Harry's Place

Good article Michael.

Thank you Chas.

Spot on. Well put.

Spot on. Well put.

The issue with Griffin was not so much the invitation to speak as the fact that the BBC chose to big it up and trail it as a major news item for the previous two weeks, and to discuss it as if it were a topic of the most profound national significance. I can’t recall the BBC ever having done this for minority parties it had previously invited onto Question Time. What’s more the BNP had gained its two sets in the EUP only a few months before. I can’t recall the BBC having rushed so much to bring EU minority parties onto Question Time–other than UKIP, which also did much to boost UKIP’s fortunes.

Most significant about the BBC’s bad faith and cynical self-aggrandisement was the selection of the panel members, all clearly designed to relate to and attack Griffin.

That was then confounded by the appalling decision to have the discussion entirely centred on attacking Griffin and his views, with matching carefully prepared grandstanding opportunities for both the panel members and the equally carefully selected members of the audience to utter written-in-advance bits of grandstanding moral outrage soundbites.

This de facto turned it into the equivalent of a party political broadcast for the BNP where they could demonstrate that the elites were all out to get them. Just the message they wanted to put across to their target audience of the resentful and the ex-entitled of the ethnic English.

Ugggh. And really counterproductive. The public aren’t fools.

The real issue about the BNP is not the need to counter this group head-on. It’s firstly about a Euro election in which they got two seats because the great majority of core Labour voters failed to vote. Labour and the left are not spending nearly enough time looking at why that was, and being too ready to conclude it was all about immigration and the credit crunch. Secondly, and more importantly, it’s about us having now an EU electoral system of the most arcane proportional voting kind, where we have to elect a fleet of MEPs in huge constituencies–meaning small minority parties get seats on based on a minority of a small minority vote.

Changing our electoral system to one of compulsory voting would see off the BNP much more effectively than all this moralistic gesture politicking and grandstanding. And there wouldn’t be the same reason for the BBC to wade in thinking it can deal with the BNP by setting up this sort of “let’s expose their vile politics” stunt.

Thanks for your input. Mill always resonates with me, though I’ve never read ‘On Liberty’.

…the right not to be offended is not one of them.

I’m not sure whether this is the case de facto or de jure. We have the Racial and Religious Hatred Act which has been used to limit freedom of speech only recently. We’re also being softened up for the transposition of new EU legislation, the extension of the Equal Treatment Directive to include ‘religious harassment’. The burden of proof already lies with the defendant/respondent so that an inordinate amount of time and money must be devoted to responding to spurious complaints.

…we should expose them and hold them up to ridicule.

There are two broad implications of this sort of strategy:

1 – As has happened with the BNP, support for a party or individual will increase based on the perceived ‘circumnavigation’ of the debate or issue at hand. The BNP’s support stems mainly from Britons concerned with mass, unfettered immigration and the perceived unresponsiveness of a liberal political elite to legitimate concerns.

2 – Islamic cultural mores and sensibilities are considered off limits, allowing a two-tier system of freedom of speech.

We already have a criminal justice system that tiptoes around the ‘hurt feelings’ of certain designated victim groups. The problem will be further exacerbated if, as predicted, certain crimes are considered to merit extra punishment and the principle of equal treatment under the law is compromised.

No need to look to Israel for examples: remember that Thatcher government’s broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein and other Northern Irish groups. It wasn’t terribly effective, was it? But I guess the government (make that governments, a similar ban was in force in the Republic of Ireland) of the day felt at least they were being seen to do something.

Nor does the argument that banning groups from the airwaves gives them a boost by feeding a martyrdom complex seem to hold. The Shinners’ vote in NI rose when their mates stopped blowing things up; the other groups banned at the same time remained totally obscure.

Changing our electoral system to one of compulsory voting would see off the BNP much more effectively than all this moralistic gesture politicking and grandstanding.

Be careful what you wish for: there’s evidence that the BNP vote is coming from people who haven’t bothered to vote at all in the past. Of course, if the disaffected Labour voters who’ve stayed home were forced to vote, then they might cancel out the BNP voters. However, this proposal, which is questionable on a number of other grounds, could still lead to a big rise in the numbers voting BNP.

“carefully selected members of the audience to utter written-in-advance bits of grandstanding moral outrage soundbites:”

Judy,in the interviews with Joel Weiner, Rabbi Weiner’s son, who asked the Holocaust question, he said Dimbleby pointed to the person next to him, and he just took a chance and pretended that he thought he was being picked and blurted out his question. He says he did not formulate his question in advance and it just sprung to his lips spontaneously. Is there any reason to disbelieve Joel?

I would not classify his expression as grandstanding moral outrage. His distress both in his question and in his subsequent interview seemed very deeply felt and sincere.

He has come under vile abuse here from Lee Barnes.

I for one would not object to a ban on Peter Hain.

The stacking of both the QT format and audience was a bad idea, though.
Cowardly really.

@Judy

Labour and the left are not spending nearly enough time looking at why that was, and being too ready to conclude it was all about immigration and the credit crunch.

