This week the Student Assembly almost unanimously voted in favour of reaffirming our no platform policy for fascist organisations. I’d like to explain exactly what this means, to debunk some common myths, and why it is so important.
What does “No Platform” mean?
In essence this policy means that the Students’ Union will not allow any activity by fascist organisations to take place on campus at Goldsmiths. This ranges from setting up fascist societies to inviting fascists to speak or debate on campus.
Why is this important?
We don’t “no platform” racists/sexists/homophobes since these views stem from ignorance, which should be confronted and challenged. However, fascism is something completely different. Fascism doesn’t stem from ignorance, it is a carefully thought out political ideology which fundamentally rests on violence to terrorise ethnic minorities, religious groups, and LGBT people.
It is not a normal political ideology which accepts the democratic process, but instead uses democracy to destroy it. The examples are all too numerous, but everywhere fascism has got to power, democracy has always been the first victim.
Therefore, allowing fascist organisations the legitimacy to speak or organise on our campus is to indirectly help their growth. We have a responsibility to defend all students, and black, ethnic, religious and LGBT groups have a right to study in an environment free of danger to their wellbeing.
Isn’t this denying free speech?
In essence it is. In the same way that laws deny us complete freedom so as to preserve freedoms for everyone, we deny fascists freedom of speech since their goal is to destroy it. Is this contradictory? Not really, it is the foundation of freedom.
For example, we don’t have the freedom to murder, since that would infringe on people’s right to live. Equally, students have a right to study free from fear, and since fascism exists to deny this freedom it is imperative that we stand against it.
We don’t “no platform” fascists because we disagree with their views. We “no platform” them because they pose a physical threat to students at Goldsmiths.
How are fascists a threat?
The English Defence League organise marches, mainly in predominately Muslim areas of the UK. When they march they terrorise the local Asian populations, in Stoke, Luton, Dudley and Leicester, over the past year, Asian shops, religious places, and people have been physically attacked on EDL marches.
EDL members in Dudley and London have put pigs’ heads outside Mosques, reminiscent of how the National Front used to throw bacon on Jewish graves in the 1970s.
Aren’t Universities a place for diverse views?
As stated above, the threat organisations like the BNP and EDL pose is a physical one, not an intellectual one. Fascist groups in Rome just a few years ago attempted to storm a meeting on campus with iron bars. These same fascist groups regularly loiter outside the gay district of Rome, ready to attack people leaving bars in the area. Intellectual debate cannot take place in an environment where people feel physically threatened for who they are.
Won’t this make victims out of fascists?
The key for fascist groups such as the EDL and BNP is to look legitimate, and to some extent respectable. This strategy has worked wonders for fascists in Europe, where in places like France, Italy and Austria, they actually hold serious power within government. Appearing on mainstream media, speaking on university campuses, and winning local elections are all important ways of gaining such legitimacy; looking like victims is not one of them. This would assume people felt sorry for Hitler when he began losing the war, or Mussolini when he was deposed from Italy. Some people may disagree with the tactic of no platform, but the idea that upholding this policy will then drive these same people into the arms of the fascists is simply not true.
Is it legal?
The National Union of Students hold a no platform policy, Goldsmiths SU has held it for over three years now. It has never been challenged on a legal basis, and never will be as no platform breaks no laws.
We are hoping to host a debate on no platform in the new year, so watch this space and be part of the debate!
James Haywood at Goldsmiths Students’ Union
Many thanks to NewsHound for the heads-up
Showing posts with label no platform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no platform. Show all posts
December 22, 2010
March 13, 2010
AM urges all parties not to share meetings with BNP
Counsel General John Griffiths has urged all parties in Wales to refuse to take part in election hustings at which BNP representatives will be on the platform
The Newport East Labour AM is a fierce critic of the BBC decision last year to have BNP leader Nick Griffin on the Question Time panel. He believes the party must not be presented as part of the political mainstream. He challenged rival parties and organisations hosting hustings to deny the BNP publicity.
Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said they would debate with the BNP with the aim of exposing it as a party of “thugs and fascists”. Mr Griffiths said: “I certainly call on them not to share a platform with the BNP because I think it does give the wrong message of the acceptability of the organisation.”
The BNP said in a written statement: “[This] just shows how frightened Labour is of voters hearing what the British National Party has to say.”
But Mr Griffiths insisted that the BNP should not be seen as a “bona fide political party”. He said: “They have had some success presenting themselves as a mainstream party, which they are not. They are getting more publicity through appearances like Question Time. I think it’s all very worrying, especially perhaps when we live in an age which is anti-politics and the mainstream parties are viewed with considerable suspicion because of issues like MPs’ expenses and sleaze and so on.”
The Conservatives are prepared to take part in hustings if all the other parties are represented. Tory Assembly leader Nick Bourne said: “We think their agenda is vicious and needs to be exposed. It isn’t what people in Britain have stood for – I’m absolutely clear on that. I think they are nasty, vicious thugs.”
Mr Bourne said views between mainstream politicians differed on how to tackle the BNP but the parties agreed “they need tackling”. He said: “I think there is a great danger in pretending they are not there. That’s probably what happened in Hitler’s Germany – people pretended they would go way and they didn’t.”
Mr Griffiths was not impressed by recent changes to the BNP constitution to admit people from ethnic minorities. He said: “I think it’s part of their attempts to mislead people, to change their image and make them think they are something they are not.”
Plaid Cymru does not want their candidates to take part in hustings with the BNP but will not stop them from doing so. A spokeswoman said: “Plaid Cymru believes that, wherever possible, the party's elected members and candidates should do all in their power to reach agreement with other mainstream parties not to share a platform with the BNP. Where this is not possible, and the choice is between sharing a platform and leaving an empty chair, elected members and candidates are free to challenge and defeat the racist lies peddled by the BNP by choosing to appear on a platform with their representatives. However, no candidate or elected member would be compelled to share a platform with the BNP.”
The Liberal Democrats were ready to engage the BNP in open debate. A spokesman said: “If the BNP is invited to an event, the Welsh Liberal Democrats should be there to take them on. The BNP has no interest in the important matters that people really care about – jobs, the NHS, good quality schools and reducing the tax burden for hard-working people. We should be there to show people that the BNP are a party of thugs and fascists with no answers to the important issues facing Wales today.”
Mr Griffiths said there were ways to attack the BNP other than taking part in the same hustings.
Wales Online
The Newport East Labour AM is a fierce critic of the BBC decision last year to have BNP leader Nick Griffin on the Question Time panel. He believes the party must not be presented as part of the political mainstream. He challenged rival parties and organisations hosting hustings to deny the BNP publicity.
Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said they would debate with the BNP with the aim of exposing it as a party of “thugs and fascists”. Mr Griffiths said: “I certainly call on them not to share a platform with the BNP because I think it does give the wrong message of the acceptability of the organisation.”
The BNP said in a written statement: “[This] just shows how frightened Labour is of voters hearing what the British National Party has to say.”
But Mr Griffiths insisted that the BNP should not be seen as a “bona fide political party”. He said: “They have had some success presenting themselves as a mainstream party, which they are not. They are getting more publicity through appearances like Question Time. I think it’s all very worrying, especially perhaps when we live in an age which is anti-politics and the mainstream parties are viewed with considerable suspicion because of issues like MPs’ expenses and sleaze and so on.”
The Conservatives are prepared to take part in hustings if all the other parties are represented. Tory Assembly leader Nick Bourne said: “We think their agenda is vicious and needs to be exposed. It isn’t what people in Britain have stood for – I’m absolutely clear on that. I think they are nasty, vicious thugs.”
