform' - in fact, exactly the opposite.
"You seem to share the govts contempt of the "ordinary" people by denying them a platform to debate the issues THEY have voted on"
The BNP's occult strategy has enabled them to represent themselves as simply another right-wing populist party. It enables them to distance themselves from their formerly explicit antisemitism and Holocaust-denial, to avoid discussing their history of violence, terrorism, and criminality, and to pretend to be a respectable organisation for disgruntled 'patriots'. Dissembling is structural to what they do and who they are. As fascists, they are inherently hostile to rationalism and Enlightenment. They believe that truth is established through superior force. Consider how Nick Griffin once put it to the party faithful. He argued that the BNP's voters supported "what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate." Debate with the BNP is therefore pointless. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 07:42 am: | |
"The rise of the BNP is a symptom of the government's 'tough talk' on immigration and its contempt for ordinary people, as manifested in its policies." yes I agree, as advertised in, and in reaction to, the press!
"‘No Platform’ denied the NF legitimacy." however a million votes does infer some 'legitimacy' whether we like it of not, and this has to be confronted not ignored - ignoring the votes of a million people, will add another million who WILL have their voices heard on over-stayers etc, either on the platform and if not, at the ballot box. You seem to share the govts contempt of the "ordinary" people by denying them a platform to debate the issues THEY have voted on (or were you just referring to ordinary people who vote the way we think they should?). |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 146
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, November 09, 2009 - 01:41 pm: | |
That the BNP won a million votes despite receiving minimal coverage is indeed very worrying - so surely the level of coverage they have been receiving since they won two seats will only serve to legitimise them even further?
The BNP's platform is not 'the right wing press' - witness the Sun's front page 'A good egg hits a bad egg' (Nick Griffin getting pelted with an egg in front of the House of Commons). The rise of the BNP is a symptom of the government's 'tough talk' on immigration and its contempt for ordinary people, as manifested in its policies.
‘No platform’ is a decision not to speak alongside the BNP, whether the platform is Question Time, Oxford University Debating Society or whatever. The BNP will not be exposed through debate because they will lie and deliberately conceal what they are really about: a racist and fascist party that would ban free speech if it came to power.
“In the late 70s early 80s it was direct action from the anti-nazi league, red wedge and the like that quelled the national front, numbers and fists defeated them, not "no platform"”.
‘No Platform’ denied the NF legitimacy. I am not saying that ‘No Platform’ is the single strategy that will prevent the far-right from making electoral gains and attacking minorities. An effective campaign against the BNP involves meeting them on the streets and working to deny them publicity. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 08:42 pm: | |
I agree with your sentiment TB but think you are wrong in your approach, how can you say "no platform" has been successful, while they gathered a million voters? it flies in the face of logic.They have a platform, its the right wing press, the tough talking politicians making scapegoats and its the street, which if not challenged, they own.
In the scenario where they're not banned and they are invited on QT, what are you saying will happen? they go on with Dimbleby and no other panelists??? no-one to challenge them,the show to themselves it makes no sense. Or are you saying that despite getting a million votes they don't get asked on there - well that's a ban isn't it?? please unconfuse me TB.
In the late 70s early 80s it was direct action from the anti-nazi league, red wedge and the like that quelled the national front, numbers and fists defeated them, not "no platform". their meetings were smashed and their heads busted and they decided that if they weren't the roughest toughest bunch on the block then there was no point. No platform allows them to gather up middle englanders and attend meetings, quietly gathering steam. well f**k that, shine the light on them and people will see the evil and fight it.
Sorry for the rant, clearly I have no idea of the way to cure the wrongs of the world, but I really don't think ostrich behaviour is it |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 145
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 04:53 pm: | |
It is indeed worrying that the BNP received so many votes in the European elections last June, though the overall number of votes for the BNP was actually down on the amount it received in 2004.
'No Platform' worked quite well in sidelining the BNP in mainstream conversation. It wasn't that long ago that the National Front and its affiliates were fearlessly marching through various streets in Britain and expressing support for the National Front was something to be proud of. 'No Platform' changed that by actively trying to paint the BNP et al as extremist movements that right-thinking people should shun. It had a huge impact.
In trying to repel the advance of the BNP, anti-fascists make the most moderate request possible: they ask people not to help the fascists, not to assist their cause, nor to give them legitimacy. This is very little to ask yet, amazingly, it is being painted as an oppressive strike against 'free speech', as 'undemocratic'.
