I don't really see any substance to the argument from freedom of speech. Nick Griffin is exactly as free as anyone else. He can go down the pub and talk about his views: he can go to Hyde Park corner or set up a soap box in Sauchiehall Street: he can write to the Times; or phone in his views to Any Questions or any political phone in on local radio; he can stand for the council or parliament or any other directly elected assembly. Nobody is preventing him and indeed the growth of support for the BNP shows that.
We do not have a right to any particular platform. I don't, and he doesn't. He likes to be seen as oppressed: it suits his stance. He was all over the radio yesterday talking about how he and all "inidigenous" britons are demonised and he says they are treated as were dissidents in Soviet Russia. Wonder why he is not in jail, or in a mental hospital, or dead, or in exile? Me too. He said that they are subject to "genocide" because of immigration: O rly?
Darat is quite right to say that the BBC has a legal obligation to be impartial:
it also has other obligations, overriding obligations. From the Charter
" 4.The Public Purposes:
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)promoting education and learning;
(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television.
The independence of the BBC is paramount and where there is an conflict the charter supersedes the Framework and Agreement.
I do not think the BBC was in any way obligated to give Nick Griffin a platform. I think there is a perfectly reasonable argument to support either position.
On the one hand he represents a significant strand in the political spectrum because many people voted for his party in local and national elections. Whether that is enough to qualify this as a "main strand of argument" or a " main party" is debateable. But it is a sustainable case.
Against it there is the requirement to "sustain citizenship and civil society"; and to represent the "UK, its nations, regions and communities". I think that since the BNP want to forcibly expel some of our citizens, there is at least a case to make that their platform is at odds with this purpose.
I do not believe there was any clear legal duty to give this man and his party a platform. I do not believe it will be beneficial in exposing his views for what they are: when the fuss dies down we are left with the fact that he was invited to contribute to what is perceived as a serious political programme on equal terms with major parties.
Their own spin on this can be seen in an article from their website here:
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/the-importance-of-the-question-time-invite/
Much of what this person has to say is wrong: but he is not wrong that many of the BNP supporters will feel that they have made a step forward against oppression and marginalisation: nor that they will perceive that their opposition has been forced to make a concession because their case is irresistable; they are not wrong to suppose that now his place in the mainstream has been established it will be hard to take it away: and this is one programme.
Against the expectations in the article, Griffin did not perform well: but there will be other programmes and they will find people who are good at this: they will improve. Memory is short: when they next appear this one will be forgotten.
Diane Abbot was on the radio yesterday too: 22 years ago she made her first appearance on Question Time. She pointed out that this was seen as real progress for black people in this country, and that it symbolised their move into the mainstream of politics. It was a powerful thing for the black community, according to her perception. I think she is right. I do not think it will be any different for the white supremacists
We do not have a right to any particular platform. I don't, and he doesn't. He likes to be seen as oppressed: it suits his stance. He was all over the radio yesterday talking about how he and all "inidigenous" britons are demonised and he says they are treated as were dissidents in Soviet Russia. Wonder why he is not in jail, or in a mental hospital, or dead, or in exile? Me too. He said that they are subject to "genocide" because of immigration: O rly?
Darat is quite right to say that the BBC has a legal obligation to be impartial:
it also has other obligations, overriding obligations. From the Charter
" 4.The Public Purposes:
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—
(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b)promoting education and learning;
(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television.
The independence of the BBC is paramount and where there is an conflict the charter supersedes the Framework and Agreement.
I do not think the BBC was in any way obligated to give Nick Griffin a platform. I think there is a perfectly reasonable argument to support either position.
On the one hand he represents a significant strand in the political spectrum because many people voted for his party in local and national elections. Whether that is enough to qualify this as a "main strand of argument" or a " main party" is debateable. But it is a sustainable case.
Against it there is the requirement to "sustain citizenship and civil society"; and to represent the "UK, its nations, regions and communities". I think that since the BNP want to forcibly expel some of our citizens, there is at least a case to make that their platform is at odds with this purpose.
I do not believe there was any clear legal duty to give this man and his party a platform. I do not believe it will be beneficial in exposing his views for what they are: when the fuss dies down we are left with the fact that he was invited to contribute to what is perceived as a serious political programme on equal terms with major parties.
Their own spin on this can be seen in an article from their website here:
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/the-importance-of-the-question-time-invite/
Much of what this person has to say is wrong: but he is not wrong that many of the BNP supporters will feel that they have made a step forward against oppression and marginalisation: nor that they will perceive that their opposition has been forced to make a concession because their case is irresistable; they are not wrong to suppose that now his place in the mainstream has been established it will be hard to take it away: and this is one programme.
Against the expectations in the article, Griffin did not perform well: but there will be other programmes and they will find people who are good at this: they will improve. Memory is short: when they next appear this one will be forgotten.
Diane Abbot was on the radio yesterday too: 22 years ago she made her first appearance on Question Time. She pointed out that this was seen as real progress for black people in this country, and that it symbolised their move into the mainstream of politics. It was a powerful thing for the black community, according to her perception. I think she is right. I do not think it will be any different for the white supremacists
