September 7, 2009
If you want to debate the BNP, forget about Question Time
A very slightly different version of this piece appeared on Liberal Conspiracy last night.
The BBC has said Nick Griffin may be invited to appear on Question Time. The Beeb has to do this, for at least two reasons, legal and prudential. The legal reason is that the BBC is constitutionally sworn to treat all political parties equally. The BNP now has two MEPs; for the BBC not to allow it to speak would be a clear case of politicised partiality. It has to invite Griffin.
The prudential reason is that excluding the BNP will play into the party’s myth that it suffers from a conspiracy perpetrated by liberal elites stifling the opinions of “ordinary” people. If the BNP operated a no-platform policy vis-a-vis Griffin, this would substantiate the myth of persecuted outsider underdogs his party has crafted with effective electoral results.
Taking the prudential point, one could go further and argue that the best way to tackle the BNP is to debate them: putting them on a platform makes them easier to shoot at. On this point, I’m convinced of the classic liberal arguments espoused by Mill in On Liberty: the best way to destroy a pernicious opinion is to publicly expose it; the most counterproductive way of tackling such an opinion is to try and stifle it. Thus I find myself in rare agreement with Iain Dale: we should be debating the BNP in public. (However, for a well-argued counter-case, go to Though Cowards Flinch).
Except – and here’s the irony – QT is highly unlikely to achieve that, for the simple reason that QT is not a platform for debate. It’s an opportunity for political figures to sound-off their own prejudices without being subjected to scrutiny. And its format necessarily makes this so.
For debate to take place, what is required are a limited – ideally two or three – number of participants, who use reasoned arguments and verifiable facts to offer point and counter-point in order to expose and abandon bad arguments, all in an effort to strive towards the most intellectually tenable position.
QT encourages nothing of the sort. For a start, there are too many participants, who are structurally discouraged from responding to each other constructively. Instead, each are invited to sound-off about vague questions fielded from the audience, each pannelist given one slot to offer a reply, with bare minimum opportunity for response to previous points in an effort to eliminate falsehoods and bad arguments. Because the audience fields several questions per show, the opportunity to consistently chase-up one issue and see where the arguments intellectually end up is denied: everyone gets one sound-off, and maybe the occasional retort. The result is rather than the interaction being “point, counter-point”, it’s “prejudice, counter-prejudice”.
Another thing required for genuine debate in a public format is a strong chair that forces participants to respond directly to challenges levied by opponents, and enforces the use of genuine facts. QT lacks this in abundance. Anybody who recalls the EU Special edition of QT will remember David Dimbleby allowing Dan Hannan and Nigel Farrage to spout nonsense about the EU, and frequently allowed Farrage in particular to interrupt and shout-down Caroline Flint (for the record, also spouting nonsense), preventing her from putting a reasoned counter-case. In such an environment, debate is hopeless: all you get is grandstanding and the victory of the loudest gob.
Thus our conclusion: the BBC must let Griffin appear on QT, but the idea that QT offers a chance to debate the BNP and thus harm their cause is nonsense, not because debate is futile, but because QT isn’t a debate show.
Dave Semple said,
September 7, 2009 at 10:00 am
As I was saying in my article, one way or another, Griffin will find a way to perpetuate the persecuted narrative – but this is preferable to the media being permitted to regard fascism as just one more ideology, to be habitually consulted and lined up alongside Labour, Tory, UKIP, Lib-Dem and (lesser) Green representatives.
The other thing is that this is not a free speech argument. Freedom of speech is the right to say what you want; no one is challenging Griffin’s right to say what he wants, or threatening to arrest them for appearing on Question Time.
What we are challenging is the media. In 1926, the torch that started the General Strike was lit because one of the printing unions refused to print a Daily Mail editorial which compared the TUC to communist revolutionaries and which said the unions wanted to wreck the State. We’re all for free speech, but we’re not for the free ability of the Establishment and Capital to use their resources for the promotion of fascism.
Which is what appearing on the BBC amounts to. If free speech means anything, it should put all of us on a level. It doesn’t. Those able to deploy capital have more speech than the rest of us. I (I don’t speak for UAF) am urging workers self-organisation to challenge that: and in so organising to challenge it, we not only constrict fascism but we lay the groundwork for tackling the basis of fascism: the unconstrained use of immigrant and low-wage labour to attack terms and conditions of other workers.
Paul said,
September 7, 2009 at 10:41 am
“but this is preferable to the media being permitted to regard fascism as just one more ideology, to be habitually consulted and lined up alongside Labour, Tory, UKIP, Lib-Dem and (lesser) Green representatives.”