That the BNP won so many votes in 2004 and 2009 is surely evidence of the failure of the current political regime, not the failure of 'No Platform'. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 469
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 - 10:47 am: | |
TB - yes, you have said several times that you wish to deny the BNP the respectability the crave. You have not, however, answered the question as to how "no platform" can be seen as successful when it results in 1 million votes and election victories for them! |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 144
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 - 03:20 pm: | |
"which part of "no platform" do you see as being effective?"
The part that says that not giving the BNP a platform alongside mainstream politicians denies then the respectability the crave. Seriously, I have said this several times.
"My point about Al-Mujaharoun is that you have said the BNP would be banned if it were not for double standards, and I do not think this is true"
That's fine. The BNP is constantly breaking the law, and it doesn't result in their being banned. Their leadership, their middle operators and their base members are riddled with people who have convictions for racist hatred, violence, arson, terror plots, etc. It's been said, and I will repeat it: if a tenth of the criminality of the BNP could be ascribed to a Muslim organisation, it would already be banned. This country practises de facto affirmative action for white supremacists. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 467
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 04:48 pm: | |
Quite agree Spike.
TB - which part of "no platform" do you see as being effective? The fact that 1 million voted for them or the fact that they were elected? As you know, this all happened without the media covereage of QT and the like, essentially under a no platform scenario.
As I stated on another thread, the polls are essentially meaningless without comparison, and just because people complained, does not mean to say people see them as legitimate. It probably means the BNP mobilised to complain.
My point about Al-Mujaharoun is that you have said the BNP would be banned if it were not for double standards, and I do not think this is true as the party line they held was one that constituted an offence. If the BNP produced BNP leaflets calling for violence, THEN they would no doubt be banned. Simply put "everyone knows that..." doesn't tend to hold up in a Court. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 04:57 am: | |
perhaps the BBC is alerting the mainstream to a real and present danger, and all those who may be seduced by the newspeak that they now employ such as indigenous instead of white, and stop the empathy and protest voting that allowed them to get nearly a million? votes in the european elections |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 143
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 02:25 pm: | |
“firstly you have said that the BNP "would have been banned" if it were not for double standards. This was the basis of the point about Al-Muhajiroun who as a party committed the offences that led to the ban.”
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here.
"You have to be able to differentiate between the actions of an individual that belongs to a group and the officially sanctioned actions of the membership of the same."
Nick Griffin has explicitly told BNP members that "well-directed boots and fists" need to be used because "when the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate." Former members like Andy Sykes have disclosed the fact that the party expects its members to get involved in violent acts. Nick Griffin has a well-known conviction for incitement to racial hatred, from 1998 when he published a magazine, The Rune, that effectively called for the lynching of opponents of "white unity". The BNP is not just circumstantially violent and criminal - it is violent and criminal from its leadership right down to its grassroots. Therefore, I don’t understand your point about "officially sanctioned actions".
"I think "no platform" is just sticking your head in the sand."
You’re entitled to your opinion. I think this is worth reading:
‘What appears to be happening is the BNP have gained some sympathy and may well garner more support through this appearance. Certainly they will put themselves and their views forward as more legitimate, more mainstream and their views as normal. And whilst this rather dry academic debate continues we can expect even a tiny bit of exposure will lead to more victims of violent racist assault!
Far from being exposed as an ill-informed racist bigot who leads the thugs of a fascist party, Griffin’s appearance appears to have increased the perceived legitimacy of the BNP. The BBC received more complaints that the programme was biased against the BNP leader, than from those who were angry that Griffin had been allowed on. A YouGov poll taken after Question Time, revealed that 2% of voters said they would "seriously consider" voting for the BNP.
On Friday anything that Griffin said on walk-abouts, where he was followed by herds of television cameras and photographers, was broadcast. His Question Time performance had turned a man once denied the ‘oxygen of publicity’ into a media "Suddenly the racist shit that is usually confined to rooms full of fascist thugs or the British equivalent of ‘Bierkellers’ stuffed with wannabe Nazis, is being broadcast as though it's mainstream politics. What the **** were the BBC thinking?"'
http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/news/politics/fanning-the-bnp-flames-1.928282
"You can't just pretend these people don't exist."
