By subjecting nationalist toad Nick Griffin to the Two-Minute Hate, the U.K.'s media establishment turns a fool into a victim. His dismal performance on the BBC's Question Time would have been satisfying were it not for the hand-wringing hostility that turned it into a circus. Coming next to Britain's inane tabloids: Nazis portraying themselves as victims of oppression.
It's no wonder he smirks so much, when his presence induces demands that his political party be banned, his speech suppressed and his opinions abolished. These instincts represent everything his followers want Britain to become: perhaps the irony is not lost on him.
To paraphrase one noted humanitarian, a civilized society would either kill him or give him his bookings.
The BBC disclaims the appearance as part of its duty to impartiality, then spins around to congratulate itself for orchestrating Griffin's public "humiliation." Paradoxically British! But the whole mess only goes to prove a simple fact: no-one has ever been so inadvertantly adept as the well-breakfasted BNP leader at poking holes in our pretentions to democratic toleration.
Public convulsions over the BNP's inconsequential electoral successes make the country appear more divided and insecure than it is. But the BNP's advances are trivial: proportional representation, a changing media landscape and voter disgust merely reveal the exact form of a longstanding political presence on the fringe.
Freaking out over it just creates a narrative that can be exploited and expanded into yet another bestselling British moral panic. The BNP is like salmonella, satanic abuse and paedogeddon all in one: yummy! And Griffin is thimerosal in your vaccination against media bullshit.
The repsonse to these far-right nutjobs reveals not a principled objection to racism and fascism, but rather the weakness of a political culture built on tradition and the expectaton of common sense. Shouldn't a democractic society accept a plurality of idiots?
RSS Feed
Banning a political party is a form of fascism. Free speech is for everyone, not just those who you agree with. Give these people a podium. Let them say what they think. Let them be ridiculed and humiliated into oblivion for the racists that they are.
A view from the Imperial Isle - The reality is that this abhorent man, his odious beliefs and his thuggish 'party' revealed/reinforced on the programme something that has fueled the million+ voters to give this guy unwanted credence.
The main political parties all rung their hands or puffed up with a vacuous righteous indignation but continued to fail to address the issues that has attracted these voters, namely the issues of unlimited imigration, multi-culturalism rather than integration, skewed allocation of state resources, education, cultural decline and bias, politically correct use of human rights legislation, etc. etc.(not my personal issues but thoese identified by extensive polling).
In the absence of a viable alternative opposition position (Conservative / Liberal parties), or in the case of the current Labour Government their insistence on policies designed to embrace or promote all these issues irrespective of the general populace views, the yawning void is being filled by the BNP scum. Thankfully, as evidenced on the programme, they are not very good at it and missed a very real chance to clean up.
This whole scenario would never have occured had the main parties had the guts and vision to address the core BNP issues. It will now be very interesting to see if the tirade and, frankly, brainless undemocratic bullying of Nick Griffin will help more than injure the BNP. I hope not.
Watching it as an American, who is first generation from across the pond, it's striking how what we have come to expect from new programming (shouting, demagoguing, pols just talking past each other) is seen with alarm. Just look at some of the cretinous opinionoids that slither onto cable news (and not just Fox) in the US, many of whom would give Griffin a run for his money on nonsense.
But the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. In a marketplace of ideas the concepts of the BNP, with their sloganeering and racist twaddle, should be seen in the cold light of day. Censoring a bigot simply gives them cause to further rail and rage.
My favorite instance was a rally by anti-immigration zealots in a largely Latino neighborhood here in Chicago a couple years back. Just across from the sad little gathering of angry bigots holding their crude signs the neighborhood organized a counter-protest that turned into a very fine little block party. Seeing folks sharing food, playing music and generally drowning out the hate was a wonderful sight.
I don't see how banning a party that would undermine a country's democracy could be defined as Fascistic.
It's a sticky problem: mere exposure to these views is contaminatory (just hark to the little-Britain political right now saying his immigration ideas "had a point"), but banning them is, well, illegal. As a party with some voters, they get a shot on the political programmes, but not lots of time. One visit to the Question Time studio is all Griffin can expect.
The two-minute hate point is valid, but misses the mark: yes he was exposed to public ridicule and vilification, but that's precisely because the public genuinely find him ridiculous and vile. Since then, he's been complaining that London (where the show was filmed) isn't 'proper' Britain because of all the filthy immigrants.
Banning a political party is a form of restriction of speech. The fact that the political party in question happens to oppose the very ideology that makes banning it objectionable is difficult, obviously, but there it is. What you need to do is make sure that whenever you give someone like this pinhead a podium, you point out that his ideology would prohibit anyone else from having the opportunity he's taking advantage of, and then let him impeach himself with his own words. Trying to shout him down just makes him seem more reasonable.
I'm a little disappointed in BoingBoing over taking this stance. What happened to freedom of speech?