Mr Bourne said views between mainstream politicians differed on how to tackle the BNP but the parties agreed “they need tackling”. He said: “I think there is a great danger in pretending they are not there. That’s probably what happened in Hitler’s Germany – people pretended they would go way and they didn’t.”
Mr Griffiths was not impressed by recent changes to the BNP constitution to admit people from ethnic minorities. He said: “I think it’s part of their attempts to mislead people, to change their image and make them think they are something they are not.”
Plaid Cymru does not want their candidates to take part in hustings with the BNP but will not stop them from doing so. A spokeswoman said: “Plaid Cymru believes that, wherever possible, the party's elected members and candidates should do all in their power to reach agreement with other mainstream parties not to share a platform with the BNP. Where this is not possible, and the choice is between sharing a platform and leaving an empty chair, elected members and candidates are free to challenge and defeat the racist lies peddled by the BNP by choosing to appear on a platform with their representatives. However, no candidate or elected member would be compelled to share a platform with the BNP.”
The Liberal Democrats were ready to engage the BNP in open debate. A spokesman said: “If the BNP is invited to an event, the Welsh Liberal Democrats should be there to take them on. The BNP has no interest in the important matters that people really care about – jobs, the NHS, good quality schools and reducing the tax burden for hard-working people. We should be there to show people that the BNP are a party of thugs and fascists with no answers to the important issues facing Wales today.”
Mr Griffiths said there were ways to attack the BNP other than taking part in the same hustings.
Wales Online
September 17, 2009
We should be exposing and ridiculing the BNP, not banning it
Much fuss has been made about whether we should ban the British National Party from appearing on Question Time and the Trades Union Congress now wants to bar anyone who is a member of the party from working in the public sector.
The party is undoubtedly racist, homophobic and sexist but the TUC's proposal is deeply disturbing. Firstly it suggests that anyone holding undesirable or unpleasant views should be denied access to the right to work. Most of us don't particularly want to work next to someone who thinks some people should be "sent home" but almost as damaging to democracy is the idea of censuring unpopular or unpleasant political views.
Secondly, instead of challenging these views head-on, it means we push them (and their advocates) out of sight. It smacks of "If we close our eyes, it'll go away." It also suggests we don't have enough conviction in our own views, as if these are not strong enough to stand up against hate.
Let's look at some of the weirder views held by the party: legal director Lee Barnes has a particular hatred of flat-chested women and describes those with dwarfism as "pitiful products of the flaws in nature".
Or what about the disgusting views of Nick Eriksen, the BNP candidate who said women would be more upset if their handbag was stolen then if they were raped. This charming specimen added that some women were "like gongs. They need to be struck regularly". Another example is the party's bizarre grasp of British history, something any A-level history student should be able to dismantle quite easily.
All these examples show that letting them have their say is the way forward. Let the BNP speak, sprout nonsense, tie itself up in semantic knots. To shy away from rubbishing such confused, unpleasant and sometimes downright mad sentiments is ridiculous and even cowardly. You can't stop people from voting in a certain way, but you can at least give extremist parties such as this ample rope to hang themselves and expose their views for what they really are.
People often say that it is useless to attempt to engage the party in rational debate but this is a strange way of thinking. Of course general opinion on issues such as immigration varies, but most of us do not want "voluntary repatriation" of people with dark skin or any other of the party's hateful policies and have quite enough arguments to throw back. In fact, many of these policies are so irrational, a brief gust of logical debate should blow them away.
Mainstream politicians need to stop creating a legend of fear around the BNP. It's unnecessary. This is not a powerful party by any means. It is facing a costly court battle over its membership policies, a fight which has the potential to close it down. In addition, it is unlikely to be hiring the best political minds in the business, due to the stigma of association and the issue of money.
Get rid of 'no platform' and forget trying to sack BNP members. Hell, let them sit next to David Dimbleby if needs be. Instead of pretending they're not there and allowing them a kind of perverse matyrdom, seek them out, challenge them and drown out their voices in a sea of reasoned, logical debate.