I am not pretending that the BNP does not exist - surely that is obvious. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 466
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Monday, November 02, 2009 - 01:07 pm: | |
Two things TB - firstly you have said that the BNP "would have been banned" if it were not for double standards. This was the basis of the point about Al-Muhajiroun who as a party committed the offences that led to the ban. You have to be able to differentiate between the actions of an individual that belongs to a group and the officially sanctioned actions of the membership of the same.
Secondly, as I have said, the gains for the BNP that made them an elected party happened before QT. If they had not been allowed on, I would guess the gains would have been huge on the "we are being censored and excluded" grounds. I think "no platform" is just sticking your head in the sand. If you think the debate was useless, then you can use democracy to replace the people who failed to debate effectively (OK apart from Bonnie Greer). You can't just pretend these people don't exist. They do, and they are gaining in support because of ignorance, and THAT is what needs to be addressed. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 141
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, October 31, 2009 - 01:58 pm: | |
"so we "no platform" them from QT, how's that different from a ban?"
It seems like I would be insulting your intelligence by explaining the difference, but then you did ask the question...
A ban is a total dismantling of the BNP. It is declaring its electoral gains as null and void. It is arresting people for having meetings under the auspices of 'the BNP'.
No platform is a simple decision not to share a stage with the BNP.
Really, is it that difficult to understand the difference? |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 08:36 pm: | |
Members of parties who have committed offences is well covered on some BNP websites - have a look, they have some impressive? lists of tory and lib lab offenders. Some novel merchandising also. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 08:21 pm: | |
so we "no platform" them from QT, how's that different from a ban? not commenting, just asking |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 140
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 05:33 pm: | |
"WE all know the basis of the BNP"
The BNP are structurally, ideologically committed to dissembling in such a way as to make 'open debate' with them impossible. They do nothing but lie about their positions (Griffin actually did this repeatedly on QT and wasn't challenged that effectively), and play on received opinion. To 'debate' them, therefore, is to pretend that they are themselves worthy subjects of debate, as if they are interested in coming to conclusions through argument. They aren't. They are interested in putting your neck under a jackboot.
"there is no case for a ban"
Please read my previous comments. I have repeatedly said that the BNP should be given no platform, not a ban. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 462
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 26, 2009 - 12:34 pm: | |
Unless the BNP says that, then yes. The official "BNP" line is not in accordance with the actions of a member. You indicate that the BNP deny he was even a member, and none of the offences are since their recent success (part of the reason I suspect as they pretend to be reasonable now). WE all know the basis of the BNP, but if that is not what they officially stand for, if they as a party remain within the law, then there is no case for a ban. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 139
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 05:26 pm: | |
"The problem is that these offences took place outside the auspices of the BNP as a party."
What?!?
So when John Laidlaw threatened to "kill all black people" that was 'outside the auspices of the BNP'? It is surely clear that the offences committed by BNP members are directly linked to their beliefs, which are central to the existence of the BNP. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 458
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 23, 2009 - 10:09 am: | |
I'm well aware of the offending history of the the racist bigots who so often constititute the membership of the BNP. The problem is that these offences took place outside the auspices of the BNP as a party. Al-Muhajiroun committed offences as a party - the BNP do it as individuals. This is just another reason that their behaviour and views need to be put to public scrutiny. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 138
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 04:49 pm: | |
“Correct me if I am wrong – but Al-Muhajiroun was banned under the Terrorism act for glorification of terrorism following their praise of the September 11th attacks? They also distributed leaflets at university campuses calling on Muslims to kill all Jews. This is far more explicitly based in criminality than any BNP stances I have seen. The BNP may be filled with hate inciting racists, but they have learned to stop doing things like this as a party.”