But fascism is just one more ideology. What makes it different from Labour, Tory, UKIP, Lib-Dem etc is it’s utterly noxious and basically incomparible history: the graves that lie in its shadow. But surely the best way to defeat fascism is to make that fact – and all the other nastiness that fascism entails – publicly known. To expose fascist prejudices for the evil that they are. I don’t buy the idea that refusing to engage with fascists does that effectively…partly because the BNP already has “legitimacy” in the eyes, not just of the 900,000 who voted for them, but in that of the democratic system that returned two BNP MEPs to Brussels, so arguing that debating them publicly grants them legitimacy is bolting the door after the horse has run.
“As I was saying in my article, one way or another, Griffin will find a way to perpetuate the persecuted narrative ” er, yes, and he’ll find it a hell
of a lot easier if everybody no-platforms him…
“The other thing is that this is not a free speech argument. Freedom of speech is the right to say what you want; no one is challenging Griffin’s right to say what he wants, or threatening to arrest them for appearing on Question Time.”
Sure. Agreed. It’s a debate about tactics, right?
“We’re all for free speech, but we’re not for the free ability of the Establishment and Capital to use their resources for the promotion of fascism.”
I think i’m reluctant to endorse wholesale the view that this is a case of the Establishment and Capital endorsing fascism, though. The BBC being legally obliged to host Griffin is not the same as endorsing fascism (“Which is what appearing on the BBC amounts to” is just a complete overstatement).
Capital is not pro-BNP right now either: their (literally) national socialist policies would be a disaster for big business in particular. (This may well change, of course; Hitler’s main appeal to the German business classes was the offer of order and stability. If the recession really starts to fuck up society to the point where the classes owning the means of production are threatened, well then we’re in real trouble).
Again, though, I’m *all for* union activity to highlight the issues, mount public campaigns against the BNP, raise awareness, etc. I just think this will be complimented by proper debate, the combination of which would provide a multi-pronged attack.
Dave Semple said,
September 7, 2009 at 11:14 am
But proper debate doesn’t need to involve a BNP spokesman. In fact, I’d go so far as to say, there never will be a proper debate while a BNP spokesperson is invited. By all means, let’s have the debate – but we all know how the debate would go if BNP people were there. “I’m not racist but…” and the smug “I don’t support burning gollywogs at festivals / beating up asian kids but…”
While I’m on the subject of debate, the BNP is just one more ideology – but I don’t want it to be treated like that. We should try our damnedest to erect a big cordon sanitaire around it, with barbed wire and trip mines. Not to say we don’t ever mention fascism – but we don’t allow the media to treat their representatives like they are normal politicians.
You say that the difference between fascism and the rest is the graves etc, so we should point that out – and I agree. But it’s a long jump from “making that publicly known” (and there I’d argue it is well-known anyway, since this is Britain and World War II casts a long shadow, not to mention the salacious gossip of the press regarding BNP criminality) to “allowing the BNP PR department acess to national television” where scrutiny will be lax because Labour, the Tories and the Lib-Dems have no moral authority by which to challenge BNP lies.
On the Establishment, promotion of fascism etc, I’m not saying we have the BBC actively supporting fascism. Of course not. But selecting a BNP member – not a disinterested gesture – to speak is allowing the promotion of fascism. And the BBC has a remit to treat all groups equally – but when has that ever happened? They prioritize MPs and MEPs over other people, as I pointed out, without the context of truth-telling, cogency or indeed rampant criminality.
You are right; if we begin to challenge control of the means of production, then we’ll see a more decisive swing towards the BNP as a means to break workers’ organisations. But landslides begin with pebbles: erecting that cordon sanitaire is a good way to engage with our own class, it challenges the unbridled liberalism (in the sense that Capital can do what it likes, it’s a free country etc) and demonstrating self-confidence enough to organise the protests, enunciate a concrete demand (that the BNP be barred) with follow-through on issues of employment will put our opposition – which is not just the BNP and their voters but the whole established approach to immigration – on the back foot.
I think we agree on that – but disagree on the demand. In my view a “No Platform” call – especially now if it makes the Labour cabinet retreat – is the clearest possible way to demonstrate the strength of our feeling.
rumblegumption said,
September 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm
>> If the BNP operated a no-platform policy vis-a-vis Griffin …
You mean the BBC, no?
