Nick Griffin described his appearance on Question Time as akin to facing a "lynch mob". In my opinion if that had been the case, it would have been no bad thing. But it wasn't, and it's ironic that a person who fraternises with KKK members and espouses such an intolerant ideology should appropriate such imagery. Telling, perhaps. But in saying so he insults the intelligence of the individuals who so eloquently exposed him, in a manner that was indeed emotional and violent, but quite understandably and rightly so.
I thought the programme, broadcast on thursday night, would amount to basically a regular edition of Question Time, the only difference being Nick Griffin would be able to comment about an issue that frequently comes up on the programme - namely immigration, in much the same way that some of the more disgruntled audience members tend to contribute - rolling out the usual reactionary complaints that the government has lost control of immigration, is allowing everyone and anyone to come in and sponge off the welfare system etc. (These comments always infuriate me because they are invariably full of completely false claims - like that new economic migrants to the UK can immediately receive benefits. FALSE.)
But in fact the debate was something else all together. It did discuss some current events, but essentially just as context points to start off an overarching discussion on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the politics of the BNP, and what the party really represents. The point being - that the legitimacy of Griffin & his party was not taken for granted - as critics of his appearance on the show suggested it would entail.
And what a wonderful decision it was, on behalf of the BBC, to give viewers the opportunity to jeer along while Griffin got skewered by British citizens who've actually made a positive contribution with their lives... I mean, when was the last time UK politics was this moving? I certainly can't remember.
Peter hain has since said that:
"Our black, Muslim and Jewish citizens will sleep much less easily now the BBC has legitimised the BNP by treating its racist poison as the views of just another mainstream political party when it is so uniquely evil and dangerous."
Actually, the BBC's decision was completely neutral. What their decision led to however - was a great deal of debate about the dangers of the BNP and far-Right politics, angry reactions and protests in opposition to Griffin and his views and a general raising of the alarm about the rise of British racism & extremism - because electorally speaking - it is on the up, and we can't ignore that. In fact doing so would be stupid and arrogant, and as I've argued before, why hand the "denial of freedom of speech" card over to such nasty individuals just so they can use it to play martyrs, it's entirely counter-productive. Let them tell us their views, let us be outraged and indignant, and then let's banish them back to the abyss from whence they crawled. Sometimes we need to be reminded about what we stand for, by being confronted with a threat to it - and receiving a severe shock in the process. As a black/Muslin/Jewish citizen, I'd sleep far less soundly knowing that the BNP was winning more & more votes, but no-one seemed to be reacting to it. Instead, the controversy has proved that the vast majority of UK citizens are disgusted by the BNP's politics, and willing to fight back against it.
There was a lot of anger from the audience, and indeed from the panel. Hatred, Racism, Disgusting, Outrageous, Repulsion - all highly emotive words that came up again & again. And were not out of place.
Because let's be completely clear about this, Nick Griffin's politics are not acceptable.
That was the overall message I got from the programme. And not just delivered in an "it's bad because it's bad" moralising way - what was so wonderful about it was that they really exposed him, and his party.
I once visited the BNP website and was genuinely shocked to discover, in a very obvious & visible place, a link to a section that contains specific instructions on how to use a particular kind of language to CONCEAL the real convictions underlying the party's "politics". They explicitly inform their party faithful (and the rest of the world, if they're interested) about how to win people to the side, gain supporters by using innocuous terms such as "identity" as euphemisms for those terms which are harder to swallow, like "racist", but which actually don't portray what the party is really about, at all. (I think now most of that content has been put here.) Painting their politics as legitimate when it isn't. What idiot would fall for that? Well, apparently quite a lot did. It seems that the strategy worked, and the pay-off, at the last elections, was such a significant gain that they have arguably acquired a kind of legitimacy by virtue of the ballot box, whatever their dishonest and misleading tactics of winning those votes may have been. But only arguably. And the opposite point was argued beautifully by some members of the panel, such as Greer and Huhne.