OK, here goes…
When the BNP set up shop in Welling, the level of racist violence shot up three-fold. The election of a single councillor in Barking in 2004 was followed by an immediate 18% rise in racist violence. Former members like Andy Sykes have disclosed the fact that the party expects its members to get involved in violent acts (he was the one who helped make the documentary, The Secret Agent, in which BNP members confessed to violent assaults on Asians). When you look at the convictions lists, you see what forms this violence takes. Here's a relatively short list of examples, grouped very roughly by the category of the crime committed:
Terrorism/attempted murder/arson: John Laidlaw, whom says he was a BNP member (the BNP deny this), threatened to "kill all black people" before going on a shooting spree at Finsbury Park tube station. He shot two people, missed a third target, and hit a white woman - apparently by accident. Tony Lecomber, group development officer for the BNP, has convictions for handling explosives and for an assault on a Jewish teacher. This was when he was the party's Propaganda Director, back in its pre-'modernising' era. Robert Cottage, a BNP member and one-time candidate for that joyous bunch, was of course a co-conspirator in a massive terror plot that was barely even covered in the media, involving the largest haul of chemical weapons to date. Former BNP member David Copeland was, of course, the infamous nail bomber who killed three people and injured 139 with a series of bombings around London. Ex-BNP activist Mark Bulman tried to firebomb his local mosque, and daubed swastikas on local businesses he thought were 'ethnic'. Stephen Bailey, a Lincoln BNP member, is a convicted arsonist. BNP member Terry Collins is probably only recently out of jail after conducting a reign of racist terror and arson against his neighbours. His confederate, fellow BNP member Allen Boyce, will have got out a bit earlier, because his only crime was to teach Collins bomb-making instructions. The former leader of the BNP, the deceased John Tyndall, had numerous convictions including one for organising paramilitaries.
Assault: BNP councillor David Enderby has been convicted of assault, while his agent Kevin Hughes was convicted of racially aggravated assault. BNP councillor Brian Turner has been convicted of racially aggravated public order offenses (as well as beating his wife - they believe in patriarchy, the Nazis). BNP member Anthony Weeks has convictions for racially aggravated assault. Martin Glasgow, a BNP fundholder in Chesterfield, has served 12 months for a racist assault. Former BNP election agent Kevin Hughes has served jail time for assaulting an Iraqi asylum seeker. Kevin Scott, a regional organiser for the north-east, has been convicted of assault. Graham Tasker, a BNP branch organiser, has convictions for assault on a black woman and another on a solicitor. Steve Belshaw, East Midlands organiser for the BNP, has a conviction for assault. Former Oldham BNP organiser Mick Treacy, who got 11.21% of the vote as a candidate in the 2001 elections, has several convictions for theft and violence.
Rape: Roderick Rowley, one-time BNP candidate in Coventry, is a convicted child rapist; Ian Hindle and Andrew Wells, BNP members, have been convicted of molesting children and keeping explicit images of the rapes taking place. BNP member Robert Bennett, who was responsible for their leafletting campaign in Oldham in 2002, has convictions for assault and gang rape.
Threats/harassment/incitement: Nick Griffin, supremo, fuhrer, duce, lord of the goosestep, has a well-known conviction for incitement to racial hatred, from 1998 when he published a magazine, The Rune, that effectively called for the lynching of opponents of "white unity'" . BNP councillor Brian Wainwright was found to have been sending letters to a local mosque, to a Muslim councillor, and to a local antifascist activists, threatening that "Muslim blood will be spilled" (he endearingly included an SS logo, just so that it would be understood what his position on the whole Nazi genocide thing was). One-time BNP council candidate Dominic Bugler has been convicted for possessing an imitation firearm. Joe Owens, Nick Griffin's former minder and former Merseyside organiser of the BNP, was also a gangland hitman, according to Searchlight, suspected of several murders by police. He has also spent time in jail for sending razor blades in the post to Jewish people and carrying CS gas. When he split with Nick Griffin a few years ago, he publicised claims that Tony Lecomber had tried to recruit him to an assassination scheme. Colin Smith, a regional officer for the BNP, has multiple convictions including for theft, assault, burglary and possession of an offensive weapon. Paul Ballard, a branch organiser in Croydon, has been convicted of incitement to racial hatred. BNP chief steward and branch organiser for Edinburgh, Warren Bennett, has convictions for public order offenses and connections with the neo-Nazi terror organisation, Combat-18. Former BNP candidate Darren Dobson, was convicted of racially aggravated harassment, and he also had connections to C-18. Jim Dowson, the BNP's fund-raiser in Scotland, has a long list of convictions including for breach of peace, and possession of a weapon, and has links to loyalist terrorists like Michael Stone.
“the argument for banning the BNP is surely a separate issue to the campaign to deny them platform”
Yes, I totally agree.
“I simply don’t agree that the BBC is not pretty much impartial.”