Good post from you, Judy, but I fail to see how the lowest turn-out for the Europarl. elections since they began and a plurality of votes for parties campaigning on an anti-mass immigration platform does not at least broadly translate into the feelings of the electorate as a whole.

Changing our electoral system to one of compulsory voting

This doesn’t work in Greece, for example, where the percentage of abstentions this year were at there highest level since records began, I believe.

Nick Griffin, despite his and his party’s dangerous and facile views, is NOT responsible for the appaling civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jack Straw is more answerable here, and what is Baroness Warsi’s position? Jack Straw would take none of the blame for encouraging, through government policy or lack of it, the rise of the BNP.

Peter Hain is a ridiculous man who needs to grow up. He isn’t actually opposed in principle to providing platforms for extremists, back in 1994 he sent an official message of greetings to Sinn Fein’s conference even as the IRA were active. However that didn’t violate a shibboleth of 1970s student politics.

The Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, was morally opposed to the BBC providing a platform to Nick Griffin on Question Time.

I hate it when people try to impose their morality on others.

@Judy,

I disagree with the sentiment of your post.

1. Griffin appearing on Question Time was a news story irrespective of whether the BBC “chose to big it up” as you put it.

2. Whilst it is true that the BNP have only recently been elected in Europe, they are not a new political party. They have been around a long period of time, they (unfortunately) have support of a reasonable proportion of the British population and they have not had the chance to appear on Question Time before.

3. In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the fact that a large proportion of the programme was centred around race which is of course a major issue for the BNP. Who knows, or more to the point cares, what that BNP’s policies are on health, education, taxation etc. Had Griffin had a free ride on race and been allowed to talk at length on methods for improving efficiency in the NHS, I think many viewers, including myself, would have felt that the BBC had let the public down. The fact that Griffin was attacked for his views on race and for smirking whilst answering a question on the Holocaust was also, in my opinion, a good thing. The view I have expressed in my post is in line with the usual strap line of this blog:

If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

This does not only apply to what the public at large do not want to hear but applies to what Griffin does not want to hear.

4. I certainly accept that it is the large constituencies that allowed the BNP to gain two seats in Europe and there may a case for changing this electoral system, but I do not believe that the answer is to have compulsory voting as you suggest. We live in a democracy and people should have the right not to vote as well as the right to vote.

@Thadeus Beaumont

Thank you for your comment. It is certainly true that freedom of speech is not absolute and we have moved a long way from the 1964 General Election when supporters of Tory candidate Peter Griffiths campaigned under the slogan:

If you want a nigger for a neighbour – vote Labour.

However, within the bounds of the law, people are reasonably free to speak openly and some of the things that people say will offend others. There is no legal protection for that.

Michael,

Spot on and a very good article.

Would you accept, Michael, that much of what passes for discrimination law has been counter-productive both in terms of race relations/social cohesion/respect for human dignity and freedom of speech?

I accept that in a 21st century globalised world the UK must accept law from transnational/treaty organisations, and that there’s an argument, particularly so in the case of the ECHR, that British citizens have played a fundamental role in formulating such laws. However, it seems to me that as a de facto EU province, popular sovereignty is ’straightjacketed’ in the UK by a similar process to that in Iran. In Iran, the people have limited sovereignty in so far as all legislation must fall within the interpreted limits of the Shari’ah and not contradict the orthopraxy of the Infallibles; the Guardian Council can, and does, veto whole swathes of legislation and PPCs based on a perceived affront to Islam. I fear the UK, as a vassal state of the EU, and subject to laws enacted free from scrutiny, enforced by a politicised police force who no longer uphold the law unequivocally but pursue the whims of a minority, is heading in the same direction.

Sure, the BBC can invite extremists to speak on television, so long as I have the right to withdraw my funding from them. So long as the compulsory licence fee is in force, contentious content in BBC broadcasts will lead to a backlash against the corporation by those who are forced to pay for the content they find objectionable. If the BBC became a fully commercial operation, either through advertising or subscription, in my opinion it would have the editorial independence to do as it pleased and we, as consumers, would have the right to withdraw our subscriptions or just stop watching. For the time being, I am unhappy that the BNP has been given a forum paid for by the television tax, Christians are unhappy about Jerry Springer the Opera, many people are unhappy about Jonathan Ross, etc, and I don’t see why people should be forced to pay for being offended.

refully selected members of the audience to utter written-in-advance bits of grandstanding moral outrage soundbites:”
Judy,in the interviews with Joel Weiner, Rabbi Weiner’s son, who asked the Holocaust question, he said Dimbleby pointed to the person next to him, and he just took a chance and pretended that he thought he was being picked and blurted out his question. He says he did not formulate his question in advance and it just sprung to his lips spontaneously. Is there any reason to disbelieve Joel?

I wasn’t thinking of him. I heard repeatedly played on BBC News reports a soundbite of a black respondent theatrically delivering what was obviously a carefully prepared soundbite about clubbing together to send Griffin to the south pole (so designed to get lots of me-too applause), plus all the politicos delivered what were all too clearly pre-written statements.

ut I fail to see how the lowest turn-out for the Europarl. elections since they began and a plurality of votes for parties campaigning on an anti-mass immigration platform does not at least broadly translate into the feelings of the electorate as a whole.

