Eclectic Memes

The British National Party (BNP) are to appear this evening on a BBC broadcast of the popular Question Time programme and this has cause something of a storm in the media. This issue at hand is whether a political part that expresses views objectionable to many should be permitted such a public platform.

(For the benefit of those unaware of the BNPs views, they are a right wing party supported by bigots, racialists and xenophobes. Their main platform is the idea that Britain should be preserved for the British — their definition of ‘Britishness’ being entirely arbitrarily based largely on the parliamentary Nationality and Citizenship act of 1948 — and that most ills visited upon Britain are the result of a liberal immigration policy.)

Much of the ruckas is, of course, the media feeding upon itself; contention sells news. But there is a serious point about freedom to be made.

The BNP hold views that I find objectionable. They also express some views that I find sensible. It’s a mix. But we should bear in mind at all times that they have elected representatives and are a political party legally constituted and operating within the current British legal framework. To censor their views is to strike down a basic freedom enjoyed, until the government succeeds in its recent move to deny its citizens such freedom, by all British citizens; the freedom to express ourselves in the public forum.

The legitimate fear expressed by some is that allowing the BNP a platform will provide them with a means to propagate their bigotry to a wider audience, or more insidiously, to present a reasonable face to their bigotry. For the BNP to be seen by the populous as ‘reasonable’ is perhaps the most worrying thing for many. If the ubiquitous ‘man in the street’ sees the BNP as a reasonable alternative to the main political parties then he may be encouraged to vote for a BNP member of parliament. There is certainly some evidence to support this view. The BNP have gained ground in marginal constituencies by appealing to the baser instincts of the community, pointing to large immigrant populations and claiming that the economic problems of the area are due largely to this large immigrant population. This is, as any student of history will appreciate, an effective strategy and one employed to great effect by many nationalist leaders of the past (most infamously by Hitler).

None of this though should mean that any sector of society, let alone a legally constituted political party operating within the bounds of the law, should be denied freedom to express their views, no matter how objectionable those views might be.

Arguing that they are free to express their views, just not in a national broadcast, is to miss the point. If you find someone’s politics objectionable, then argue your case in the forum of public opinion. If your case has merit and theirs none then you will prevail. If their views pander to the constituent’s baser instincts then inform and educate people as to why these views are wrong. Glossing over the problem by denying your opponents a voice does nothing to address the problem; the ease with which people respond to such appeals. It is this ease with which people can be stirred to hatred that is the bigger concern and the more difficult issue to be addressed. Perhaps this is why it is easier to deny the BNP a platform than to address the real problem.