Fine. But there’s a mountain of evidence to show that the BBC is not impartial. For example, their output on the Iraq war was/has been appallingly biased. If I remember correctly, the University of Stirling found that 98% of the sources used by the BBC (i.e. people interviewed) were pro-war. That’s just one, admittedly hugely important, example. |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 193
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 01:51 pm: | |
Myob. I get what you mean, but I don't consider the parties of Stalin or Mao to have been "communist" (although I certainly would have opposed such forms of totalitarianism). Far from it.
I suppose a question worth asking is what if a/the majority voted the BNP into power? Would we have to accept this because, well, it's democracy? Would Griffin then use the Royal Navy to sink ships full of "immigrants" coming from Africa (as he has advocated in the European Parliament)? It all seems like playing with fire to me. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 457
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 01:15 pm: | |
The Boy – you say that “Other less dangerous parties such as al-Muhajiroun have been banned for less” Correct me if I am wrong – but Al-Muhajiroun was banned under the Terrorism act for glorification of terrorism following their praise of the September 11th attacks? They also distributed leaflets at university campuses calling on Muslims to kill all Jews. This is far more explicitly based in criminality than any BNP stances I have seen. The BNP may be filled with hate inciting racists, but they have learned to stop doing things like this as a party so I think it will be difficult to ban them even if that is not what you want. The convictions of the leadership all seem to be some time ago and they have learnt that they have to keep a lid on their most disgusting views in public – that is how they have gained some level of respectability, through canvassing and distribution of propaganda. If this is not challenged then people will go on believing it.
It is possible that Ken Livingstone may be correct. In the same way violent films and computer games “trigger” violence in some people. I personally would not stop the distribution of them because of that. Rather, the aim should be to educate people and help those who are vulnerable – much as should be done here. Equally, if he is prevented from appearing the racists may become more enflamed at the ‘denial’ of their rights. Many people seem to be ascribing some kind of magical powers to Griffin. It’s as if they think people will lose all critical faculties when listening to him. I think his appearance on QT will show him for what he is.
Revolter - I presume that, given your basis for banning the fascists is the result of Nazism, that you also would ban Communist parties given the regimes of Stalin and Mao?
Regardless, the argument for banning the BNP is surely a separate issue to the campaign to deny them platform. The recent rise of the BNP happened before they appeared on Question Time or Newsbeat. “No platform” may sound good in principle but it would have appeared to have failed; unless you see 1 million people voting for them and the election of BNP representatives as success?!
I simply don’t agree that the BBC is not pretty much impartial. Yes there is some bias, because it is composed of individuals, but I have seen more bias against the right than anything else. When comedian Jeremy Hardy made a joke about the BNP voters the punch line to which was that “the world would be a better place if they were all taken out and shot in the back of the head” – was he censored? No. Griffin and other extremists are treated with disdain by almost everyone who interviews them at the BBC; I hope and pray the same will be the case tonight, and that he will be exposed for what he is. The (BBC) link you provide very strongly puts a case against the BNP – yet still you think they are biased? Much of the political reportage of the BBC sits in a centralist or slightly left of centre framework in my view, and there is much complaint from both the left and the right that they are victimised! |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 136
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 12:14 pm: | |
Just to reiterate: I am not calling for the BNP to be banned. What I am saying is that they WOULD be banned if the the government did not apply such blatant double-standards.
I am saying the BNP should not be allowed on Question Time, as do Dianne Abbott and Ken Livingstone:
Diane Abbott:
"If you are a black or Asian viewer tonight and you switch on the television and you see Nick Griffin on Question Time - it's not a programme that's going to scrutinise his views, it's not that sort of programme, it's politics as entertainment. The first time I went on Question Time was 22 years ago. People were really pleased - they didn't remember what I said but they saw a young black woman on Question Time and they thought 'Now black people are part of the mainstream'. That is the effect the BNP will get tonight, that's what they want from it, that's why they're so thrilled."
Ken Livingstone:
"Unlike any other party, when Nick Griffin speaks, or when they get elected in an area, what we see is an increase in racial attacks. He comes on, says his bit, does his bit, but for the angry racist it's the trigger that turns into an attack. And we first saw this when Enoch Powell made his 'rivers of blood' speech, there was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319596.stm |
Revolter
Member
Username: Revolt
Post Number: 192
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2009 - 08:44 am: | |
I went to Auschwitz and Birkeneau last week. I will never forget the room full of people's hair, the hair of people exterminated because they were constructed as alien, as untermenschen. On the walls of the gas chamber were thousands of scratches, marks of the last desperate moments of those murdered. It was a sight that I shall never forget.
