BNP on Question Time

I think it's important to allow freedom of speech to such people, as, in the end, they will condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Freedom of speech is a little like a being pregnant, in as much as you can't be a bit pregnant, and you can't have a bit of freedom of speech. Everyone has it or nobody has it. This of course means that all kinds of lunatics can attract the gullible, incite them to acts of terrorism and so forth. I still prefer that to the alternative. Although clearly New Labour doesn't.

I think that there are absolutes on this - and that the BNP cross the line. I would not allow fascists or racists a platform. I think that UKIP is obnoxious but I do not think they should be denied a voice - but the BNP are far, far worse. I'm afraid to say that I wouldn't debate with them - there's nothing to debate. They are vile and that is that.

I agree with Tony. I think there's a limit. I will watch though and make my son watch too. I hope they make fools of themselves. Perhaps I will make popcorn to throw.

That is my point IPFNH, I think they should be given every opportunity to show themselves for what they are. I also believe any whiff of martyrdom, such as denying them a platform, is likely to fan the flames and that is a very bad thing. The worst thing we could do with some of the more rabid Islamic figures in Britain would be to gag them. Maybe we should dub Nick Griffin's voice; the guy who used to do Gerry Adams is out of a job, I wonder if he could manage fascist-speak?

"Freedom of speech is a little like a being pregnant, in as much as you can't be a bit pregnant, and you can't have a bit of freedom of speech. Everyone has it or nobody has it." Well, that's right in the sense that everyone should have the same freedoms (and restrictions on their freedom) but we already have lots of (mostly quite sensible) limits on freedom of speech - some political, some practical, some based on the protection of other personal freedoms. Whether the BNP should be allowed on the BBC isn't a question of freedom of speech. No one's advocating that they should be prevented from saying what they think in their own meetings or on street corners (provided they don't break the law in the process), the question is whether the BBC should put them on the TV and broadcast these views to millions of people. Having your opinion broadcast to millions of people isn't a human right. Whether it really will expose there views to scrutiny and lead to a reduction in their support is anyone's guess. My guess is that it won't. If Nick Griffin goes on Question Time and tells people that they've just lost their job because an asylum seeker took it, the fact that David Dimbleby will ask him to justify the statement with some evidence and that he won't be able to won't necessarily stop him picking up a few thousand extra votes off the back of his initial statement.

I wish I could agree, but I honestly think there is a line. I wouldn't debate with them either. I do see your point about martyrdom etc, but I still think they have no place on question time. wasn't that the weirdest thing when Gerry Adams suddenly changed his voice? I preferred the first one

That's the problem then isn't it, we all need to be protected from such things? Who decides on our behalf then? What you're saying is that everyone is too stupid to see through them, right? Perhaps we should deny people the vote if they're so stupid. I'm just saying it's the thin end of the wedge. I hold absolutely no brief for lunatics of any stripe. But I bet you any money there wouldn't be much outcry if Iftikhar's mates were on national TV. (And I think they should be, for many of the same reasons.)

Yes, I got used to it too. It was a ridiculous situation and I think it made everyone who was party to the decision to do it look ridiculous too.

On a more serious note, if everyone doesn't have a right to be allowed on TV, why do the X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent exist?

Those are sedatives Ewan. They keep people's minds off the inflammatory stuff.

It was totally ridiculous, about Gerry Adams, and yes it made england a laughing stock I've never watched either of those programmes - do you get them in spain? I think all parties who have a certain number of candidates can do a party political broadcast - there is a rule isn't there? Did the BnP do one last election? And anyone can go and look at their website. I would like to know who else is going to be on with them - I'll go and have a look

ooh jack straw - I like him - and no tory! Why ever not?

Truly a Straw Man

"But I bet you any money there wouldn't be much outcry if Iftikhar's mates were on national TV. (And I think they should be, for many of the same reasons.)" I don't know who Iftikhar represents other than himself but, as far as I know, no representative of Al Mahajaroun (sp?) or similar organisations has been invited on to Question Time. It's not being on TV that's the issue. Griffin's been on TV loads of times - far too often in my opinion given his actual electoral appeal. But the question here is whether the BNP should have the privilelge of being considered an acceptable part of mainstream political debate. On that basis, I'd say no to the BNP and to Islamic extremists and to David Icke.