Paul said,
September 7, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“But proper debate doesn’t need to involve a BNP spokesman. In fact, I’d go so far as to say, there never will be a proper debate while a BNP spokesperson is invited. By all means, let’s have the debate – but we all know how the debate would go if BNP people were there. “I’m not racist but…” and the smug “I don’t support burning gollywogs at festivals / beating up asian kids but…”
Well if they try that, then just keep asking the same question over and over until you get a direct answer to the question. If they fail to provide a direct answer to the question, then they expose themselves as idiots/disingenuous. If they do offer direct answers, they’ll be revealed as the racist fascist shitbags they are, and be discredited that way.
Debate can be highly effective if one side is manifestly trying to engage properly, and the other isn’t. To say “we can’t have a debate with the BNP” is true insofar as they can’t engage in a debate of any quality, but that’s another thing from saying that trying to debate them (properly, so not on QT) can’t be a very effective way of showing them up.
“While I’m on the subject of debate, the BNP is just one more ideology – but I don’t want it to be treated like that. We should try our damnedest to erect a big cordon sanitaire around it, with barbed wire and trip mines. Not to say we don’t ever mention fascism – but we don’t allow the media to treat their representatives like they are normal politicians.”
No, the way to show that they are different by virtue of their vile nature is to openly discuss this and expose them, preferably by forcing them to acknowledge charges directly put. Simply refusing to engage with them and saying “they’re really nasty, honest! Just don’t actually ask them yourself cos ,you know, they’re horrid” is not a good strategy. Not least because its patronising to all those people who already vote BNP or have BNP sympathies. Most of these people are not fascists. If you deny them the chance to decide for themselves by paternalistically telling them the BNP are bad and not to be spoken to (“naughty, naughty BNP!”) they are going to kick back in resentment…and that may well help make them into full blown fascists/fascist sympathisers.
“to “allowing the BNP PR department acess to national television” where scrutiny will be lax because Labour, the Tories and the Lib-Dems have no moral authority by which to challenge BNP lies.”
I’m sure I don’t need to spell out for you why the argument “we musn’t let the BNP have a platform because all the other parties are massively discredited and, you know, people might be swayed by the BNP” is a really bad argument involving lots of bad thoughts about the (lack of) value in the democratic process…
“But selecting a BNP member – not a disinterested gesture – to speak is allowing the promotion of fascism.” Allowing a Tory to speak is allowing the promotion of Conservatism. Allowing a Green MEP to speak to allowign the promotion of Environmentalism. What’s your sustainable criteria for differentiating the BNP – given that they have no achieved major electoral success and 900,000 voters – from all the other parites? Vague gestures towards criminality are going to take you to difficult places: sure Griffin has a conviction for racial hatred incitement…but Christopher Hitchens has convictions acquired in his younger days fighting fascists in London, many environmental activists have convictions for doing Direct Action…are the BBC to stop having these people on too?
No, I just don’t buy the idea that the BBC can consistently discriminate against the BNP *just because* they are fascists. That they may be – but right now, two of them are democratically elected fascists.
“They prioritize MPs and MEPs over other people, as I pointed out, without the context of truth-telling, cogency or indeed rampant criminality.”
yeah but if the BBC was going to apply a standard about cogency and truth-telling, its pool of available politicians would dwindle to about 3. (Though at least this way Mad Mel, Richard Littletwat et al would be banned for life, which might be a good idea…)
“I think we agree on that – but disagree on the demand. In my view a “No Platform” call – especially now if it makes the Labour cabinet retreat – is the clearest possible way to demonstrate the strength of our feeling.”
This it may be. But clearest demonstrations of feeling are not automatically the best tactical maneouvre. I think no-platforming the BNP is more likely to create backlash considered as a general propositon…BUT having said that, QT is such a piece of shit that actually maybe on this occassion it could be the right choice. But by virtue of QT being a piece of shit, not because debate can’t work.
Having said *that*, I do however believe that a full hour of angry, frothing, incoherent gogle-eyed Griffin may actually be something to welcome. The man is *shit* on TV. He rants and bitches and froths and whines about persecution. The rage just pours off him (cf post EU election, he was *still* angry and frothing). This is generally an electoral turn-off. Griffin is no Cicero, and he’s ugly and agressive to boot. Putting him on display for an hour may actually do the BNP more harm than good…
Paul said,
September 7, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Rumblegumption.
I think so. But then, the concept of the BNP operating a no-platform policy vis-a-vis Griffin is quite amusing.