This guy is insane and hateful, don't get me wrong. He shouldn't be allowed to manage his own checkbook, never mind a political party. I lost family in the Holocaust and I find deniers to be nauseating.
That said, the best way to undermine this brand of lunacy is to force it into the open. Cast light upon it. Analyze it. Don't let it claim "oppression," and hide in the cracks. Granting this man the spotlight has encouraged debate on his views and ideals, and that's not a bad thing.
Lobster, I fear you are commenting on the headline, not the post.
"I don't see how banning a party that would undermine a country's democracy could be defined as Fascistic."
I don't see how banning a party whose ideals are far divorced of (or in line with) the mainstream is democratic.
seems far better they're seen to be engaged inside the regular democratic process where they can be laughed at/ignored/provide column inches/ than festering outside it.
sure, if enough ppl agree with them, then they'll get elected enough to have an influence on policy, but , distasteful as that might be (like with prop8 here in california) if that's what the majority of people in britain want, like. either you believe in democracy, warts and all, or you don't.
otoh, british ppl rly are as sound as their pound, so I somehow doubt it'll come to that.
One point of note is that the Times article claiming the BBC is 'congratulating itself' fails to cite any particular source, although of course they will certainly be congratulating themselves privately for putting together such a spectacle.
More depressing that watching the comically unspeakable Griffin dig his hole a little deeper with every word was having to endure Jack Straw seizing the opportunity to present himself as a reasonable man, arguably a far greater crime on the BBC's behalf.
Of course it's very easy to write Griffin off as comically unspeakable, but the BNP deserve every brickbat tossed at them, figuratively or otherwise. It might engender some misguided sympathy for them in the short-term, but eventually someone will aim efficiently and solve the entire problem.
“Do it somewhere where there are still significant numbers of English and British people living, and they haven’t been ethnically cleansed from their own country.”
Thanks for reminding us you're a big racist, Nick.
I need to watch this show on iPlayer.
Firstly, I really don't come to boingboing for political comment. I would normally skip past this kind of item but your views are so poorly articulated and fatheaded I had to say something. It's true that Griffin was helped by looking like a victim (we Brits love an underdog) but no one in their right mind would have thought he came out smelling of roses from last night's show. It's all very well talking about promoting him by giving him the oxygen of publicity but, as one of the audience members last night commented on the outrage over the Daily Mail's coverage of Stephen Gately's death, it is pleasing to see people this riled up, surely a sign of the healthy opposition to nutballs like this. People like Griffin will always exist and tabloids etc will always overreact so why not give people an opportunity to see what he's all about?
You don't have to freak out over this guy to see that he has supporters. It took NPR all of a couple of minutes in a cafe in East London to find a couple of white ladies who complained about how hard life is for the white English now. I believe the term used was "fourth class citizens."
While i admit the whole thing did end up as who could make fun of Nick Griffin the most rather than contain any real political discussion of merit. As an MEP and head of a political party he should have been given the opportunity to discuss something.
I don't think that starting off with "are the BNP racists?" could then be moved on to any real political discussion.
It would have been nice to have ignore the whole BNP are scum thing and just let him flail around trying to put across an offensive view and being out politicised. As was shown last night with the few moments of discussion he just is not capable of creating an eloquent argument so would end up looking like a twat.
Now all that will happen is that he feels victimised (kind of ironic) and will say that however bad he looks he had no opportunity to discuss any issues. Now that they have bayed for blood i think it would be nice to invite him back and just take him apart politically.
I'm fine with Nick Griffin and the BNP getting the Two-Minute Hate ... so long as two minutes in the spotlight is all he gets. After that, let's move on and leave him and his little band of retro-blackshirts to the oblivion they so richly deserve.
It's a sticky problem: mere exposure to these views is contaminatory (just hark to the little-Britain political right now saying his immigration ideas "had a point")...
Even a stopped clock is right on occasion, and even a lunatic sometimes speak sense. The BNP are a symptom of putrefaction in our politics, not the disease itself.
The question that none of the talking heads on the 'Griffin in the stocks' show have EVER bothered to ask themselves is *how* the BNP suddenly became mainstream in just a year or so?
What is so f***ed up the current British political dialogue that a Neo-Nazi party is _the lesser evil_ for nigh-on a million voters?
Could it be something to do with those 3,000 new laws. Or with rule by statutory instrument.
Or the rape of our unwritten constitution.
Or the way the Euro Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was hammered through sans electoral approval.
Or the sneaky removal of habeus corpus and presumption of innocence from our legal system.
Or a decade of futile, intrusive security theatre.
Or the rise of the bin police, pseudo-plod (PCSOs) and other mini-Stasi.
Or tax-payers' money being thrown at the same banks that foreclose on taxpayers.
Or breath-taking incompetence and arrogance in all levels of government.
Or a grotesquely venal Parliament.
Or Ministers of the Crown acting criminally and then brazening it out.
The BNP are naught but the stink rising after decade of misrule in the UK.
