Why the BNP should be allowed on Question Time - written 22/10/09

Seeing as everyone's talking about it and it's going to be on T.V in a couple of hours, I thought I might as well put my two pennies in.

I suppose the first thing to say is that, despite the attempted proliferation of Unite Against Fascism et al's views, the majority opinion seems to be that the BNP should be allowed to appear on Question Time. Racism bad, free speech good, and all that. Even the government appears to be generally supportive (Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw said that most of the cabinet did not share Mr Hain's view), although Gordon Brown has remained characteristically spineless and said he doesn't want to comment. So I don't feel like I'm bucking any particular trend here, just reiterating the sensible masses' viewpoints.

Why should they be allowed? I think freedom of speech is the obvious answer. Thankfully Orwell's vision is yet to fully materialise and thus we are entitled to hear the opinions of those who we may well disagree with. There are legal limits to what can be said, as Nick Griffin well knows, having previously been prosecuted and found guilty of inciting racial hatred, so don't expect Question Time to be an hour of racial slurring. But outside of these legal bounds, people are free to say what they wish, and thank goodness they are. The government could choose to have the BNP catagorised as a proscribed organisation which would leave them unable to publicly voice their opinions, but clearly it has not chosen to do so, and as the BNP will be standing in the next general election it seems an obvious step to allow it to tell us what it is all about.

There appears to be a general fear from the far left, that by enabling the BNP to voice its viewpoints we pave the way for its acceptance, legitimacy, and more worringly, increase its share of the vote. I think this argument falls apart for two very different but very important reasons. The first is that if the BNP's policies, viewpoints, and personnel are as bad as the the left say they are then presumably this will quickly be shown up by, if not Griffin himself, then the other hopefully capable panel members (more on this later). The way to expose an idiot is surely to let him speak for himself. The second, perhaps more controversial reason why the idea of a legitimate BNP should not be a worry is because if the BNP do receive more votes as a result of appearing on Question Time then it is a clear indication that something somewhere is very wrong, and that the sooner something is done about it the better.

The political mainstream appears to be very good at pretending there isn't an issue, but the BNP's two seats in the European Parliament, and now its appearance on Question Time, may perhaps finally force it into a degree of realisation. Here is the crux of the matter: whether problems are real or imagined, they are still problems if someone believes in them. If Betty from Marple believes that immigration is causing a housing shortage, a job shortage, and a rise in violent crime, then it is a problem. Why is it a problem? It is a problem because that is one vote for the BNP, a party which wants to eject anyone who isn't white from this country.

The main political parties need to wake up and realise that certain sections of society are feeling disenchanted, and that this is manifesting itself in support of the BNP. It doesn't matter that BNP voters are more often than not ignorant, ill-educated, and above all wrong; they have their opinions and they are voting. It does not mean that there is necessarily a problem with immigration, but it means that their most certainly is a problem with people's perceptions of immigration, and more importantly their perceptions of what the current political mainstream are doing (or not doing) about it. I'm not suggesting the big political parties adopt BNP policy in an attempt to draw its vote, but there is quite clearly plenty of education that needs to be done amongst certain sections of society, and a more concerted effort from the mainstream to address their concerns, whether they are legitimate concerns or not.

The current Home Secretary Alan Johnson appeared on last weeks Question Time claiming that he would refuse to engage in any form of public debate with the BNP. What a frankly ridiculous decision. Almost a million people voted for the BNP in the European elections. It is too late to pretend they don't exist. Edmund Burke said that 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing', which I think very neatly sums up the notion of no-platform. Thankfully there are those willing to share a stage with the BNP in order to denounce their views.

And what of those who are sharing the stage with Griffin? I have to say i'm a little dissapointed. No Galloway, no Benn. Griffin is clever and manipulative and I hope that the panellists are up to the job of nailing his views.

If I'm honest I think it's going to be a dissapointing show, in which Griffin wriggles his way out of difficult questions between irritating shouting from some idiot in the studio audience. At least the British are vaguely being stirred from their political apathy.

I think the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, Mark Byford, summed up my feelings when he said: 'they should have the right to be heard, be challenged, and for the public who take part in Question Time and the viewers to make up their own minds about the views of the BNP'.

If those who are exposed to the views of the BNP are seduced by them, then there has either been an alarming failure by those who will be appearing alongside Griffin tonight, or there is a problem in society which needs addressing (even if that is simply a re-education), rather than simply sweeping under the rug.