September 11, 2009

BNP on BBC: Mapping the Debate

Posted in BNP, Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy, Politics, Society at 12:19 am by Paul Sagar

I’ve had a little time to think about the whole “BNP on the BBC” debate, and have noticed that there’s an awful lot of confusion about what exactly the issues in play are. Partly, this is just because the issues are complicated, and competing demands are made on competing considerations. But I thought it would be useful to try and map some of the faultlines of the debate, partly to sort out my own confusions, but also (somewhat optimistically) to try and influence the wider discourse by flagging ways to avoid errors and confusions when discussing this topic.

Let’s start by taking one faultline in the debate: the extent to which it is about free speech. Or, more precisely, the extent to which the debate about Griffin appearing on the BBC is in fact not to do with free speech. To explore and explain this faultline, let’s consider the debate between those who think that other political groupings should share the platform with the BNP, and those who advocate a “no-platform” policy (because that’s where the free speech arguments usually get chucked around).

The first 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 no-platform side wants to suppress Griffin’s right to espouse his views, and that by contrast the yes-platform side is diametrically and simplistically opposed in wanting to allow him to espouse his views. This is because the no-platformers can consistently say that it is fine for Griffin (or whoever) to spout racist drivel to his heart’s content and in public – but that other groups should not share the platform when he does so (e.g. for fear that it may legitimise his views and strengthen his public appeal).

Of course some no-platformers may take a different stance. They may advocate a no-platform policy and also be against free speech being extended to Griffin. They might say: “nobody should share a platform with Griffin, for that endorses and strengthens him, and furthermore Griffin should not be allowed to speak in the first place”.  But that’s a distinct position, and not all no-platformers are committed to it.

So we have (at least) three positions in this debate: 1) those who think Griffin should be allowed to speak and that other political groupings should share the platform when he does; 2) those who think Griffin should be allowed to speak but that others should not share the platform when he does; and 3) those who think that Griffin should not be allowed to speak but that if he is then others should not share the platform when he does.

Notice that it is thus quite possible for “no platformers” to disagree with “share the platform” advocates on grounds which have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Griffin should be allowed to speak freely (because both agree that he should). This will be the case so long as the debate exists between those from groups 1) and 2) only. Free speech issues only need arise if those from group 3) enter the mix. So it should now be obvious that it is wrong and lazy to dismiss no-platform advocates as being “anti-free speech”. It is quite possible – and consistent – to favour a no-platform policy whilst supporting Griffin (or whoever’s) right to free speech.

That’s one faultline identified and flagged. It directly leads to another: the debate about tactics.

Let’s focus on the arguments between groups 1) and 2) identified above: given that both agree Griffin should be allowed to speak, their disagreement arises as to whether others should share the platform when he does. At this point, (assuming, which seems sensible, that all members of 1) and 2) are opposed to the BNP becoming more successful) the debate between the two camps becomes one about tactics.  That is, what is the best response which will ensure the maximum damage/least progress to the BNP’s cause?

One side says, roughly, that other groups sharing the platform with Griffin will convey legitimacy, the oxygen of publicity and mainstream acceptance, thus boosting the BNP’s chances of success. The other says, roughly, that the best way to stop the BNP is to expose them as nasty fascists for all to behold, and that the best way of doing this is to engage with them publicly in the forum of debate. And, of course, counterarguments are in turn made: the no-platformers may claim that debate is futile because Griffin will subvert it through sound-bite politics and taking advantage of discredited MPs’ reputations to score cheap points; the pro-platformers may argue back that refusing to share Griffin’s platform is a snub to the 900,000 BNP voters who are likely to cause resentment, fuel BNP myths about outsider persecution, and entrench their support. Constructed this way, the argument is a straightforward empirical one about what is most likely to work in efforts to prevent Griffin being successful, with the two different sides coming to different conclusions.

Yet, as this argument about tactics rages, it is helpful to identify spanners (or perhaps more kindly, “variables”) that are frequently thrown into the works, with the effect of changing the direction of focus of the debate, but which may go un-noticed and lead to confusion about who is saying what and why.

The first spanner (or “variable”) is the question of the format of the platform being given to the BNP, and how the specific nature of the format will impact upon the debate. I’ve already commented that Question Time in particular is a very bad format to opt for if you believe debate can harm the BNP – for the simple reason that Question Time is not a genuine debate show. This has an important consequence: if the only platform the BNP is being offered is Question Time, it may be entirely reasonable for those who believe the best way to beat the BNP is to debate them to adopt a no platform policy on this occasion. Why? Because it may be decided that, on balance, Question Time offers a format which rules out debate, and so tactically the best way to block the BNP cause in this case is to advocate no platform – with the caveat that, if a better format were offered allowing real debate, then the no-platform position would be abandoned. Thus, the nuances of the situation according to the actual context experienced are very important if we are going to get clear on who is arguing for what, and why, and how they may legitimately change their position(s).

The second spanner (and this one really is just a spanner) to be aware of is the (ab)use of arguments from J.S. Mill –something which I personally have been guilty of in the past, I will admit. For there is a tendency to lob into arguments phrases like “Mill showed that debate is the best way to expose a pernicious opinion and to strengthen a desirable one”, as a sort of intellectual hand grenade. This is generally counter-productive and leads to confusion and mess.