Much of the UK political community is today saying that they're glad he was finally dragged out in public so that everybody can see what he's really about. While commentators have previously been eager to label Griffin as a "racist" or "nazi", few people had actually heard his views before now. Now there are no secrets and no claims of 'suppressed truth', just a simple set of ideas that most people disagree with. The likely result of this is for him to gather support from the tiny minority of UK citizens who agree with him, and to lose any support he had from the rest. This is exactly how UK politics is supposed to work.
Here's what one of the other participants has to say about it: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/chris-huhne-griffin-is-trying-to-peddle-hatred-against-muslims-1807733.html
The real issue is that the BBC decided to invite Griffin on to the programme, but was under no obligation to do so. Nobody is talking about censorship or banning of political groups.
There are a lot of tiny groups floating round, who hold mad ideas and might even get votes at elections, the BBC doesn't invite them on to their flagship entertainment programmes. It made an exception for an openly racist group, whose leaders are regularly recorded expressing agreement with Hitler and talking about hiding their true views until they can gain more members.
I was at the protests outside the BBC, stood next to British MPs, school children, holocaust survivors and ex-second world war soldiers. That doesn't make us right, but it shows how wide the opposition to that decision is. Even the police were saying they wanted nothing to do with it.
The ones who whine about oppression usually aren't.
Just get him into a point-counterpoint with a member of the Silly Party with equal time. Everyone gets their soapbox and the proper lens to view the fishbowl.
Btw, anybody else see this guy's resemblance (at least in the above photo) to Jay Leno? If Jay died his hair black they would be indistinguishable.
"Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it! England Prevails!"
-- Lewis Prothero
Banning a political party is a form of fascism.
The BNP is not a political party any more than the KKK is a political party. To be a legal political party in the UK, you need to admit members from all races. The BNP is whites only.
The BBC screwed the pooch on this matter. Their charter is up for review and they will almost certainly pay a very high price for this dreadful decision.
I think it was actually a good thing, it exposed many people who have become disaffected with politics to see what happens when we let our guard down. The office gossip was full of discussion about him and several people who've never had any interest in politics, and these aren't at all lefties, are much more informed and are going to register to vote in order to make sure the BNP don't win any more seats.
if that's what the majority of people in britain want, like. either you believe in democracy, warts and all, or you don't.
You just retroactively defended the Third Reich.
That said, the best way to undermine this brand of lunacy is to force it into the open. Cast light upon it. Analyze it.
Can you provide some historical examples to prove that point. Or is it just a meme? My review of world history suggests that publicity generally leads to power.
oh god man, why did you have to bring nazis into this discussion so damn soon. YOU HAVE RUINED EVERYTHING MR ANTINOUS
i love question time.
it's one of the only things i miss now i don't have a tv licence and it was a favourite thursday night activity for years.
if you're watching it for the first time, please watch it regularly. david dimbleby rules and i've enjoyed him pwn many a politician.
the bbc has this article called 'us question time would not work' if you're interested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8271710.stm
I believe it was a good thing to have him on this show and personally i think he came away from it looking like a fool, more so then before. Regardless of whether much of what he talks about is racist or in many cases random (such as when he mentioned "militant homosexuals" which me and my friends still cannot pin point a meaning on lol) there are still things he talks about which many people feel strongly on and the major parties dont talk about or not in the same manner. So when he talks of "britain protecting its identity, culturally and ensuring that anyone who enters britain stands by our law" etc, there is of course sense in what he says, he ruins it of course by saying it should be a purely "christian nation" but this is the part many people will skip aside. People will often hear what they want to hear and even though he talks a lot of rubbish he does talk sense too (on the occasion) and this is what people will then cling to.
The stuff people are talking about whereby the others and the public panel are picking on him, i think this was a good thing, as he needed to be scrutinised, when he said "i cannot explain what i said and i cannot explain why i have changed my mind" i had to laugh because throughout he seemed on the back foot.
What i actually think was worse then the interview was the small show on after Question Time, if anyone watched it, where a woman proclaimed "all BNP members are criminals" which surely will have riled people more then anything which happened in the actual show lol.
Well, I'm a non-indiginous Briton (I guess. I can't trace my ancestry back to the ice age like Nick Griffin can) who is anti-fascist, with a vested interest in that stance, and a very left-wing point of view.
As far as I'm concerned, the only mistake that was made was in having other people on the panel. I'd have much rather seen Nick Griffin or any BNP spokesperson face the intelligence of, well, anyone who doesn't vote BNP.
We're talking about a party which takes great measures to control who is exposed to their propaganda. The best thing we can do to discourage moderates from supporting the BNP is to show them the true nature of the beast.
Nick Griffin showed himself to be, well, a complete blithering idiot, who could only stand back and say "I was misquoted!" and "The KKK are peaceful!" when faced with any kind of legitimate questioning of his words and actions.