And it may yet happen. Let’s not forget what a bunch of infighting, bitter, petty whack-jobs the BNP is…
Ste For Sure said,
September 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
While I sympathise a lot with the Mill-esque line that debating the baddies is the best way of vanquishing them because we will expose them as baddies through reasoned argument, it seems you have to imagine an ideal world to see it working.
the BNP appearing on TV and debating, the BNP in our newspapers being treated like regular politicians….all this IS going to make the BNP stronger. The idea that good liberals will publicly shoot them down, and everyone will realise that their protest voting for the BNP was a terrible idea, and that they should vote Labour again or whatever strikes me as daft.
And no, not because im making a patronising argument that the general public are stupid and wont understand why the BNP are bad even when they are told…but because the BNP will be shrewd populist liars claiming to care about the the genuine grievances that the mainstream parties are not satisfactorily attending to. The counter-argument post you linked to makes the point very well. Who is going to put the BNP in their place? The very same mainstream wet-lettuce liberal/conservative douche-bags that everybody is already pissed off at? I doubt it.
One thing that severely limits the growth of the BNP right now is the fact that even the most vile media outlets still call them disgusting fascists. Even the Sun website took the piss out of Griffin getting hit by an egg, and had a link to a flash game where the goal was to throw eggs at Griffin. So the message regarding immigration/race issues is; “thus far and no further ” – “thus far” being Richard Littlejohn – “further” being the ‘Nazi’ BNP.
When this barrier is broken and BNP spokespeople are all over the media being treated normally the party is going to grow. and thats a bad thing.
So as always with this issue, Im not quite sure what to think. But I dont want the BNP on my telly. My hunch is that the No-Platform approach will probably work better though.
Peter said,
September 7, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Whilst I guess I’d be described as a fan of No Platform in the case of private institutions, the fact that the BBC is State funded changes things.
As per normal, I pretty much agree with Norm’s always considered thoughts:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/09/the-bbc-and-the-bnp.html
Paul said,
September 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Peter,
Except there’s no question of the BBC doing no-platform (see original post, first sentence…)
Ste,
“it seems you have to imagine an ideal world to see it working.”
I don’t think that’s true. I think reading On Liberty proves that it’s not an argument about ideals…(hint)
“the BNP appearing on TV and debating, the BNP in our newspapers being treated like regular politicians….all this IS going to make the BNP stronger.”
Maybe. But then, wouldn’t that be democracy in action? Or are you saying that public discourse and engagement is only for those who are pre-approved? But then, pre-approved by whom, exactly? A liberal elite? Hmm, sounds like you are playing into Mr Griffin’s hands by taking this route…
“The idea that good liberals will publicly shoot them down, and everyone will realise that their protest voting for the BNP was a terrible idea, and that they should vote Labour again or whatever strikes me as daft.”
Why? If you mean “because the state of public discourse is attrocious” then fine (see Stumbling and Mumbling post on this, which is excellent). If you mean “because people are too stupid to follow reasoned discourse, and so cannot be trusted to hear the BNP speak for themselves” then that is a) deeply anti-democratic and b) deeply insulting to the electorate/population. (I know you say that’s not your position, but…)
“The counter-argument post you linked to makes the point very well. Who is going to put the BNP in their place? The very same mainstream wet-lettuce liberal/conservative douche-bags that everybody is already pissed off at? I doubt it.”
OK, so because the established politicians are pieces of shit, we therefore suspend democratic equality and refuse to engage with the BNP *for fear that they might look better*? Because our politicians are discredited, we therefore run away from the risk of taking the BNP on directly, and instead try to stifle them out of existence. Do you REALLY think that is going to play well with an angry electorate? Do you REALLY not think the BNP will suddenly have substance for their persecution myth? Do you really think that is – in terms of principle – the right way to go in a free democratic state, considering the BNP are a legal, and now democratically elected, political party?
But for the record, you are wrong about what our established politicians are capable of. I pre-fix this with the point that it couldn’t work on QT (see original post), but if we had a genuine debate show, then I reckon somebody like David Milliband (the man, for all his faults, is a first-rate intellectual and debater) would tear Griffin an intellectual new one. If Miliband was allowed to engage in persistent, reasoned discourse with Griffin, and there was a strong chair that pervented Griffin evading or resorting to off-the-point ranting, Milliband would force Griffin into a position of either spouting outright racist fascism (which would hugely discredit him) or incoherently refusing to answer points (thus looking stupid and being discredited that way). If the debate was a real debate, no matter how discredited mainstream politicians as a whole may be, somebody like Miliband would DEMOLISH Griffin. If done on TV, the effect would be hugely damaging to the BNP.
The issue here is the paucity of our democratic institutions and discourse…not the idea that debate can’t work.