It’s the non-vote by people who previously flocked to vote Labour that’s most significant, not the fact that a small minority of the self-defined as dispossessed will always want to vote for a racist or radical extremist demagogue party that offers easy solutions. Democracy is a system which gets either sidetracked or hijacked by such groups if the majority are given the choice to take the cynical position of opting out because of anger or disappointment with the main parties. One of those BP EU seats was won by just 1.400 votes of a total of around 2 million.

If everybody was required to vote, the same way we are all required to contribute to keeping our democratic society going by paying taxes and doing jury service, this would never happen.

A lot of people would vote “none of the above” or spoil their papers, but it would be nothing compared to the numbers who would if required to make a choice of the least worst …and for most people that would not mean the BNP.

There are the claims being made that the BNP has subverted YouGov by packing its voluntary panel with its supporters. But suppose that’s not true. A maximum of 22% considering voting for the BNP. That’s as far as they’re likely to get. In a 100% democracy system that would not land them a single seat, not even in a local council.

We will always have groups of people who are racists or long for dictatorships of various kinds. They will never be other than a tiny minority if we have a genuinely democratic — 100% democratic, because 100% will have to vote–voting system.

Michael, it’s true that the BNP participation was a news story. But the BBC really made a successful bid for it to take over and dominate the news agenda by announcing it with great fanfare and relentlessly trailing it, and running extended reports of shock-horror reactions to it, plus spec pieces by commentators anticipating how it would pan out, from two weeks ahead. Normally, the BBC does not announce Question Time panel memberships so far ahead. It would never have developed into the furore it did if the Beeb had followed its normal practice. After all, they justified inviting Griffin on on the basis that they were obliged by their Charter to treat the BNP exactly as any other party that had got a tiny electoral mandate consisting of two MEP seats. But they did not treat the BNP exactly as they do other equivalent minority parties. On the contrary, they treated the event as if it was an epoch making national event. It was a television talk show renowned for its grandstanding and packing of audiences to create sensational effects.

Michael,

Refresh your memory on the relevant legislation:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1

“29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.”

Fear of prosecution following an allegation of an offence as above is likely to deter most debate or discussion about what are ultimately matters of irrational faith and supernatural belief, not inherent properties such as race or sexuality, with which religious belief is so often wrongly confused and conflated.

The statutory protection is unlikely to be much help in practice:

“29J Protection of freedom of expression Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

I say I am (lawfully) expressing antipathy and criticizing. You say I am expressing (unlawful) hatred. Unusually the onus of proof is on me to prove you wrong. How will this not stifle all but the mildest and most fluffy NuLab style discussion of religion (all cultures are equal but different etc) or mostly likely close down debate altogether? This is (one of the reasons) why the BNP has a franchise.

B

I strongly supported the BBC’s right to let Nick Griffin appear on QT. However if I didn’t then the last person I would want supporting that view would be the hypocrite and self publicist Peter Hain who has been living on his anti-apparteid credentials for thew last 20 years and has done nothing of substance since.

It’s interesting that you should mention Peter Griffiths’ infamous speech. I can’t detect from your paragraph whether you are suggesting that legislation has brought about a sea change in cultural attitudes or that, in concert with this and broader social change, a sort of self-censorship has evolved.

What’s interesting is that the word ‘nigger’ is still used, but in the vast majority of cases not as a pejorative. I’m broadly sceptical of the ability of legislation and the CJS as a whole to bring about objectivally positive social/societal outcomes. I also suspect that, whichever ’side’ of the debate you fall on depends on whether you believe in the perfectability of man…or not.

What’s clear, to me at least, is that legitimate concerns free from muddled, illogical thinking are not aired because of an illiberal attitude to what is considered ‘freedom of speech’. When Griffiths was an MP, and even when John Townend was ‘put up’ (my theory) to smearing William Hague by association back in 2001, it was still possible for certain issues to be broached. After QT the other evening, it seems even more unlikely that a sensible debate on immigration (a waste of time anyway post-Lisbon) could be held. Griffin’s appearance on QT served the liberal elite well in that it further poisoned the subject of race and immigration.

As Mrs A said to me recently.

‘ that Peter Hain with his permatan.

He was just a running dog lackey for western capital interests in South Africa. He did not care for folks like us Abdul.

He wanted a biddable Black guv in to give the diamond and miner companies a free ride over the poor S African people so as not have to deal with stiff neck Afrikanner types any more.

Anti Apartheid my Burkha !

She does get upset sometimes….

I for one would not object to a ban on Peter Hain…..

Right on, I also find this bloody little carpet-bagger offensive as well but what can I do? I have had to live with it for years! Anyway did he or did he not commit an illegal fraud, depending if you are from the Westminster pig trough or from the electorate!