Although I was disappointed he wasn't (figuratively and literally) thrown face-first down a flight of stairs, the fact that he is the best speaker and best spokesman the BNP can gather, and yet, cannot stand up to the questioning of even a small section of the British Public, shows how politically bankrupt their endeavour is.
Thank you, this is the first article I've read on the subject that gets it exactly right.
Griffin should never have been invited on. The BNP are nobodies, ignoring them and not giving them publicity is the only way to keep them down where they belong.
@anonymous 9.52AM - Which *exactly* of your points does voting for a neo-nazi party solve? Are you explaining or excusing such behaviour?
Antinous said, "The BNP is not a political party any more than the KKK is a political party. To be a legal political party in the UK, you need to admit members from all races. The BNP is whites only."
This is the subject of current hilarity: they've been told to change, and the legal rumour mill says that they've accepted that and will change their membership rules. If they refuse, they'll get themselves banned, and if they comply, gods know what'll happen to the party: schism in all likelihood as the hardcore racists go underground and the little-englanders find themselves less relevant than ever.
But for the present, they're a legal political party with an active warning on their racist membership policy.
Fair game, in other words.
That's an impressive Godwin. Democracy = NAZI.
Australia had it's own issues recently with the far right - a woman by the name of Pauline Hanson, and here party One Nation. They existed briefly in the political ecosystem, but were quickly found to be unfit and died of natural causes.
Similarly, there were many attempts to shut her/them down rather than engage and show up their ideas for what they were, and it was disappointing then as is it now.
In particular, I think we as a nation lost on two fronts - her criticism of Parliament being a men's club and closed shop was actually pretty accurate. She was a fish and chip shop owner, a regular Joe. Regular Joe's just don't get elected that often. Unfortunately because no one really took her seriously, this valid critique was not given the attention it deserved and in fact was tarred with the same "another loony idea" brush.
The second loss was that it was politically expedient for other parts of the political establishment to have her around. It made the then in power Liberal party (Tory/Republican) look like a centrist organistation, which has never been true. And it was a distraction which was convenient for the Govt at the time because it help set the agenda, and made their racist views seem mild in comparison.
Questions that I would be asking myself are straight outta a detective novel. This is a feint, and red herring. Those shadowy types behind - who are they, what are they hiding, and what are we _not_ talking about while the media are blinded by the BNP spotlight.
I have heard a lot of people singing the praises of Question Time, but I disagree with it's format. I think that they should get the politicians to ask the people what they think instead.
but pidg, if their idiocy isn't exposed to the public, and laughed at by the general public. we run the risk of impressionable people swallowing their propaganda more easily. after all they wouldn't have any references to compare to. you should not underestimate the power of propaganda. the only way to fight this sort of thing is to expose it for the vile horror it is and educate those around you about it.
burying problems and pretending that solves anything isn't going to do any good.
The price of democracy is letting every lunatic have his say.
That's an impressive Godwin. Democracy = NAZI.
Fascism is, in many cases, the tyranny of the majority. What could be more democratic than that?
Yeah, it usually is. Which is kind of an ironic defense of muzzling minorities, no?
Can I use this quote the next time BB posts something related to Christianity and some follower chimes in about how "oppressed" adherents are in the US?
Churchill comes up a lot in BNP rhetoric. There's a quote I've often seen attributed to him, but I'm not sure of it's veracity.
Fascism, when it comes back, it will be known as anti-fascism.
I'll make it clear now that I think the BNP are idiots with a hateful ideology, but the stupidity of their opponents is clear.
The way to deal with people such as Nick Griffin is to confront them directly, to treat them as equals, and to expose their policies as wrong. The approach taken by several political figures in the UK, as well as protesters, is ridiculous. By demanding that the BNP be silenced, they are sending out a poor message, either that they are afraid of what the BNP has to say, or that they are unable to refute their claims.
By demanding that the BNP be silenced, they are sending out a poor message, either that they are afraid of what the BNP has to say, or that they are unable to refute their claims.
What makes you think that the majority of Brits won't agree with the BNP's aims? Faith? Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Ethnic cleansing hasn't slowed its pace. It's happening all over the world, and ethnic majorities are cheering it on. What's to prevent the UK from becoming another Bosnia or Rwanda?
I had no idea Britain loathed Nathan Lane so much!
cameras. lots and lots of cameras...
Investigative journalism, research, and exposes are a far cry from the image-driven, emotion-laden political media pioneered by Goebbels, Riefenstahl et al. Public attention =/= publicity. Having said that, our current media journalism is so shriekingly close to fascist media that it's a moot point: even great progressive journalists like Olbermann and Maddow go right past the line of objective, dispassionate, disinterested journalism for advocacy, emotion, fist-pumping etc. Kind of an incredibly scary conundrum.
Fascism =/= tyranny of the majority. The former is top-down control, using methods of persuasion, surveillance, and punishment, of a majority of people; the latter is mob rule as envisioned by the Framers. They're two quite distinct things. Those shouting book-burning Germans aren't a mob: they're the Volk reimagined, not as a polity, but as just another weapon, like the army or air force. The mob technically wishes to be a mob: the Fascist crowd has been coerced-tricked into wanting to be a crowd. Or something like that!