But given the paucity of our institutions etc, I still think that no-platforming Griffin is *tactically* a bad idea because it will snub his supporters, feed the BNP persecution myth, and make the left look like a bunch of childish middle-class snobs who wont deign to associate with a party being increasingly supported by the working classes.
“One thing that severely limits the growth of the BNP right now is the fact that even the most vile media outlets still call them disgusting fascists. Even the Sun website took the piss out of Griffin getting hit by an egg, and had a link to a flash game where the goal was to throw eggs at Griffin. So the message regarding immigration/race issues is; “thus far and no further ” – “thus far” being Richard Littlejohn – “further” being the ‘Nazi’ BNP.”
This is true.
“When this barrier is broken and BNP spokespeople are all over the media being treated normally the party is going to grow. and thats a bad thing.”
I’m not convinced that having Nick Griffin on the BBC is going to suddenly make it acceptable to vote BNP in the Sun boardroom etc. Not least because the proprietors of all our major news outlets at present have a vested interest in keeping the BNP out (if the recession really goes bad, and we end up like 1930s Germany – unlikely – that’s when we need to get worried). Those forces-of-production ideas aside, think about the democratic consequences of your argument: 900,000 people voted BNP in June – who are you to say that these people are not to have their elected representative appear on TV, for fear his support might grow? That looks like cowardice, to be honest. I would rather take Griffin on, and try and convince people that he’s a shit bag, rather than just telling them he is and then refusing to let them decide. Not least because I suspect that will piss people off and thus be counter productive…
The point about the BNP – which most people misunderstand – is not that they are a threat in terms of taking power. They are manifestly not. The reason they are worrying is because they both represent and facilitate an increasing shift to the right on issues like race and immigration. Insofar as we need to reverse that shift, we need to take on the BNP. Refusing to talk to them does not strike me as a particularly wise or prudent way of reclaiming the discourse on those issues. Much better would be, you know, showing why they are wrong. You do that by debate, not by saying “oh you’re really horrible so I’m not talking to you”…
Peter said,
September 8, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Paul,
Yeah I agree – No Platform isn’t appropriate for the Beeb owing to their State funded nature.
Ste For Sure said,
September 9, 2009 at 12:52 am
I don’t think we are in disagreement about much at all here.
it is about the paucity of our institutions..not about debate not working in principle. Thats why I say Im extremely sympathetic to the “lets air all opinions so we can find out what the best ones are” liberal approach.
Its just that Im genuinely worried that taking this approach will strengthen the BNP.
Also. Why is actual debate all that necessary? is it not possible to expose the BNP for what they are…make counter arguments to their propaganda in public etc. etc. without actually having BNP spokespeople take a public platform?
Also, I dont think that No Platform for fascists is the best anti-fascist tactic. I think organising in our workplaces and communities to build solidarity at the grassroots is. Build movements that effectively challenge the status quo and put a lie to BNP ultra nationalist claptrap. Vague I know, but blogposts innit!?
This is an issue that really does get me in a muddle. On the one hand I like the liberal approach. On the other…it seems that societies institutions making a stand and saying “No way!” to people with racist views is a manifestly good thing. (remember this isnt about the state restricting what people can and can’t say/print).
Paul said,
September 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Ste,
think i’m going to do a blog post for tomorrow morning trying to get clear on how these arguments play out – though probably it’s just going to be an attempt to road-map the faultlines of debate, rather than actually trying to tease-out concrete positions/arguments.
hopefully it will address/incorporate some of your concerns.
Ste For Sure said,
September 10, 2009 at 3:56 pm
sounds good man.
BNP on BBC: Mapping the Debate « Bad Conscience said,
September 11, 2009 at 12:20 am
[...] thing to note is that actually this debate does not – as Dave Semple has been keen and correct to stress – need to be a debate about free speech, at all. It is not necessarily the case that the [...]
Surrender « The Nation of Duncan said,
September 13, 2009 at 6:44 pm
[...] you’re interested in that subject, I’m not, see Phil at AVPS and Paul at Bad Conscience here and then [...]
RSS agregator » Blog Archive » From the Blogs! (A post on the BNP) said,
September 19, 2009 at 8:08 pm
[...] you’re interested in that subject, I’m not, see Phil at AVPS and Paul at Bad Conscience here and then [...]
2009: Blogging Year in Review « Though Cowards Flinch said,
December 31, 2009 at 9:13 am
[...] address similar matters, such as right-wing attempts to co-opt Left history, the No Platform Policy/Question Time or the question of Swiss democracy and banning minarets. I like to think our posts can be read as [...]