This is because whilst it is true at some basic level that Mill did argue that free and rigorous debate tends to kill-off pernicious as well as false opinion (which we should note are two different things…and be aware of how confusing the two may cause problems), whilst strengthening desirable and true positions, two points must be noted about his argument as laid out in On Liberty.

Firstly, it is to a considerable extent an argument about what the state should use its power for: in the case of suppressing opinions which are pernicious, even if based on falsehood, Mill thinks state efforts to do so will backfire and fail, or at least not be as successful as allowing open debate. But because Mill is primarily pre-occupied with the use of state power, his arguments may thus be operating at a general state level: that debate as a whole when tolerated as a continuous government policy tends to eradicate falsehood and pernicious opinion, even if it doesn’t do so on each individual occasion. It is not automatically clear that arguments about what governments should allow – i.e. free expression which facilitates debate which is the best way to expose pernicious opinions and falsehoods (notice the complexity of this position) – translate at all cleanly into debates about what we, as individuals and organisations, should do once the government has granted our enemies the right to speak (and the BBC has offered them a platform).

It seems to me quite consistent for somebody to say: “Mill was right that the state should allow free expression of all, because generally this leads to open debate which defeats pernicious opinion and untruth. However, I as an individual do not believe the right thing to do is to share a platform with the BNP, and will lobby groups I support not to share that platform. This isn’t because I’m “anti-debate”, but rather because I think Mill’s arguments apply best not at the level of individual debates in meeting halls between speakers, but at the level of a society-wide conversation. In this sense, advocating no-platform is a form of debate with wider society – it operates at a meta-level above that of individual head-to-head discussions by appealing to the general population by way of example, yet which is enabled by a government allowing of all to speak freely (though not necessarily directly to each other, nor at exactly the same time).” Insofar as one finds that position at least prima-facie plausible – and I do – it follows that being no-platform need not be anti-debate, even in the Millian sense. It just depends on which level you interpret Mill’s dictum that free speech and corresponding vigorous debate operate best.

Secondly, let’s suppose that Mill’s arguments about free and public debate being the best defeater of untruth and pernicious opinion is true not just at a society-wide or “meta” level, but also (or possibly, instead) at the level of individual debates: that the best way of exposing the BNP (for example) is to sit Griffin down and rake him over intellectual hot coals with a TV audience tuned in. I happen to read Mill as believing that this is the best way to expose false and pernicious opinion, and also I personally find it convincing: I think a real debate in which Griffin is exposed as a scumbag Nazi (or forced into incoherent evasion) would be a fantastic way to do him and the BNP harm.

But then, two things to notice here: the argument has shifted back to the faultline about tactics – the question of whether debating Griffin live on TV will do him more harm than good is still the core issue, but one side (my side) is claiming that debate can work best (if properly pursued). The fact that Mill (in my opinion) shared my view doesn’t therefore add anything to the empirical question about which tactics in fact work best – it simply serves to argue from authority in an attempt to intellectual brow-beat opponents. And  furthermore, because the debate has shifted back to one about tactics, it is again vulnerable to the spanner (or variable) of the format the “debate” is taking place in: if it’s Question Time, then the Millian arguments about debate and intellectual hot coals go out of the window as the audience of hyperactive seals start their inane clapping.

As a result, lobbing Mill hand-grenades into the debate thus looks rather pointless as it either cannot be used to aid either side without substantially more argument than the hand-grenade method allows (because both the no- and the yes-platform tribes can consistently claim to be faithful to Million dictums about debate, depending upon the level being focused upon) or simply adds nothing to the discussion (because the debate has shifted back to tactics, and Mill is just being used as an authority to beat other people up with).

Given all of the above, I thus propose the following guidelines when debating the BNP platform/no-platform issue, or even just trying to understand the debate as it happens:

-          Don’t assume the debate is a simple, straightforward one about “free speech”. Free speech is certainly likely to be involved, but it’s not going to be a basic case of one side being “for” and the other “against” – not least because there may be more than two sides.

-          As a consequence the debate may well be an empirical one about tactics; what’s the best way to harm the BNP cause? If so, contextualising factors such as what kind of a platform is being offered may need to be taken into account, and this should affect one’s judgement of the likelihood of debate even being possible, ahead of arguments as to whether debate can work or not, and to what extent.

-          If one does want to discuss the merits of debate, lazy appeals to J.S Mill are likely to be crass, oversimplified and unhelpful. Furthermore, they do not straightforwardly lend themselves just to one side, despite often appearing – and being deployed – as though they do. Mill hand-grenades should be discouraged, and their use treated with scepticism.

In sum: the issue is bloody complicated, but those are some ways to think about how the debate plays out.

One final thought, though: this map of the debate leans towards the idea that it’s mostly an empirical argument between those who think debating Griffin and the BNP head-to-head will outweigh any benefits they may receive from publicity, versus those who think it won’t. But given that it may ultimately be an empirical question, the entire argument may therefore be basically irresolvable until one tactic is consistently tried and seen to either fail or succeed. However, given the stakes in play, neither side is likely to be willing to let the other have a monopoly of the scientific-method in attempting to discovering what works (or doesn’t) in tackling the rise of the Britain’s fascists. Progress in this argument may be a necessarily elusive beast

So for what it’s worth: debate works – Mill said so!

Permalink