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I would like to make one observation about the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and similar acts. There are certainly those that disagree with the idea of such regulation, they view it is an impingement to freedom of speech and other personal freedoms. The controversial “objectivist” Ayn Rand, has an interesting chapter on this in her 1964 book, The Virtue of Selfishness. As far as she and other libertarians who have similar views are concerned, such acts should not have been passed as government has no business in interfering in such matters. She would argue that a company should be perfectly free to have a hiring policy which stipulated that black people would not be hired but that people should also be free to boycott that company and not purchase their goods. She focusses on the rights of an individual and not rights of a collective group. If XYZ Company will not hire a black person, it does not stop a black person from taking a job with ABC Company and nor will it stop a black person starting a company and having a policy of not hiring white people.

I do not think it is necessary to get into this debate as we have the Racial and Religious Hatred Act and I do not think any major political party is thinking in any serious way of repealing such acts.

@Judy

I agree with the substance of what you wrote again, but I’m still not convinced that making voting compulsory will somehow make democratic outcomes objectivally fairer.

A significant body of polling data suggests that the majority of the population are concerned about high levels of immigration and especially the fact that the self-described ‘mainstream’ parties ignore this sentiment. It’s inevitable that, however imperfectly, the public would latch onto individuals and parties who seem to articulate their concerns. Changing the electoral system will not alleviate these concerns, but force them to be expressed in a more radical fashion.

A good post but it’s worrying that this is not completely obvious.

Hain is simply showing an authoritarian attitude and contempt for democracy and the electorate….text book Harmanism. He is unwilling to combat the likes of the BNP by utilising free speech, the light of publicity. His knee jerk reaction is to control. Perhaps he imbibed some Stalinist tendencies during his youthful days as a Communist.

This authoritarianism is seemingly rather common amongst Labour front bench politicians; but the Conservative party are by no means immune…to wit, the smug, Patrician Hurdism common amongst all too many Tories.

…and I do not think any major political party is thinking in any serious way of repealing such acts.

The fact is that they would be unable to, at least in its present form, because of the ECHR and its various narrow interpretations.

But this, Ayn Rand and employment discrimination are all red herrings.

Firstly, not just libertarians are concerned about the potential for this sort of legislation to be used politically and perniciously. And secondly, nobody but a tiny minority would argue against the outlawing of discrimination based on the colour of one’s skin.

The real problem is what you term ‘rights of a collective group’.

Oh ….and is Griffin – a hard Left, racist Nationalist in the Moslyite tradition and Mosley was ex Labour – , is he even slightly more objectionable than George Galloway – a champagne socialist, and distinctly treasonous Islamofascist apologist who has appeared more than once on QT, with nary a peep from the media?

I would argue that Galloway is considerably more odious than Griffin. Remember, Galloway was evicted from the Labour for inciting British troops to mutiny.

Actually it should be obvious to many that Galloway’s and Griffin’s politics are surprisingly close.

Since Jack Straw was a panelist and the debate was therefore endorsed by the Government itself, and since Griffin came across as an utter twat, I’d like to see Hain try a legal challenge.

‘No platform’ is a failure, legally, morally and tactically.

Peter Hain

The man convicted of criminal conspiracy,
The man positively identified at the scene of a bank robbery by the bank teller and three others but was found innocent because South African Intelligence had set him up,
The most hated man in gibraltar for selling them out to spain,
The man who said we should change our foreign policy to suit a group of religious terrorists with homemade bombs,
The man who tried to sell out the Northern Irish by unifying them with Eire,
The man who released 150 IRA terrorists,
Ther man who hid £103,000 in donations to his leadership campaign and had to resign.
The man who fell asleep in a meeting with a father whose son had been murdered by terrorists.
The man who said ‘Gerry Adams is a man I can do business with’.

Respect

The BNP would vanish like a whiff of unpleasant smoke
if the 2 major parties started to represent the British
people & their best interests.

Tories – make it clear to all immigrants that they speak
English, can expect no benefits, including housing,
for 10 years. Existing benefits cancelled if claimants
do not speak English, or have not worked & paid taxes
No immigrant insults our troops or our Christian/post Christian
values, & no ideological uniforms or threats to any
kind to other groups.
All families whose daughters “vanish” to be
deported in their entirity

Labour.
Rigid enforcement of sexual equality before
the law.
No international company to be allowed to bring
in foreign labour before British workers have been
approached first.
This includes EU workers.
(The French have always behaved like this)

Abolition of all non Judeo/Christian “faith schools”,
& steady phasing out of these.
Failed asylum seekers detained for one brief appeal.
If this fails instant deportation to last safe land through
which they passed.
Companies that knowingly employ illegal immigrants or
use slave labour to be bankrupted.

Nothing racist or nasty there.
Just policies to help British people of all colours
defend their hard won liberties.

Griffin had every right to go on QT for reasons eloquently set out above. Hopefully it will do him no good and I suspect the EU elections represent a high water mark for the Far Right for this generation – which means the BNP will never get a seat in Parliament and will probably not be on QT again. However even if it strengthened him that is a price we pay for democracy. Free speech should be absolute and cannot be modified on the basis of the anticipated consequences of any particular expression of free speech.