I'm with bukharin on this one. There are limits and you have to accept them. If a politician is stating that he or she wishes to remove the right to free speech to other members of the community then they should not be allowed on to mainstream state television. The outcome, as it was for Le Pen in France, is that the BNP will gain credibility from this appearance and that is appalling.

Even so, doesn't that mean that we would be telling the BBC to decide what the public should or shouldn't be allowed to see? Surely it's the government's job to ban them from Question Time? My fervent hope is that the BNP actually break the law on mainstream television. Anything could happen if the public are involved, after all. This is one of the problems with the West imposing democracy on, sorry, bringing democracy to, Iraq and Afghanistan: if the elections are free and fair, there's no guarantee they'll vote the way you want. Are you willing to accept that what you're saying is that gullible, disenfranchised people should be protected from themselves?

'I really don't think we have anything to fear from this tinpot Nazi appearing on QT.' I think there is a great deal to fear, the inevitable TV showboating of intellectual and moral arguments will, no doubt, belittle Griffins particular brand of malice and misinformation, but may serve to further distance a growing section of the viewing public that gave him and the flurry of elected BNP members their mandate on the basis of fear, uncertainty and anger. Ewan makes a point 'Are you willing to accept that what you're saying is that gullible, disenfranchised people should be protected from themselves?' Perhaps, we need to consider why the BNP have achieved enough prominence to be invited in the first instance.That the question that frightens me.

C A Jones I see what some of you mean about not letting Nick Griffin on Question Time - he's a very persuasive politician - but the people he influences are unlikely to be watching Question Time. And while we are on the subject of fascism, Labour and Conservatives are both tending that way. They expect chaos to be a consequence of global warming - as indeed it will - and they are putting things in place to control us with as we speak. CCTV, biometric passports, ID cards etc. Who'd have thought that George Orwell's 1984 was only 30 years out?

CA Jones, what makes you think that the very people who are prepared to USE their vote are unlikely to watch Question Time? I would be wary of being dismissive.

C A Jones Do stupid people watch Question Time? BNP voters do not, in my experience.

C A Jones I heard a fair amount on Radio 4. It sounded exactly as I expected. He sounded evasive and full of the proverbial. It can only do him harm.

FTSE! How can you be so naïve? I have it on good authority that you are on the rumoured Cricklewood Black-list: it consists almost entirely of ABC members who will never be invited on to Gardener's Question Time. However, you may be pleased to know you are in exalted company, since Albert F, Skunk, Mouffette, Crackersville and several others are also purported to be on this nebulous list. They say it was drafted by John Birt and John Fortune, before the latter went on to a much more fecund comic partnership.

I thought Griffin was very unimpressive, particularly when he was trying to blame race crime legislation for not being able to explain why he'd 'changed' his views. However, I would not dream of claiming he is not a dangerous man. A German diarist, Klemperer, had this to say about Hitler: "I have never been able to understand how Hitler was capable, with his unmelodious and raucous voice, with his crude, often un-Germanically constructed sentences, and with a conspicuous rhetoric entirely at odds with the character of the German language, of winning over the masses with his speeches, of holding their attention and subjugating them for such appalling lengths of time."

C A Jones Cricklewood black list? Tell me more. Griffin is dangerous for the same reason - he can carry a crowd with him when he gives a speech. Shit! he nearly converted me twice! That's why having him on a debating platform is a good idea. He may be great with the rhetoric but he can't back it up with reasoned argument when confronted.

I didn't watch it (I very rarely do), but it would strike me as very odd if the BBC had chosen not to represent the political views of a significant proportion of it's licence payers. Being on telly doesn't make the BNP look respectable, getting votes and attaining public office makes the BNP look respectable. The tendency of both major parties to blather on about immigration has allowed the BNP to position themselves as a fringe single-issue minority at the forefront of political debate (not so different than the greens in that respect). If the BNP are a credible political force (which is measured in votes), then they should be on the telly.

"Being on telly doesn't make the BNP look respectable, getting votes and attaining public office makes the BNP look respectable." Absolutely.

C A Jones I often wonder if people should have to take a test before being given the vote. It seems to me that a lot of people don't think for themselves when voting, but rather vote thd way their father voted, or their husband or their mates. Few people think of the consequences for the future. It is not true that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from increasing state control. The State is incompetent - of course we should be worried.