Pink News
The party is undoubtedly racist, homophobic and sexist but the TUC's proposal is deeply disturbing. Firstly it suggests that anyone holding undesirable or unpleasant views should be denied access to the right to work. Most of us don't particularly want to work next to someone who thinks some people should be "sent home" but almost as damaging to democracy is the idea of censuring unpopular or unpleasant political views.
Secondly, instead of challenging these views head-on, it means we push them (and their advocates) out of sight. It smacks of "If we close our eyes, it'll go away." It also suggests we don't have enough conviction in our own views, as if these are not strong enough to stand up against hate.
Let's look at some of the weirder views held by the party: legal director Lee Barnes has a particular hatred of flat-chested women and describes those with dwarfism as "pitiful products of the flaws in nature".
Or what about the disgusting views of Nick Eriksen, the BNP candidate who said women would be more upset if their handbag was stolen then if they were raped. This charming specimen added that some women were "like gongs. They need to be struck regularly". Another example is the party's bizarre grasp of British history, something any A-level history student should be able to dismantle quite easily.
All these examples show that letting them have their say is the way forward. Let the BNP speak, sprout nonsense, tie itself up in semantic knots. To shy away from rubbishing such confused, unpleasant and sometimes downright mad sentiments is ridiculous and even cowardly. You can't stop people from voting in a certain way, but you can at least give extremist parties such as this ample rope to hang themselves and expose their views for what they really are.
People often say that it is useless to attempt to engage the party in rational debate but this is a strange way of thinking. Of course general opinion on issues such as immigration varies, but most of us do not want "voluntary repatriation" of people with dark skin or any other of the party's hateful policies and have quite enough arguments to throw back. In fact, many of these policies are so irrational, a brief gust of logical debate should blow them away.
Mainstream politicians need to stop creating a legend of fear around the BNP. It's unnecessary. This is not a powerful party by any means. It is facing a costly court battle over its membership policies, a fight which has the potential to close it down. In addition, it is unlikely to be hiring the best political minds in the business, due to the stigma of association and the issue of money.
Get rid of 'no platform' and forget trying to sack BNP members. Hell, let them sit next to David Dimbleby if needs be. Instead of pretending they're not there and allowing them a kind of perverse matyrdom, seek them out, challenge them and drown out their voices in a sea of reasoned, logical debate.
Pink News
Labels:
BNP,
homophobic,
Lee Barnes,
Nick Eriksen,
no platform,
Question,
racist,
sexist,
TUC
September 15, 2009
Lib Dems will appear with BNP on TV's Question Time
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg today reveals his party will appear alongside the British National Party to "expose and beat" them on their controversial first appearance on BBC's Question Time. The BNP should not be given a "free run to peddle hate and loathing" and need to be challenged head-on, Mr Clegg told the Yorkshire Post.
The Sheffield Hallam MP said he understood why the BBC felt that it had to invite the party to appear for the first time after it won two seats in the European elections held in June, including one in Yorkshire and the Humber. Inviting the BNP to debate on the BBC has sparked controversy, with several Labour Ministers – including Home Secretary Alan Johnson – unwilling to appear alongside the far-Right party.
But Mr Clegg said: "If the BBC invite the BNP onto their programmes, I want the Liberal Democrats to be there to take them on. I don't want us to be seeking out platforms up and down the country with the BNP, but nor do I want them to be given a free run to peddle hate and loathing on taxpayer-funded television.
"I think it's time someone is there to confront them and say all your hate and all your loathing doesn't provide any answers to anything. It won't produce a single job, won't save a single school, won't help educate a single child, won't equip a single hospital ward, won't do anything to help tackle climate change or international crime."
The BBC confirmed earlier this month it was considering inviting BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on a future edition of the flagship Question Time programme after reviewing its stance in light of the results of June's elections. It said it was bound by the rules to treat all political parties with "due impartiality".