For democrats there is a moral rollercoaster attached to banning political parties. I ask what do you attach more importance to - democracy as a doctrine or democracy in terms of the practical application of politics? As I've said before, I don't want anymore Auschwitzes or Birkeneaus. Democracy has already had the experience of nazism and fascism. The lesson learned is that nazi and fascist parties must be banned. We've all the time and space in the world to look at their ideas - in history lessons. If freedom of speech is given doctrinairre preference to such an extent that it threatens our very freedom to exist, then it is nothing more than self-defeating. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 135
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 02:54 pm: | |
“The problem is that whilst the BNP is not openly criminal you cannot ban it… Unless they break the law there is nothing we can do except engage them in the process of debate and expose them for what they are…If you truly believe that it is not possible to effectively argue against fascists then I think we have a much bigger problem than it seems.”
The ‘No Platform’ policy isn't a demand to ban the BNP. It is a democratic decision by right-thinking people not to share a platform with fascists. In fact, ‘No Platform’ worked quite well in sidelining the BNP in mainstream conversation. It wasn't that long ago that the National Front and its affiliates were fearlessly marching through various streets in Britain and expressing support for the National Front was something to be proud of. ‘No Platform’ changed that by actively trying to paint the BNP et al as extremist movements that right-thinking people should shun. It had a huge impact.
No other party in British politics has the history of violence and criminality that the BNP does - and it goes from the base through the middling layers right to the leadership. This propensity for violence has been established and exposed countless times - though strangely the information always seems to bypass naive journalists or interviewers. Other less dangerous parties such as al-Muhajiroun have been banned for less, (while the BNP is constantly protected by insincere appeals to free speech, in what amounts to affirmative action for white racists). And, by the way, the BNP is constantly breaking the law, and it doesn't result in their being banned. Their leadership, their middle operators and their base members are riddled with people who have convictions for racist hatred, violence, arson, terror plots, etc. It's been said, and I will repeat it: if a tenth of the criminality of the BNP could be ascribed to a Muslim organisation, it would already be banned. This country practises de facto affirmative action for white supremacists.
As fascists the BNP are inherently hostile to rationalism and Enlightenment. They believe that truth is established through superior force. Consider how Nick Griffin once put it to the party faithful. He argued that the BNP's voters supported "what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."
“The BBC has to represent elected parties. Just because we don’t like them, what would we do – take over the BBC and censor it, remove its impartiality?”
What impartiality? The BBC is inherently biased toward power, and instinctively hostile to grassroots democratic movements, protests, strikers, environmentalists, anticapitalists, antifascists, etc. We shouldn't believe them when they tell us they only want to be fair and even-handed. There is no obligation on anyone to give a platform to a fascist, or to share one with him. The corporation has already given the BNP coverage way beyond any arguable obligations, and it started doing so long before the BNP had demonstrated 'national support'. There is absolutely no obligation on them to host Griffin on Question Time. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 456
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 01:59 pm: | |
The problem is that whilst the BNP is not openly criminal you cannot ban it. Doing so would no doubt gain it a vast amount of support. You want to supress a party for whom over 1 million people voted. Supressing them will do nothing more than allow the racists to continue to propogate lies in an unchallenged way. The BBC has to represent elected parties. Just because we don’t like them, what would do – take over the BBC and censor it, remove its impartiality?
I agree that Nick Griffin is the “respectable” front man for an organisation rife with neo-Nazis – but unless they break the law there is nothing we can do except engage them in the process of debate and expose them for what they are. Yes – the English Defence League is trying to incite racial violence by marching in towns and cities and by targeting mosques – and they should be pursued by the Police for this. We can campaign and demonstrate against them, and lobby MPs to act, but little more, unless you are advocating pitched battles in the streets with them?
Griffin was indeed convicted of publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material. As far as I am aware this does not disqualify him from Political office. If we believe criminal offences should exclude people from political office (which I think would be an odd stance from an organisation committed to the rehabilitative ideal) then that is a separate campaign to pursue.