One person, one vote is the bedrock of our society. The second we begin to pick and choose those that may have the vote then we begin to select in every other area - those who are worthy of education, those who are worthy of housing, those who are worthy of life - and we become fascists. Of course we need to educate everyone as to the issues around the vote and we need a system that reflects the thoughts and opinions of our society. We are in real trouble at the moment due to a growing disaffection between the haves and the have nots both nationally and internationally - and when that happens then violence is often not far behind. It's that violence and that disaffection that feeds the likes of the BNP and we need to address those issues now.

Exactly so, Mr Cook.

C A Jones Can't argue with that. I vote Liberal Democrat but I'm really a dictator in waiting. B-)

The crucial difference is that the torturers can be brought to book in the current system - but in BNP world that would never happen - and there would be far more torture with lots of added genocide. I know that our current system has a great deal wrong with it - and that Bush and Blair may never be brought to account for their wrong doings. But some people will be made to account for their actions at some stage - and we were able to get rid of Blair and Bush and we are still able, although with considerable difficulty, to bring about change in our political, social and cultural system. That would not be possible in a fascist world.

C A Jones I'm a firm believer in proportional representation.

Not under Griffin's system you couldn't. Hitler, you may recall, wasn't too keen on elections.

So FTSE the threat of never being allowed on Garderner's Question Time means nothing to you? This only shows that you are not one of us! It seems we are agreed that politicians are bad people: but what about the people who vote them in, shouldn't they bear some responsibility for their elected represantatives' actions? We gave them the power and the mandate, for ever and ever amen it seems... oh no that was to the one before, wasn't it. We appear to have an unelected leader now. It does seem as though George and Tony's Iraqi Adventure wasn't the feelgood block-buster they thought it would be. I expect the sequel, Carry on Regardless up the Khyber will not turn out any better.

The kind of Americans who voted for Bush aren't likely to post here FTSE. There were lots of them. They were mostly looking for revenge for 911 IMO. The only thing they feel bad about is failing. This is a great discussion BTW. As an expat I don't feel that I have anything useful to add. I think the BBC were right to bring it into the open but I tend to agree with tony's point about social inequality and frustration being at the root of it. Griffin is just a symptom.

America is going through a period of great confusion at the moment FTSE. They've lost their way and it ain't pretty. There are plenty of heavily armed Nick Griffins lurking in the bushes.

Yeah well I have my own theories about what's going on. The social pressures are largely due to overpopulation I think. But of course I've made a few contributions to that myself.

Mine are scattered around the globe. I take full responsibility for them. This conversation is getting a little too personal :) Back to the BNP please.

Was für ein Paar von dunkelen Pferden! A.Hitler Jr. Pittsburgh

C A Jones I said in 1972 that if anyone starts another world war it will be the USA - the most paranoid nation on earth. Remember the McCarthy years. Why do we British think we have a 'special relationship' with the US - let's not forget their plan during the Cold War; a 'limited nuclear war in Europe'. That is here. They believe they are 'God's country' and that everyone hn the world wants what they have. Now I know individual Americans are not all like this but, unfortunately, a majority are. They continue to scare me with their empire-building and their belief in their 'God-given right' to police the world.

C A Jones Do you remember Token in South Park?

"The people we have in government at the moment are jolly nice chaps, not at all like the BNP, yes? Tell me anything the BNP have ever done, or are ever likely to do, that compares in any way with Guantanamo Bay and other torture camps." Well, the BNP have never been in government at a local or national level so they haven't taken any policy decisions at all. I think they could do things much worse than Guantanamo given the chance. Let's hope we never get to find out. As far as I know, no mainstream parties in the UK have done Guantanamo Bay or other torture camps. The US runs Guantanamo and its ongoing existence has been opposed by the UK government for many years. You can have theories about their sincerity but however sincere they have or haven't been, they don't have either the influence or military might to force the US to close it. "Like I said before, fascist parties already alternate in ruling this country." Well, unless you're talking about the specific policy agenda followed by Mussolini, fascism has a fairly elastic meaning. You might think Labour and the Tories follow an authoritarian right-wing agenda. The BNP's policy platform is a lot more authoritarian and a lot more right-wing. The manifesto is available on their website.

In the US Obama is getting called a fascist and a Nazi by the right. It's all very confusing.

C A Jones Its not really confusing, although I, too, didn't understand. Fascism - extreme right wing; Communist - extreme left wing. The difference is neglible. Both ideologies need to use force and fear to control the people. There are always yes-men to dob everyone in. Petty rivalries can be resolved by a slight hint of dissention to the authorities. Once, we English believed ourselves above this shit - now people think its clever. Its not.