I'm currently doing a masters in a field of sociology. So I'm big on questions of "discourse", of "legitimacy"- this is definitely the stuff that floats my boat, academically speaking - terms which many consider little more than "waffle", even in academic circles, unfortunately. But when such a discussion about forms of expression and their implicit links to systems of power and oppression starts taking place in such a mainstream political forum as QT - I can scarcely contain my excitement. Deconstructing the rhetoric is not an activity that often takes place in such forums, generally it's taken at face value, so I was really impressed and heartened to see it.
Because instead of treating Griffin's perspectives as reasonable views, attention was drawn to what I've just described above, the BNP's explicit tactic of hidding its true colours in order to win sufficient electoral support to start implementing its vile, extremist & racist agenda.
Baroness Warsi labeled Griffin "A thoroughly deceptive man" who was "preaching extremism". Huhne also was pretty clear - reminding us that the politics of the BNP is about "looking for someone to blame" and is "as old as the hills". Greer pointed out that the BNP's version of "English history" is completely selective and absolute looney tunes. And let's not be silly. Let's none of us entertain any naive illusions about ethnic homogeneity or nationalism. That consensus was achieved thanks to policies of multiculturalism (for its sins) and political correctness (I won't have a word said against it).
Pointing out falsehoods and lies when they're presented, especially dangerous ones, and on national television, is crucial, and I'm frequently disappointed with Question Time for not operating that policy when audience members come out with lies about immigration. But on this occasion, they were well prepared, instead of allowing a racist discourse to creep into a conversation in a seemingly innocuous way, they exposed it and hammered it into the ground.
I thought the programme, broadcast on thursday night, would amount to basically a regular edition of Question Time, the only difference being Nick Griffin would be able to comment about an issue that frequently comes up on the programme - namely immigration, in much the same way that some of the more disgruntled audience members tend to contribute - rolling out the usual reactionary complaints that the government has lost control of immigration, is allowing everyone and anyone to come in and sponge off the welfare system etc. (These comments always infuriate me because they are invariably full of completely false claims - like that new economic migrants to the UK can immediately receive benefits. FALSE.)
But in fact the debate was something else all together. It did discuss some current events, but essentially just as context points to start off an overarching discussion on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the politics of the BNP, and what the party really represents. The point being - that the legitimacy of Griffin & his party was not taken for granted - as critics of his appearance on the show suggested it would entail.
And what a wonderful decision it was, on behalf of the BBC, to give viewers the opportunity to jeer along while Griffin got skewered by British citizens who've actually made a positive contribution with their lives... I mean, when was the last time UK politics was this moving? I certainly can't remember.
Peter hain has since said that:
"Our black, Muslim and Jewish citizens will sleep much less easily now the BBC has legitimised the BNP by treating its racist poison as the views of just another mainstream political party when it is so uniquely evil and dangerous."
Actually, the BBC's decision was completely neutral. What their decision led to however - was a great deal of debate about the dangers of the BNP and far-Right politics, angry reactions and protests in opposition to Griffin and his views and a general raising of the alarm about the rise of British racism & extremism - because electorally speaking - it is on the up, and we can't ignore that. In fact doing so would be stupid and arrogant, and as I've argued before, why hand the "denial of freedom of speech" card over to such nasty individuals just so they can use it to play martyrs, it's entirely counter-productive. Let them tell us their views, let us be outraged and indignant, and then let's banish them back to the abyss from whence they crawled. Sometimes we need to be reminded about what we stand for, by being confronted with a threat to it - and receiving a severe shock in the process. As a black/Muslin/Jewish citizen, I'd sleep far less soundly knowing that the BNP was winning more & more votes, but no-one seemed to be reacting to it. Instead, the controversy has proved that the vast majority of UK citizens are disgusted by the BNP's politics, and willing to fight back against it.
There was a lot of anger from the audience, and indeed from the panel. Hatred, Racism, Disgusting, Outrageous, Repulsion - all highly emotive words that came up again & again. And were not out of place.