In response to your latest, I don't think the possibility of many Britons agreeing with Fascism is a valid excuse for infringing on the rights (shudder) to Fascist speech. Incitement to hate crimes is one thing: telling folks about Mein Kampf, while loathsome, I think is protected speech.
Just my thoughts....
I just find it odd that people say "Never again", but it's already happened again several times. The number one time-travel fantasy is going back to 1930s Germany and killing Hitler, but when confronted with a new fascist leader (who admittedly has a teensy bit less charisma than Hitler), let's just put him on the BBC and see what happens. I mean, what could go wrong?
However, more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people.
Really, what could possibly go wrong?
Fascism should be fought with fire and sword.
'One point of note is that the Times article claiming the BBC is 'congratulating itself' fails to cite any particular source, although of course they will certainly be congratulating themselves privately for putting together such a spectacle.'
the murdoch press kicking the BBC is no surprise. they are, after all 'chilling' in their ambition, according to mini-me (james) murdoch.
there isn't a chance that the BNP will gain any power in the U.K, unless by proxy through the main parties in the form of some vile populist pre-election nonsense. local elections are only a sideshow, and since their councillors (ie local level elected representatives - not MP's) are essentially single-issue morons, any effective concentration of them will be shown up as the clown posse they undoubtedly are.
the real problem with the way we currently interpret democracy is that we've lost sight of reason, of common sense, in our blind effort to always remain fair and neutral and equal for all. in a human society, there is no room for absolute democracy any more than there is absolute communism, socialism, fascism, religion, whatever. human beings are always going to throw a wrench into anything that is absolute, it's how we survive. rebellion comes in all shapes and colors. it hides in the teachings of religion, under the rules of government, and in the individual mind of each and every one of us. some of it is bad for society, some of it is good. the majority of us must make the hard decision of what exactly bad and good are, and we must be prepared to accept it will change with time, and that some of us will not always be right. society evolves the same as any other living organism. a technology (computers) or enlightenment (the earth is round) causes perception to change, and the old ideas are thrown out with the bath water. from the conservative attitudes of the first half of the american 20th century to the modern day, we realign our moral compass to the current day's north. soon gay marriage will be no different than getting married under a crucifix with a bloody corpse hanging from it in the eyes of the government. eventually, the religious will forget their rules as well, and follow in line with what is acceptable to the majority in the times in which they live, though typically a few years behind the rest of us ;) . religions change their absolutes all the time to fit in with the modern mold. if you doubt me, look at sex before marriage, use of condoms, drug (alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine) consumption. all of these things are strictly forbidden by most of the popular gods out there, but most followers will forget the inconvenient truths. that is how religion survives. that is how government should survive. hunting and killing non-believers, burning witches, treating black people like animals, murdering jews, all of these things used to be acceptable to the average joe in some way at some time in some place. if it weren't for the mass mind, the overall gut feeling of right and wrong, we'd have killed ourselves off long ago. we need to embrace that instinct, and stop listening to idiots like the heads of religions, governments, and movements. we need to each make the decisions that affect us all, and we need to be responsible for the result of those decisions. of course they will be looked upon in the future as harsh and vulgar. most history looks like that from today, and that will likely never change.
i'll make my decision right now. this griffin moron incites violence against others in an attempt to revive a dead ideology that's only goal is to divide people and breed hatred (the racial purity argument is simply ridiculous. we are all already mutts). he should be held responsible for any crime that happens in britain that he is encouraging, and should be locked away, or put out of his misery (yes, i think there is still a place for the death penalty in this world). and there are many others like him who seek to drag us all down from reaching the next level of human evolution. many of them hide in the church. be wary of anyone with an absolute opinion.
"Should," hell: must be fought with fire and sword. But I'm thinking more rhetorical fire, legal sword, than any "real" ones. And by letting Fascists speak publicly, there's a good chance they'll incite, threaten, or otherwise spew forth some actionable speech. They can be surveilled and investigated: tax records, criminal records, etc., can be plumbed and exposed, narrated in the worst of lights. One hopes that Britain has hate-crime experts and taskforces for this sort of thing....
I sort of love the idea of an anti-Fascist brigade, but violence is a slippery mistress, and Fascists tend to be better at it than we book-reading, eggheady types.
You bring up a lot of interesting points though: can we trust the citizens of a democracy to be smart enough to govern themselves to a minimum extent and not embrace tyranny? (Probably not.) Can we morally and effectively choose who gets to be part of the polity? Who decides? Etc.
Can we morally and effectively choose who gets to be part of the polity?
We do it anyway. Voting rights, for example, are quite restricted. I don't know exactly how it compares to the UK, but in the US there are many disenfranchised groups. Why can't fourteen year olds vote? Resident aliens pay taxes without getting to vote on them, which is a pretty juicy gobbet of irony considering the causes of the American Revolution. Prisoners/convicted felons can't vote, which might go a long, long way toward explaining why our prisons are full of drug offenders.