Yes – they may wish to smash democracy. Yes – they may want to deny freedom and worse in the long run. We cannot sink to their level though. First step – deny media coverage to them because we don’t like them. Next - ban the party because of its membership – not even its policies. What shall we do then, take the list of the members and stop them from voting, leaving the house, imprison them for their beliefs? If the debate against fascism cannot be won in the minds of the electorate then it is lost – because we will simply become a variation on their theme of oppression and hate. If you truly believe that it is not possible to effectively argue against fascists then I think we have a much bigger problem than it seems. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 134
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 02:02 pm: | |
"The election of the far right means we now have to rely upon the media and other politicians as well as campaigns and demonstrations to show how unpleasant they are-"
We can absolutely NOT rely on the media and politicians to show how unpleasant the far right are. The BNP is a violent Nazi organisation. The BNP is not just circumstantially violent and criminal - it is violent and criminal from its leadership (advisory council) through its middling layers of organisation right down to its grassroots. If there was a Muslim organisation in this country which had the criminal record and mile-wide violent streak of this organisation, it would have been banned, its leaders hounded by the press, its members possibly even deported (or renditioned). Because they're white, they get respectful interviews with John Humphreys or Michael Crick on the BBC.
Q) The BNP is an elected party. Isn’t it only fair to give it the same airtime as other political parties, like the BBC says?
The BNP is not normal party. Nick Griffin is the “respectable” front man for an organisation rife with Jew-haters and Hitler-lovers.
The English Defence League is trying to incite racial violence by marching in towns and cities and by targeting mosques. The EDL is led by BNP members and supporters.
Q) But the BNP aren’t real Nazis, are they?
Griffin, one of two BNP candidates narrowly elected to the European parliament in June, denies six million Jews were murdered by Hitler’s Nazi regime in the Holocaust. He has a conviction for this.
One of Griffin’s best friends is the hard-line Italian fascist Roberto Fiore, who was a member of the terrorist group that carried out the 1980 bombing of Bologna rail station killing 85 people. Fiore was welcomed at last month’s “Red, White and Blue festival”.
Andrew Brons, the BNP MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside, was convicted in 1983 after attending a march in Leeds where Nazis were chanting “white power” and “death to Jews”.
Q) Can’t we defeat the BNP through debate?
In the early 1930s scores of Nazis were elected to the German parliament. Once in power they removed all freedom of speech. In Germany all sorts of liberals and ministers used the argument that “I don’t agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death their right to say it.” They claimed that if they were to suppress free speech for Hitler it would make them as bad as the Nazis. Yet those same people were sent to concentration camps as soon as Hitler too power.
The late Paul Foot pointed out in his defence of No Platform: “The strategy of the fascists then and now is to use the freedoms won by fighters for democracy to gain respectability and electoral support so as more relentlessly to pursue their single purpose: to smash democracy and freedom to pieces.” |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 455
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 - 11:56 am: | |
It seems we are all agreed about opposing the rise of the far right. Are we going about things the correct way though? I don’t mean ‘effective’ vs ‘assertive’, but am referring to the recent model letter of complaint circulated in response to the young members of the BNP on Newsbeat. This troubled me on several levels.
Firstly, no matter how vile the BNP may be, the BBC has a remit to represent elected political parties. We cannot censor those we don't like just because of that, or we fall into the trap of fascistic censorship ourselves. The election of the far right means we now have to rely upon the media and other politicians as well as campaigns and demonstrations to show how unpleasant they are- we cannot simply refuse them a platform.
Secondly, the letter itself does not seem suitable for a “model” complaint. It is far too long, and very much “disgusted of Tunbridge-Wells” in nature.
Thirdly, all members have been encouraged to send this. Not, all members who listened to the programme – just all members. If you haven’t heard or seen a programme then you are complaining about something you have little knowledge of. I am reminded of members of the clergy complaining about ‘Life of Brian’ or MPs about Grand Theft Auto. Fine if you have an informed view – but not if you don’t know what you are talking about. We should have given the link to the site so people could make their own minds up, not just told them to complain: news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002000/10002/087. stm
Finally, the issue here is not one of the BBC unfairly allowing fascists to rant to “impressionable” listeners. To me it is about a patronising and uninformed news forum for “youth”. Because the listeners of Radio 1 are deemed to be uninterested in politics and debate, Newsbeat is a bland and unchallenging programme. Any politician would get away with similar behaviour; they state what they want and are barely questioned on it. Surely, what we should be complaining about is the failure of the BBC to attempt to engage young people in constructive and intelligent debate. Well - that was the basis of the complaint I sent in, anyway. |
|
