Do we provide a platform for extremists?

By Tom Scotney on Apr 20, 08 07:47 PM in Politics

I spent this afternoon with BNP leader Nick Griffin watching a re-enactment of Enoch Powell's infamous "rivers of blood" speech. Not for fun, obviously. I'm a political enthusiast, yes, but my Sundays are more likely to be taken up by the Hollyoaks omnibus than a tricky political tract and hanging out with the BNP.

It was work of course. As expected, the 40th anniversary of the incendiary speech that killed Powell's career and has tainted race relations ever since brought out the political people, from both right and left. And the Birmingham Post was right there to cover it.

So in the Birmingham Post on Monday will appear a report of the views and actions of the BNP, a party derided as racist, fascist, communist, what have you, by many. (And as the commonsense champions of the dispossessed by others, it should be pointed out)

So should we be reporting the views of extremists? Margaret Thatcher said it was important to deny terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' to defeat them. And true, someone can now pick up the Birmingham Post and read about the 'cross of fire' that Mr Griffin believes will be branded onto the UK if we don't do what Enoch said. Perhaps it might even inspire them in their own lurid, loony fantasies.

Earlier this month, newspaper group Archant came under fire for running BNP adverts in their papers. The group later donated all the proceeds to charity, but not before provoking the fury of both readers and its own staff.

Archant said it took a content-neutral approach to advertising, and running the advert did not mean approval of the BNP. Much like my coverage of the BNP this Sunday doesn't mean I support them. Really, I'm far too lazy to be extreme about anything.

And last November, the Oxford Union provoked a similar, but alrger storm of controversy when it invited Mr Griffin and former holocaust denier David Irving to take part in a debate. The night ended in chaos after protestors hijacked the event, making it impossible for participants to speak.

So what's the difference? Should be be giving the BNP as much time as any other legal party? Or should we be ignoring them to avoid spreading their poisonous creed? Will students be storming Weaman Street to stop us getting Nick Griffin's words out? No.

Firstly, an account of something that happened isn't the same as an advert. Knowing that the BNP held a celebration of the Powell speech (to a standing ovation no less) yesterday might provide a bit of succour to the paranoid anti-immigration lobby. But it's not going to change the mind of anyone who wasn't leaning that way anyway.

Secondly, I believe we have an obligation to provide a fair account of the political options out there. Not a legal obligation - this isn't the BBC, the Post is a private organisation and will support, deride or ignore parties and candidates as it sees fit.

But in a moral and political sense, if we want to have any claim to balance and fairness, we have an obligation to fairly and accurately report the - fully legal - actions and views of a political party that, regardless of its views and record, represents a segment of the population.

And bringing them out in the open makes it easier for everyone to see these views for what they are, rather than stuffing them back down into the dark and feeding the victim fantasies of the conspiracy nuts.

I don't want to be accused of violating Godwin's Law here. But actions of the people who try to suppress the airing of the views or words of a legal political party - regardless of their worth - are getting dangerously close to those of the very fascists they are keen to stamp out.

The BNP is a fringe party with minority appeal that believes it is held down by some kind of liberal media conspiracy. The danger of the BNP is not that they might be heard, but that they might be believed. And pretending they don't exist is the best way to confirm their views.

Note: The full text of Powell's speech can be found here. Read it and make up your own mind if you haven't already.

Comments (10)

Older/Newer

« Become a Birmingham Post Twitterer! | Je regrette beaucoup »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Do we provide a platform for extremists?. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/3207

10 Comments

Clive said:

The BNP have pretty much been denied the oxygen of publicity, but have not been defeated, in fact they have prospered and this seems set to continue. The Labour and Conservative Parties with their vast political apparatus and supporters in the media world and financiers from the business world cannot seem to comprehend let alone prevent the rise of this yet still small political force, for what we are experiencing is a paradigm shift. It is early stages, but we know it's happening and it's irreversible. It won't go back to sleep.

April 20, 2008 11:22 PM

GEORGE DEIGHTON said:

It would do the media a wealth of good if they woke up and smelt the coffe. looking at comments people make about political partys the bnp always comes up trumps, the reason the left are living on onother planet. the bnp are the real brain children of britain to day so all you leftys P***s off go and live in china.or pakistan.

April 21, 2008 1:56 AM

Graham said:

Simon Heffer made several key points in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday about Enoch Powell.

One was that Powell was the finest conservative thinker of the period.