Labour is now reviewing its position after previously refusing to share a platform with the party, although ministers are unlikely to be forced to debate. On Sunday, Mr Johnson, MP for Hull West and Hessle, said: "I've gone 59 years without sharing a platform with a fascist, and I don't intend to start doing it now."
But Mr Clegg claims the Lib Dems have a strong record of taking on the BNP having won seats from the party in Burnley, and believes they can be as successful challenging the party on television. He also claimed allowing the BNP to appear will shatter the "whingeing lie" that Mr Griffin is the victim of the political establishment.
"We know how to expose and beat these thugs, and if they're now going to be given a place on national television, I want us to do the same on Question Time as we did in Burnley," he said.
He also said some of their "bizarre" domestic policies should be exposed and challenged, adding: "If they're not bad, they're mad, and this is something I don't think Britain needs at a time we're facing a massive economic crisis."
No-one at the BNP was available for comment last night.
Yorkshire Post
The Sheffield Hallam MP said he understood why the BBC felt that it had to invite the party to appear for the first time after it won two seats in the European elections held in June, including one in Yorkshire and the Humber. Inviting the BNP to debate on the BBC has sparked controversy, with several Labour Ministers – including Home Secretary Alan Johnson – unwilling to appear alongside the far-Right party.
But Mr Clegg said: "If the BBC invite the BNP onto their programmes, I want the Liberal Democrats to be there to take them on. I don't want us to be seeking out platforms up and down the country with the BNP, but nor do I want them to be given a free run to peddle hate and loathing on taxpayer-funded television.
"I think it's time someone is there to confront them and say all your hate and all your loathing doesn't provide any answers to anything. It won't produce a single job, won't save a single school, won't help educate a single child, won't equip a single hospital ward, won't do anything to help tackle climate change or international crime."
The BBC confirmed earlier this month it was considering inviting BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on a future edition of the flagship Question Time programme after reviewing its stance in light of the results of June's elections. It said it was bound by the rules to treat all political parties with "due impartiality".
Labour is now reviewing its position after previously refusing to share a platform with the party, although ministers are unlikely to be forced to debate. On Sunday, Mr Johnson, MP for Hull West and Hessle, said: "I've gone 59 years without sharing a platform with a fascist, and I don't intend to start doing it now."
But Mr Clegg claims the Lib Dems have a strong record of taking on the BNP having won seats from the party in Burnley, and believes they can be as successful challenging the party on television. He also claimed allowing the BNP to appear will shatter the "whingeing lie" that Mr Griffin is the victim of the political establishment.
"We know how to expose and beat these thugs, and if they're now going to be given a place on national television, I want us to do the same on Question Time as we did in Burnley," he said.
He also said some of their "bizarre" domestic policies should be exposed and challenged, adding: "If they're not bad, they're mad, and this is something I don't think Britain needs at a time we're facing a massive economic crisis."
No-one at the BNP was available for comment last night.
Yorkshire Post
Labels:
Alan Johnson,
BBC,
BNP,
fascist,
Nick Clegg,
no platform,
Question Time
September 08, 2009
Hain to boycott Question Time over BBC plan to invite BNP
Welsh Secretary Peter Hain is to boycott the BBC’s flagship political debate programme Question Time over proposals to invite the British National Party to take part.
Mr Hain, a regular panellist on the weekly question-and-answer programme, last night urged other Cabinet ministers to follow his lead and decline to appear alongside BNP members. Labour has long refused to share a platform with the BNP, arguing that to do so would give legitimacy to the party’s far-right views. But the BNP’s performance in June’s European elections – it won two seats – has forced broadcasters to re-think the coverage they give the party, and handed mainstream political parties a similar dilemma.
The BBC said it was bound by law to treat all properly registered political parties with “due impartiality”.