My point is that we're already making those decisions. I'd certainly rather have my citizenship-pending neighbor get a vote than have a government-supported media monopoly tacitly equate a gang of fascist thugs to a legitimate political party.
'Kill him' I understand. But can anyone tell me what 'give him his bookings' means? Or is there some kind of obvious typo here that I'm missing?
A booking is an appearance on television, or wherever.
y, maybe it's a brit thing? can't make sense of it either.
Having watched the entire Question Time program, I find it hard to fault anyone. For one thing, Nick Griffin had a couple of supporters who shouted out when Jack Straw spoke up ... so it was not all one sided although it WAS heavily slanted in favour of everyone BUT Nick Griffin. But more importantly, the program helped expose his horrendous hypocrisy to Britain. The number of quotes used were overwhelming and he was forced into positions where he had to make ludicrous statements about the "nonviolent branch" of the KKK and how he wanted Britain to be 99 percent ethnic white.
Freedom of speech applies to everyone. Both Nick Griffin AND his detractors. Playing niceynice to fascists have been tried in the past and Britain, more than any other country in the world, understands what that kind of appeasement leads to. Nick Griffin is a vile character who needs to be shown for what he is, and Question Time did just that.
I do wish you'd stop setting yourself up as a greater authority on Britain than the people who live here, Antinous.
Here in a moderate-sized town in the Midlands I live opposite a mosque; two doors down there are two chinese takeaways; next door is a corner shop run by a Bangladeshi family; two doors down from them is a Polish deli; opposite them is a halal pizza shop; further up the road are two cafes and a newsagent's run by Turks; there's an East Asian deli and a South Asian supermarket; a Vietnamese restaurant; and further up still is a dress shop owned by a Malaysian. I can walk up this high street and hear not a single conversation in English some days. And I love it.
If we're on the brink of a Fascist takeover, where are the brownshirts smashing windows, burning shops and chasing away all the foreigners? Where are the riots? Where are the crazed youth gangs armed with knives making everybody's life miserable?
I'm fairly confident that the the BNP will follow the same trajectory as Mosely's Blackshirts and the National Front: an exciting flash-in-the-pan and a source of some unpleasantness for a few years, then a fading away into obscurity.
In the meantime, they have little power to speak of, their leader lies badly and looks like one of the more comical Death-Eaters, and they actually have less power and influence in Britain than far-right groups have in many European countries which are similarly not on the brink of a fascist take-over. I'm sorry that our way of dealing with them isn't bloodthirsty enough for you and Rob, but there simply isn't any need for that sort of thing just yet.
I think Rob's translator module is on the blink. It's not a British English phrase I'm aware of.
Nelson,
There were Jews in Germany, too. Lots of them. What's your point?
People like you sat and watched and pretended that there wasn't a problem until it was too late. Do you think that winking at fascists will make them go away?
@Rob -- Aha! Thanks for explaining. I think I now finally understand your post. It's not Griffin you object to, or even his appearance on TV, it's the way that the media and the public reacted to his appearance that you're condemning.
Hmm, yes, I see your point. The media and the general public are both sources of continual disappointment to me too. But when you say that this episode reveals the 'weakness of a political culture built on tradition and the expectation of common sense', are you saying that you'd prefer something more authoritarian instead?
(BTW I don't quite understand your final sentence: 'Shouldn't a democratic society accept a plurality of idiots?' Well, yes, I suppose it should. But isn't that precisely what's happening here?)
Rubbish. The BBC's charter is set until 2012/3. This issue will be long be forgotten by then, in favour of discussions on the future of local news/top slicing etc.
Like others, I agree than Griffin is an odious man. There's no denying that on QT this week he was hoisted by his own petard. Surely showing millions of viewers what he's really made of is only a good thing? I live in the UK and he's my MEP. I don't want him to be, but there was a pitiful turnout for the European elections and his supporters are vocal and keen. Maybe putting him up there, warts and all, will encourage more people to vote and select an alternative next time.
Octopod said --
Antinous responded --
Antinous, you just repudiated democracy. Is that really what this has come to? All because of this preening racist toad?
I'd also ask that you compare the venomous bile that this impotent little BNP twerp has said with the evil that the canting cn*t sitting across from him, Jack Straw, has actually done, and then tell me which of these two odious fc*kers represents the most real and immediate threat as of right now.
My point is that I'm British, and most of my friends are British, and a bunch of the commenters on this thread are British and we are telling you that we don't agree with the BNP. Are you telling me that despite myself I do agree with the BNP? Are you telling us that the government agrees with the BNP, despite the Home Secretary appearing on the programme and making clear his personal and political dislike?