I don’t think inciting racial hatred should be a crime although directing inciting racial violence or crimes should be. That’s an extreme free speech fundamentalist viewpoint and one which I justify by applying a high threshold for the “harm” in JS Mill’s harm principle.

I think the prohibition on religious hatred is an absolute disgrace and it should be equally lawful to hate someone because of their religious views as it is to hate them for their political views.

I note that people have claimed that the audience was stacked? Is there any evidence for this other than the fact that the audience included non-whites and opponents of the BNP. There are lots of both in the UK, more still in London and such people would probably be disproportionately inclined to want to attend so, if that is it, its hardly proof

The ban on SF speaking was unjustifiable (as well as farcical).

I don’t think they should have had him on.

Placing him alongside politicians of democratic parties only serves to give him a status he does not deserve. And no, just because he stands in elections, and gets elected, he cannot be called a democrat.

He is unequivocal about the purpose of gaining power – it is to use the power of the state to assert what he believes ‘indigenous’ people want. That must mean denying what ‘non-indigenous’ citizens want unless there is some coincidence of interest.

But his party goes much further. After all, once could argue that at one level or another any Party which gains power will want to introduce policies which affect some group adversely. The BNP make it all about race, and they make mealy-mouthed attempts at placating people by talking about ‘voluntary assisted repatriation’.

Sounds lovely, doesn’t it?

But it’s a charter for meatheads (and the BNP know it) who think they might ‘encourage’ people to consider ‘volunteering’ by a spectrum of racial violence that ranges from verbal abuse through to fire-bombing homes and murder.

And just what public service are the BBC performing by allowing the BNP to have their seat at the table, then promoting and generally stirring up a shitstorm about their own programme? Black people (I imagine this must be what is meant by ‘non-indigenous’?) are the public too – what service was done for them?

We simply don’t need to see how odious, wretched, sweaty, talentless, charmless and thoroughly idiotic the man is.

It is his party that matters and we already know what the BNP stand for: a boot stamping on a human face forever.

What a pile of absurd and shrill bullshit.

This site is still the most common provider of stories concerning George Galloway btw. At least 2-3 a week beats every other site going.

“Of course, some contend that racism and fascism are uniquely odious and worthy of exclusion from the public square. This is effectively the policy of the National Union of Students. The problem is, who decides who is a racist or a fascist? In 1985, Sunderland Polytechnic Student Union banned the college’s Jewish Society on the grounds it was Zionist and therefore racist.”

Excellent point. ‘No Platform’ policies have always been abused. Today they’re used to effectively shut down any criticism of immigration policy, moral and cultural equivilism or religion.

That gives one side of the argument, the left, a disproportional advantage in controlling the political landscape.

(And I’m ashamed to admit that as an ignorant and naive leftie and ‘Palestinianist’, I was present at, and on the wrong side of, the EGM at Sunderland Poly that voted to ban JewSoc.)

The argument put forward by Hain does not stand up. If a party is illegal, how was it permitted to take part in elections and win seats?

The primary duty of the BBC, is to its customers, the licence paying public. This encompasses pretty much all of us who ever make choices in polling booths, and we have a right to see party politicians questioned, challenged, and put in a position where they have to account for their policies. So the only rational threshold the BBC can apply, is the gaining of seats in European or National elections. And they were never going to have the leeway to do it any other way. The BBC has no mandate to usurp the rights of its customers.

Furthermore there are parties which have little relevance to the majority of people in the UK.

The argument put forward by Hain does not stand up. If a party is illegal, how was it permitted to take part in elections and win seats?

The primary duty of the BBC, is to its customers, the licence paying public. This encompasses pretty much all of us who ever make choices in polling booths, and we have a right to see party politicians questioned, challenged, and put in a position where they have to account for their policies. So the only rational threshold the BBC can apply, is the gaining of seats in European or National elections. And they were never going to have the leeway to do it any other way.

Furthermore there are parties which have little relevance to the majority of people in the UK. Plaid Cymru is of no interest to most people outside of Wales, but they must be included. The people of Wales are voters and license payers too.

And in all cases, the party representatives must be held up to the public gaze and put on the spot. For each one of them, the exposure is necessary, as much for the people who would vote for anyone but him, as for his dedicated supporters.

“…I don’t see why people should be forced to pay for being offended.”

Dan, I don’t know what make and model of TV you have, but if you look on the plastic surround, somewhere there should be a button.

Press it, and you won’t need to be offended.

Pat,

Your spectacularly missing the point, unless you are seriously contending that freedom of speech only applies to democrats who support freedom of speech, that liberty only applies to those who support liberty? Read the extract from the israeli supreme court again; freedom of expression exists for racists, nazis, those who would end democracy, repatriate etc, etc.

Yes we know, or we have a fair idea, of what the BNP would do in power – they are neo-fascists after all, but that is not relevant to their right to engage in political debate.

Freedom of expression and liberty apply to fascists, islamists, totarliarians stalinists and others, and allowing them to express their views (including on the BBC subject to impartial criterion based on public support at elections) is right even if it strengthens them.