Another was that the assertion that Powell killed debate about race and immigration was a lie. As someone who remembers the speech well, I can confirm that there was no debate, or even public mention, about immigration before Powell's speech. That is why it made the impact it did - it was the first public expression of disquiet by a public figure. It was of course squashed and Powell vilified, But the fact that there was no subseqent debate was simply no change. The political establishment simply reverted to its usual stance of cowardly denial of democratic expression on this most important of subjects, caring more about the opinions of the political elites than of the people.

A third and final point was that Powell was right in what he said.

So the BNP is not alone in its views on these matters.

April 21, 2008 12:02 PM

Tom Scotney

said:

Clive, Graham, thanks for your feedback. Trevor Phillips mentioned this in his speech earlier that day, saying one of the legacies of Powell's speech had been the fact that immigration had become a taboo subject for both right and left.

Another thing he claimed was that this refusal to fully engage with the issues of immigration could have actually led to more people coming to the country, as governemnts 'looked the other way' so to speak, for fear of seeming racist.

So could the Rivers of Blood speech have led to more immigrants coming into the country? Interesting thought anyway...

April 21, 2008 1:24 PM

mike bell said:

I too was in attendance on Sunday and really enjoyed the speeches made by the Bnp.I am a Bnp member for far too many reasons to explain in this short reply.The most important reason is because i believe that the Bnp have naturally inherited the role as the party to represent the working man a position abandoned by the Labour party.

April 21, 2008 11:37 PM

Leonardo Morgado said:

I have no issue with allowing "fringe" parties a platform for voicing their opinions no matter how much I may disagree with those opinions but (and it's a big but) it means that you have to allow other groups the same access.

Also, Nick Griffin mentions the word "debate" rather a lot and on the face of it is a rather rational request. However, debate is not what the BNP partake in. What they do is target areas where there already exists tensions and fuel the fire by feeding people's (perhaps justified) fears and anxieties.

If the BNP only used words then most people would quite easily argue against their somewhat intellectually weak ideas. However, I have seen so called "debates" where the BNP have been invited and the level of intimidation and real threat of violence is no joke and it's difficult to argue when you have a group people waiting outside the meeting place to cave your head in.

The BNP and the National Front is not some cosy tea and chat party and I have known people on the receiving end of some serious beatings. It's easy to talk about giving voice and allowing democracy but it's hard to argue against anything when you're in intensive care.

April 22, 2008 6:05 PM

John said:

I reckon that in the next 3 to 5 years the BNP will be recognised as a major political force, i.e. much more so than the Lib-Dems are/have been.... I'll wager that the BNP get members elected to both the European and British Parliaments next time round. Speak to the average Brit about immigration, Islam, anti-white racism, then read the BNP policy and newslinks on their website - I think you'll find the similarities soon enough. It seems to me that it is simply a matter of time, they are growing in membership and electoral support constantly.

Myself, I will vote for them every chance I get. If someone is going to call me names because I make this choice, well so be it.

April 23, 2008 11:20 AM

Tom Scotney said:

@Leonardo. I can’t comment on the beatings and the like, but I think you’re right about the only way the BNP can see any success.

@John. If you ask me, the problem with your views is that there’s no such thing as ‘the average Brit’, certainly not any more. I find it hard to imagine the BNP getting MPs or MEPs, but who knows. Outside the topics you mentioned, I don’t think the BNP really makes an impact on the political landscape, and I don’t think there are enough people around for whom immigration, Islam and anti-white racism are their only concern.

Similarly for Mike, I think it would be a bit arrogant for anyone to talk about what the ‘working man’ wants.

And to George, sorry, wasn’t ignoring your comment, it got caught in our system’s spam filter by accident. I can’t see myself moving to China or Pakistan, I had enough difficulty with GCSE French, don’t fancy my chances with Urdu or Mandarin.

April 23, 2008 2:46 PM

ruth said:

Does the Birmingham Post have a journalistic responsibility to report on the activities of fringe political parties such as the BNP? Certainly not. Uncritical, supposedly 'objective' reports most certainly do equate to providing the BNP with the oxygen of publicity. There is a dangerously sympathetic 'may be they have a point' assumption underlying this blog.

I don't expect the Post to report on every meeting of other fringe nut cases such as Respect, Socialist Worker or the rest, so why single out the BNP for special attention?

May 2, 2008 5:15 PM

Roshan Doug said:

Tom, I believe we have an obligation to all parties - fringe or otherwise. They should be allowed to put forward their perspectives irrespective of whether we - as a newspaper - share their point of view or not. As long as they don't advocate violence or hatred towards any person(s), they shoud be allowed the 'oxygen of publicity'. It's the basis of modern democracy.

May 11, 2008 5:08 PM