There are people, I understand, in America who dislike blacks, and some of them even have political power. Is the USA about to crumble under a fascist onslaught from within? Oh, if only there were some Americans on the internet who could assuage my doubts. Alas, the only ones I can find are those who can't see the danger. [/sarcasm]
Antinous, I live here. You read the occasional sensationalist article from a Murdoch-owned newspaper online. You have no idea what life in the UK is like. You're as bad as the gun-bunnies who can't understand why how we can defend our freedom when we don't all carry firearms.
Germany didn't go from loving Jews to herding them into gas-chambers overnight, and the UK is a lot closer to the former than the latter. Beating fascism is part of our national myth; not only that, but we know we didn't do it alone. It wasn't just the Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Dutch people of the British Isles alone against the Germans and Italians, there were Poles and French and Jamaicans and Indians (not to mention the occasional American) flying those Spitfires that Nick Griffin loves so much. And we know it. The BNP are not going to make any great inroads into political life in the UK. It's the Tories we got to watch out for.
I'm more with you on the disenfranchised prisoner example, less on the others: fourteen-year-olds presumably lack the rationality, experience, maturity, of adults (heh, yes I am critically thinking about that as I type: straight-up BS, sure, but you gotta draw a line, right?); resident aliens aren't presumably full members of the society, with reasonable rights to vote (again, debatable). But I have a really hard time condoning disenfranchisement or silencing of a group because of their sheer odiousness. Just as I don't have to identify myself politically to vote, just offer proof of identity, so I think folks can't reasonably be excluded because of their political associations: Fascist John Smith is John Smith first, Fascist John Smith second, at least from the state's point of view (I hope). I do think those political associations can be reasonably subject to scrutiny, and, if illegal or threatening, can be surveilled, policed, etc.
I totally agree, but those are two separate questions: enfranchisement vs publicity and media exposure. By all means, they must be eviscerated in the mediasphere. But technically, if they've gone through registering, etc., then they are legitimate, however illegitimate their political aims, rhetoric, etc.
A huge fear of mine is that the Fascists no doubt plan similarl exclusions should they come to power: first they disenfranchise, say, blacks, then homosexuals, etc. I think this is a case of we liberal, progressive, freedom-loving folks needing to stand strong and not pave the way for them: educate, expose, combat, sure, but I really hope we haven't gotten to the point of making thoughts, opinions, and (most) speech illegal. 'Cause that's what they'd do to us!
It's not as though there isn't already somewhat of a fascist tenor to the way the UK's running things at the moment anyway. You get filmed every two metres in metro areas, Roma and Eastern European immigrants get walked all over and treated like sh**, including disallowing them to emigrate: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13085 or burning them in effigy: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/04/acceptable-hatred/
Ooh, how about tourists' cameras being seized, people being detained (and apparently waterboarded by the cops in at least one case), and rather sweeping, restrictive Internet policies currently on the table, all in the name of security?
It seems as though, if the UK wants to avoid sliding into Fascism, they may want to pay attention to the ridiculous crap *already* happening in their country, not that it's better in the US.
>resident aliens aren't presumably full members of the society, with reasonable rights to vote (again, debatable).
tbh. just voting in local elections would be cool.
Rubbish. The BBC's charter is set until 2012/3.
I read an article within the last week or so (although I can't find it now) in which David Cameron was threatening to sort out the BBC when its charter was up. This issue may be unrelated, but you better believe that it'll come up when the BBC's state quasi-monopoly is being discussed.
I'd also ask that you compare the venomous bile that this impotent little BNP twerp has said with the evil that the canting cn*t sitting across from him, Jack Straw, has actually done, and then tell me which of these two odious fc*kers represents the most real and immediate threat as of right now.
It's not a choice between two evils. It's one evil sitting in several chairs in the studio. The fact that the UK has become so authoritarian under Labour is what makes me think that it's ripe for widespread support of fascism. Anti-terrorist fear-mongering is bog standard preparation for fascism.
If fascism takes hold, you already have a well-developed surveillance state apparatus, plenty of thugs to recruit into fascist gangs and a population schooled to passively accept what they're served by the government.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
So the question becomes, in the words of another noted humanist, 'What then must be done?'
And the answer sure as fuck isn't 'vote Conservative'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
You really don't see how insulting you're being to the British readers of Boingboing, do you?
Nelson,
Current events speak for themselves. If you want to lose the reputation, do something about it. I don't complain about commenters excoriating Americans for going along with the War on Turbans. We deserve to be told off for it.
Hawley, the only reason the BNP won seats in the European Parliament was because of constant media attention, which basically drummed home the message that "the BNP exist, are a viable alternative to mainstream parties, and people are going to vote for them". To a racist, that turns into "Oh, well I will too, then".
Now we are going to see a further increase in support for the "underdog/victim" BNP. Latent racists watching Question Time the other night would have become active racists when they saw Griffin being tormented - let's not pretend that the programme was anything other than a bullying competition - by non-whites.
I'm certain QT would have 'turned a switch' in a lot of people's heads which will make them associate their views with those of the BNP, and it's going to translate into more extremist votes in the very near future.