That’s the deal, the gamble, of democracy. If you think a benign dictatorship is better then say so but don’t pretend to be a liberal or a true democrat.

The alternative is that someone or some group should decide who and who does not get to go on QT? That road lies censorship and the Russian or Chinese model of political debate and pluralism.

“I think the prohibition on religious hatred is an absolute disgrace and it should be equally lawful to hate someone because of their religious views as it is to hate them for their political views.”

LLH, I agree entirely.

B

But, Julia, the point is not switching off (or over) Question Time. It’s that my money – and your money – is being used to provide a chance for a fascist party to advertise itself. The fact that they did such a poor job is irrelevant. My money wasused to pay for that toad to enjoy BBC food and drink hospitality, and advertise his politics. No switch will stop me feeling offended about that.

The BBC IS independent of the Government: which is exactly why it is funded the way it is, rather than from general taxation.

If there was ever an argument for getting government out of the teevee business, this is it.

“It’s that my money – and your money – is being used to provide a chance for a fascist party to advertise itself. The fact that they did such a poor job is irrelevant. My money wasused to pay for that toad to enjoy BBC food and drink hospitality, and advertise his politics. No switch will stop me feeling offended about that.”

My money – and your money – is used to provide hospital treatment for fascists if they get injured, to supporters of Stalinism if they qualify for council houses, and advocates of extreme Sharia law who use public transport. Not to mention to provide religious eduction.

And no one has a moral / political right not to be offended.

Oh ….and is Griffin – a hard Left, racist Nationalist in the Moslyite tradition and Mosley was ex Labour.

Mosley was a Conservative MP first and for almost exactly as long as he was a Labour one.

Dave K:

There are many programmes covered by the BBC which are offensive to some sector of the license paying public, for all sorts of reasons. What is offensive to me, for example some BBC hack weeping buckets at Arafat’s funeral, still has to be paid for by all of us, including me.

You can be a lifelong pacifist and steadfast campaigner against all war. And you still have to pay for the BBC to cover the national Act of Remembrance at the Cenotaph every year. Just as you have to pay through your taxes for the government to declare and prosecute the next war, wherever that is.

If you were saying we should dispense with the license fee, and send the BBC out to fend for itself, fair enough. But if you mean keep taxing everybody, and showcasing all opinions except those you do not like, no-one is going to go for that. It would become an unnaccountable compulsory tax, taken from all, but dispensed only to an elite chosen few.

@LLHawk – Only one good example of a problematic use of our money. None of these have the impact of directly promoting fear and hatred. The exception being the religious education funding that I’m sure gets abused for these ends. I would be happy to see all religious education funding withdrawn.

Pat:

It wouldn’t matter if he was a rabid islamist, a stalinist, or the leader of the flat earth society. The principle still applies.

You and I are not on the same astral plane you know. That’s OK, we don’t have to be.

It’s just that I’m concerned that the stewardess is flying yours…

The stench of Jew is overpowering at this site.

What Monty said…

Come on Alison, tell us what you really think….. you drooling loon.

Come on Alison, tell us what you really think….. you drooling loon.

Monty: that is the inherent tension within the BBC – its dependence on a special television tax and its accountability to the payers of that tax, some of whom will be deeply offended by some of its content and rightly do not think they should be forced to pay for it. This problem is not going to go away and it is not simply political, as the Andrew Sachs phone call debacle demonstrated. It is a problem that is likely to worsen as the number of self-financing independent channels escalates. I resent having to pay for the BBC to host a programme that gives a platform to the BNP, but I would have far fewer problems if the programme was on a commercial stations and viewers could legally boycott it by deciding to remove themselves from the audience (thereby affecting potential future advertising revenue) or cancel their subscriptions.

That’s why my knickers are so damp.

If the BBC ceased to be publicly funded nad had to rely on advertising, the only programs being made would be those that attracted big audiences. While I appreciate that perhaps all of the readers of this blog watched Nick Griffin I would suggest that, in the ratings game, the total audience was probably very small. If the license fee is abolished, there is no way that public service broadcasting will survive. Already the truly informative programs are pushed to the edges of the schedules while ‘prime time’is devoted to Strictly Come Dancing. I would suggest that removing the license fee would not only do away with Nick Griffin appearing on QT but QT itself!
Governments are not interested in an informed electorate. An electorate that lays comatose in front of the X Factor and endless game shows is much more malleable than one that, even accidentally, catches 15 minutes of Andrew Marr. If the clamour to remove the license fee gets too great either the Labour party or the Tories would be delighted to get rid of these pesky programs examining what MPs get up to. Pamorama at 8-30pm in the evening just wouldn’t happen if it depended on advertising.
Be careful what you wish for!!

Sorry all Pams. That should have read Panorama!

Here’s something amusing:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/european-union-set-to-outlaw-objections-to-islamic-practices.html

Tainted source, of course!

Racism begins with our families, parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, people we admire, respect and love.

However, as we grow and mature we come to the realization that what we were told by our family when we were children were slanted lies base on their prejudices. We realize that most people are like ourselves and not so different and want the same things, like a home, steady work, a Medicare plan and schools for our children (if you travel you will see this). We realize that most people are of good hearts and goodwill.