Because let's be completely clear about this, Nick Griffin's politics are not acceptable.
That was the overall message I got from the programme. And not just delivered in an "it's bad because it's bad" moralising way - what was so wonderful about it was that they really exposed him, and his party.
I once visited the BNP website and was genuinely shocked to discover, in a very obvious & visible place, a link to a section that contains specific instructions on how to use a particular kind of language to CONCEAL the real convictions underlying the party's "politics". They explicitly inform their party faithful (and the rest of the world, if they're interested) about how to win people to the side, gain supporters by using innocuous terms such as "identity" as euphemisms for those terms which are harder to swallow, like "racist", but which actually don't portray what the party is really about, at all. (I think now most of that content has been put here.) Painting their politics as legitimate when it isn't. What idiot would fall for that? Well, apparently quite a lot did. It seems that the strategy worked, and the pay-off, at the last elections, was such a significant gain that they have arguably acquired a kind of legitimacy by virtue of the ballot box, whatever their dishonest and misleading tactics of winning those votes may have been. But only arguably. And the opposite point was argued beautifully by some members of the panel, such as Greer and Huhne.
I'm currently doing a masters in a field of sociology. So I'm big on questions of "discourse", of "legitimacy"- this is definitely the stuff that floats my boat, academically speaking - terms which many consider little more than "waffle", even in academic circles, unfortunately. But when such a discussion about forms of expression and their implicit links to systems of power and oppression starts taking place in such a mainstream political forum as QT - I can scarcely contain my excitement. Deconstructing the rhetoric is not an activity that often takes place in such forums, generally it's taken at face value, so I was really impressed and heartened to see it.
Because instead of treating Griffin's perspectives as reasonable views, attention was drawn to what I've just described above, the BNP's explicit tactic of hidding its true colours in order to win sufficient electoral support to start implementing its vile, extremist & racist agenda.
Baroness Warsi labeled Griffin "A thoroughly deceptive man" who was "preaching extremism". Huhne also was pretty clear - reminding us that the politics of the BNP is about "looking for someone to blame" and is "as old as the hills". Greer pointed out that the BNP's version of "English history" is completely selective and absolute looney tunes. And let's not be silly. Let's none of us entertain any naive illusions about ethnic homogeneity or nationalism. That consensus was achieved thanks to policies of multiculturalism (for its sins) and political correctness (I won't have a word said against it).
Pointing out falsehoods and lies when they're presented, especially dangerous ones, and on national television, is crucial, and I'm frequently disappointed with Question Time for not operating that policy when audience members come out with lies about immigration. But on this occasion, they were well prepared, instead of allowing a racist discourse to creep into a conversation in a seemingly innocuous way, they exposed it and hammered it into the ground.
Last Thursday the tone of audience & panelists oscillated between anger & mockery. Compare & contrast this to any appearance of a member of the "Front National" on mainstream French Television. The tables are turned, it's Marine Le Pen in this instance, who gets outraged and indignant when someone criticises her father for being a racist.
What was so brilliant about the exposing for Nick Griffin was the strong sense that alarm bells are now ringing, that here is a dangerous individual, posing under the veneer of acceptability, without abhorrent political views, and seeking to obtain credibility. And the answer needs to be a resounding: "You can whistle for it."
If this post seems angry I make no apologies, nor do I think the angry black Britons from hard-working families should apologise for their rage. But everyone has a right to be angry about it. And I don't think even the joker who insulted him by deliberately mispronouncing his name should apologise. Why should we take Griffin seriously? After all, he is not a serious politician, he is a racist extremist trying to actively HIDE his true convictions, distort the facts, using the most deceptive kind of spin.
The audience included a lot of young, mixed race individuals, presumably mostly Londoners, who Griffin subsequently described as not "English". Unfortunately for Nick Griffin, these people are absolutely "English" and they represent the future of the population of "England". Thank God.