Griffin's appearance now on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
I see you resolutely squirming away from explaining, disowning or apologising for the rabble-rousing exageration that I keep quoting. Yet again, you post something for which you have no basis in anything except feverish imagination, and yet again you refuse to acknowledge the depth of your ignorance.
The treatment of American government policy on a largely American blog is a separate manner. If I have ever indulged in a similarly exagerated reaction to such then I apologise, unreservedly.
There are bad things happening in the UK, but giving in to your worst fears and presenting them as facts doesn't help anything.
I tell you three times: the majority of Brits do not agree with the BNP, and we are not sleep-walking into a fascist dictatorship just because the gutters aren't running with the BNP's blood.
Nelson,
You've accused me of rabble-rousing, but you're the one who seems to be turning bright red. Fascism happens. If you asked the Germans in the 1920s if they supported a holocaust, what do you think they would have said? Were Serbs plotting to ethnically cleanse Yugoslavia for decades before the Balkans war?
"However, more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people." Does that not concern you? Pretending that fascism is impossible is what makes it possible. Talk to some Germans who lived in the 20s and 30s. They'll tell you how it crept on because nobody took it seriously.
You seem to be arguing that Brits have some magical anti-fascist DNA that will protect you.
Alright, Antinous, I was going to pile on and accuse you of rabble-rousing as well, and then you said this:
Pretending that fascism is impossible is what makes it possible. Talk to some Germans who lived in the 20s and 30s. They'll tell you how it crept on because nobody took it seriously.
...And all was forgiven, as far as I was concerned.
This is an incredibly important point, and one we all--as in, everyone on earth--need to keep close to the front of our minds. I was (still am, sometimes) accused of over-reacting to policies of Bush II, et al, for basically the same "can't happen here" reasons.
It "can't happen" anywhere. Until it does. For as crazy as the teabaggers are, at least they're angry. For 8 years we saw horror after horror coming from the US government, and those of us on the "left" (i.e. the center or even center-right for the rest of the world) blogged about it. We made pithy comments to acquaintances. We wrote songs. But what we didn't do (except in 2003, before the war) was scribble a bunch of misspelled words on paperboard and go hang around the Mall in Washington, D.C. and eat fried butter, angrily. We didn't go scream at politicians. We didn't do any of the things that let other people--people in power--know that we are really, really concerned. And every time someone pointed out some similarity to the Third Reich, we smugly invoked Godwin.
We must remain ever-vigilant and ever on the lookout for the seeds of fascism trying to take hold in our countries, and snuff them out before they can even sprout, else they be allowed to bear fruit. It's easier to handle these things when they are small. You don't want to wait until the logical conclusion is bearing down on you, because then the only thing that fixes it is fire, and lots of it.
Fascism lurks in all of us. It is perhaps at the heart of our monkey instincts. We all prefer people similar to us, and we all think we are right. But if you indulge that basest of instincts, you lose society and all the benefits thereof, which we have cultivated so assiduously.
And that's all the agricultural metaphors I will produce about that.
> Talk to some Germans who lived in the 20s and 30s. They'll tell you how it crept on because nobody took it seriously.
You seem to be arguing that Brits have some magical anti-fascist DNA that will protect you.
yes.but. either you think technology can enable citizens and strengthen democracy as a force for change, or you don't.
i'd like to think that many germans, and also europeans and americans, even during the fucked up time that was the weimar republic (and tbh, the versailles treaty rly didn't help get germany sorted out as a stable country) if they'd seen what was really happening in their country on mobile phone videos posted onto youtube, or read tweets about synagogues being attacked would have got off their lazy arses and done something about it.
if that's not the case, then..hmm hard to see wtf point is there in all this tech we've built.
Oh, that's easy. The technology means that when the boot starts stamping on the human face for ever and ever, we'll all be able to watch it on Youtube.
Seriously, however much these new technologies have benefited individual freedoms, they've benefited the apparatus of repression tenfold. There may be a lag in implementation and deployment, but corporations and government agencies have staying power. The result is that over time the ratchet only moves in one direction. And if there's anything outside of war or revolution that can reverse or even delay this inexorable process, I'd sure like to know what it is. And so would 6 billion other people.
hmm. how bleak. I'd guess the tomlinson inquiry after the g20 would have a different outcome without technology. but yeah, do agree with you on the bias, but sleep sounder at night hoping it's not quite the 10x.
tbh. if all this work we do is to enable endless pointless myspace updates and an echoing chamber of blogs reposts about cute mario cakes, then meh. anyways, I can always have a nice cup of tea.
Re 10x: Of course, that's just a plucked-out-of-the-air estimate. It's hard to quantify. If it makes you feel better, I guess you could always say one step forward, two steps back. :-)
On the plus side, hey! We're making progress already. I'll add it to the list. So that's --
War; Revolution; A nice cup of tea...
.. and delicious cake.