This reminds me of a parable from the good book where a Levite and Priest come upon a man who fell among thieves and they both individually passed by and didn’t stop to help him.

Finally a man of another race came by, he got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy and got down with the injured man, administered first aid, and helped the man in need.

Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his fellow man.

You see, the Levite and the Priest were afraid, they asked themselves, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?”

But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”

That’s the question before us. The question is not, “If I stop to help our fellow man (immigrant) in need, what will happen to me?” The question is, “If I do not stop to help our fellow man, what will happen to him or her?” That’s the question.

This current climate of blaming others for our woes is not new. We have had this before and we have conquered it.

Remember “Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing”. Raise your voices with those of us who believe we are equal and we can win this battle again.

Venichka: >The BBC IS independent of the Government: which is exactly why it is funded the way it is, rather than from general taxation.<
How is the judiciary funded?

and its accountability to the payers of that tax

Monty’s already nailed this one, Dan. It’s funny, you know, that we don’t hear you complaining about the several billion pounds’ worth of taxpayers money funneled into the EU behemoth with little or no accountability stipulated…

“I would suggest that removing the license fee would not only do away with Nick Griffin appearing on QT but QT itself!”

And that’s a bad thing? Question Time isn’t a great programme, it doesn’t give us anything but politicians saying what they always say. There’s no interrogation, only soundbites. Public service television? There is more minority interest programming available than ever before, but it’s not coming from the BBC but from a myriad of self-funding channels. Songs of Praise does not need to feature in the schedules when you have a bizillion Christian television channels giving 24×7 sermons and singing.

Peter
27 October 2009, 5:45 pm

If the BBC ceased to be publicly funded nad had to rely on advertising, the only programs being made would be those that attracted big audiences. While I appreciate that perhaps all of the readers of this blog watched Nick Griffin I would suggest that, in the ratings game, the total audience was probably very small. If the license fee is abolished, there is no way that public service broadcasting will survive. Already the truly informative programs are pushed to the edges of the schedules
————–

OK. Even with the massive compulsory public subsidy, they aren’t coming up to scratch. What else did you expect? They get their money, whether or not they deliver any new tractors.

Big audiences do not necessarily correspond with “bad” programs. The BBC is now just as populist in terms of it’s programme offering as any other channel. It just isn’t special any more. It doesn’t even have the best News or current affairs. It only looks good if you ignore everything else that’s out there. I like informative programmes, history, science, natural history, engineering, so I pay for the satellite documentary channels. But by virtue of having a TV set, I have to pay for all their Eastenders and Strictly junk as well. And their arty farty stuff. And their sports coverage.

The supermarkets have captured the mass market in food retailing. And whether you want to eat junk food or the finest organic tofu, that’s where you will find the greatest choice, at the best price. And if you don’t want to shop there, they don’t get to impose a tax on you for taking your custom elsewhere.

We live in an age of rising standards, driven by the hot breath of free and fair competition. And it works. This is why the council don’t come round to do your hair, and it’s probably just as well.

Thank you (or most of you) for your comments.

I would like to comment on Pat’s post. Pat stated:

I don’t think they should have had him on….. We simply don’t need to see how odious, wretched, sweaty, talentless, charmless and thoroughly idiotic the man is.

My own opinions on the BNP and Griffin is indeed that they are odious. The problem is that in a democracy racists have rights. They also pay a license fee for their television and they have to put up with what they may consider obscene: black people and anybody else that they consider “non-indigenous” on television. They also have to put up with politicians with major parties that they feel do not represent their views and who they did not vote for. Who is to decide whether your view or the the view of Joe Bloggs, BNP voter, is more valid?

It may well be true that supporters of the BNP represent less than 10% of the population and I would hope that in a general election it will be substantially less than that. I also hope that the party will not win a single seat in parliament. However, what gives you the right to say that politicians that they support should not have the same rights to being on television, as a proportion of support received, as the politicians that you support?

Alexis de Tocqueville coined the phrase “tyranny of the majority” in his 1835 book, Democracy in America. This is a well known problem with democracies and would occur if the majority decide to oppress or unfairly take advantage of the minority. Whether it be large states in the USA conceptually voting for no government funds for small states or for a majority white population to legally oppress non-whites. The conceptual problem is the same and systems of democracy, including devolution of power and, in the USA, equal number of Senators per state irrespective of population size, are set up to best deal with this matter. This idea of tyranny of the majority could also be used by people like yourself to ensure that the BBC never show the views of the minority BNP supporting part of the population.

I hope this helps explain my view.

Michael, your reference to the dangers of the “tyrrany of the majority” is very relevant here I think. The primary defence any society can muster, is an agreed fundamental constitution, and this is where the USA wins big time, and I think we lose out in the UK. Because we are not focussed on a constitution, familiar to all of us, and taught in all of our schools.

Monty,

Thank you for your post, I do like the idea of the US constitution. We do have a constitution in the UK but it is unwritten. This, of course, leads to a problem: if it is unwritten, how can people know what is in it and why cannot someone simply write it down? In response you will find answers such that we are nation of gentleman and cricket players and we like to do things fairly and we have customs etc. It is all rather quaint and,whilst we are not the only country to not have a written constitution, it is very British.

One thing that is not in the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom but is in the written constitution of the United States is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Many might think that this is where the UK wins big time. Having said that, in the event that the people in the UK elect a government that decide to start killing the population, that many might reverse their opinion. I hope that this awful scenario remains a theoretical one.

Liatening to BBC Radio news reports in recent weeks I became aware of a commentator of theirs called |katya Adler and how she consistently appeared to putting forth anti-Israeli stuff. I wrote the BBC twice, the second time thus:-
“Katya Adler: On schools in Gaza. This story like every other
on Middle East affairs I have heard from this BBC worker had an inevitable anti-Israel slant. Not reporting; more like propaganda, subsidized from licence fees. If I want it, I can get anti-Israel progaganda for free from appropriate non-BBC channels. Wasn’t the Bowen lesson enough for you?”

They replied thus:-
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding Katy Adler’s report on ‘The hunger of Earth’.

I understand you felt this programme was bias.

Katya Adler’s report was one of a series of pieces about children learning in difficult circumstances. She focused on Palestinian children going back to school in the wake of the Israeli military’s assault on the Gaza Strip, in which hundreds of children were killed and a large number of schools were damaged. We believe it is fair and reasonable to look specifically at this issue and to focus closely on the situation of children in the Gaza Strip.

Clearly children in southern Israel have suffered trauma, injury and death as a result of rocket fire from Gaza. We have reported this on the website several times and in detail. We have specifically reported that militants have intensified their rocket fire to coincide with the start of the academic year.

However, the damage in Gaza occurred over a much shorter period of time and therefore the challenge to get so many schools back in sufficient condition to continue teaching was worth covering.

Having said that, the website report mentions the rocket fire into Israel and also carries a video segment in which children from Sderot describe their situation. The report also links prominently to background reports explaining some of the key issues surrounding the territory and the recent conflict there.

In Katya Adler’s film report, she outlines the events that took place at Beit Lahiya and gives the Israeli account of what happened. This was a well-documented event during the offensive and our report simply outlines the facts.

In summary, it is not possible in each report on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to give a complete history of all previous events. This was an initiative intended to look at the lives of children in schools in different countries and, while we aim to achieve balance over time, it was not considered the place for a detailed rehearsal of the causes of the conflict.

As I asked on HP before: Has anyone ever heard a BBC Katya Adler report that was not critical of Israel or criitcal of Hamas? I’d be glad to hear if so, because I haven’t.

Is Alison our old mate LJB in drag?

OK Michael, let’s write one. Here is my first submission.

Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

1. Sovereignty over our territory is vested in our people.

2. Our people are all those who are legally permanently resident here at the point of popular endorsement of this constitution. From this point on, they are the Britons.

3. All elections, and referendums, are to be conducted by the method of secret untraceable ballot. No-one may be enabled to prove his vote to any other.

4. The common law shall be applicable to all, without any regard to his status or connections.

Over to you Mike. Your turn…

Monty,

Whilst I appreciate your confidence in me, I do not think I am the calibre of the likes of Jefferson and Madison on constitutional matters. I have not read it, but I suspect Professor Vernon Bogdanor’s recently published book, The New British Constitution (Hart Publishing, 2009), is a very worthwhile read for those interested in the general subject.

OK, nuther go….

5. Our territory comprises the entirety of the British Isles with the exception of the Republic of Eire, with an additional territorial limit of X miles outside of our coast, within which we demand the right to control of resources.

I know I’m not Michael.

But they didn’t think they were either. They did it, because somebody had to do it.

6. Our elected representatives bear sole reponsibility for the definition of the common law. It shall be applied throughout our territory.

7. Our judiciary branch shall be subject to the Constitution, and shall bear the responsibility of interpreting and applying the common law, as laid down by the people.

I’m just a bloody engineer for heavens sake..

OK

8: The freedoms of our people are this: They may not incite or encourage others to break the law. Otherwise, all of their speech or writing is legitimate. In the English tradition, all that is not explicitly illegal, is therefore expressly permitted.

9: An Englishman’s home shall be his castle. None may demand entry without a warrant issued under the common law, in pursuit of a legitimate criminal investigation with judicial provenance.

10: This Constitution may not be suspended, either in part or entirety, unless the Nation be besieged, and troubled by external agencies, and the situation for the survival of this constitutional state be perilous, as determined by the people’s representatives.

Your chances of getting what you want, are almost always predicated on how full of hell you are.

So far, we have about half a sheet of A4. And everybody cleared off.

Bugger.

I don’t see what the fuss is about. The BBC routinely shows all sorts of Islamic fascists and racists and I, for the life of me, cannot see the difference between them and the BNP. They are all repulsive, and if given free rein, would commit mass murder without a moment’s thought. Better to have the poison out in the open than to be surprised by it when it has been allowed to fester.

Great post, Michael. Thx for sharing