Mr Hain – a veteran of the anti-fascist campaigns of the 1970s – insisted the “no platform” policy should remain in place. He said: “I was horrified when I heard about this, because it makes them [the BNP] appear as if they are another political party sitting on a panel along with democratically-elected parties.”
The Neath MP said the BBC was “the best and highest-quality broadcaster”, but on this occasion had made a “shabby, shameful decision” it should reverse. Some campaigners and MPs have questioned whether the “no platform” strategy needs to be re-thought in the wake of the election results. In Wales the BNP came seventh with 5.4% of the vote, winning none of the four seats on offer. But the party won a seat in the north-west of England and a second in Yorkshire and the Humber, where it achieved 9.8% of the vote.
Mr Hain is seeking an urgent meeting with BBC executives in an attempt to persuade the corporation to re-think, and said he rejected any watering down of the “no platform” approach.
“I make no bones about it, this is personal for me,” he said. “The BNP have broken up ordinary public meetings that I have spoken at in previous years, and their like have thrown rocks through my front window when I lived in London.”
The BBC has yet to issue a formal invitation to the BNP, but the corporation is understood to be planning an installment of Question Time from London this year. Labour is reviewing its position, but Mr Hain said: “I don’t think any Labour minister should go along with this quisling stance.” The Conservatives have indicated they will make a senior figure available for the programme, as have the Liberal Democrats.
BNP leader Nick Griffin has already been interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and has also appeared on the Andrew Marr show on BBC1. A spokesman for the BBC said: “The BBC is obliged to treat all political parties registered with the Electoral Commission and operating within the law with due impartiality. Due impartiality is achieved both by ensuring appropriate scrutiny for each party and by the appearances of a range of politicians across a series of programmes. Our audiences – and the electorate – will make up their own minds about the different policies offered by elected politicians.”
Wales Online
Mr Hain, a regular panellist on the weekly question-and-answer programme, last night urged other Cabinet ministers to follow his lead and decline to appear alongside BNP members. Labour has long refused to share a platform with the BNP, arguing that to do so would give legitimacy to the party’s far-right views. But the BNP’s performance in June’s European elections – it won two seats – has forced broadcasters to re-think the coverage they give the party, and handed mainstream political parties a similar dilemma.
The BBC said it was bound by law to treat all properly registered political parties with “due impartiality”.
Mr Hain – a veteran of the anti-fascist campaigns of the 1970s – insisted the “no platform” policy should remain in place. He said: “I was horrified when I heard about this, because it makes them [the BNP] appear as if they are another political party sitting on a panel along with democratically-elected parties.”
The Neath MP said the BBC was “the best and highest-quality broadcaster”, but on this occasion had made a “shabby, shameful decision” it should reverse. Some campaigners and MPs have questioned whether the “no platform” strategy needs to be re-thought in the wake of the election results. In Wales the BNP came seventh with 5.4% of the vote, winning none of the four seats on offer. But the party won a seat in the north-west of England and a second in Yorkshire and the Humber, where it achieved 9.8% of the vote.
Mr Hain is seeking an urgent meeting with BBC executives in an attempt to persuade the corporation to re-think, and said he rejected any watering down of the “no platform” approach.
“I make no bones about it, this is personal for me,” he said. “The BNP have broken up ordinary public meetings that I have spoken at in previous years, and their like have thrown rocks through my front window when I lived in London.”
The BBC has yet to issue a formal invitation to the BNP, but the corporation is understood to be planning an installment of Question Time from London this year. Labour is reviewing its position, but Mr Hain said: “I don’t think any Labour minister should go along with this quisling stance.” The Conservatives have indicated they will make a senior figure available for the programme, as have the Liberal Democrats.
BNP leader Nick Griffin has already been interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and has also appeared on the Andrew Marr show on BBC1. A spokesman for the BBC said: “The BBC is obliged to treat all political parties registered with the Electoral Commission and operating within the law with due impartiality. Due impartiality is achieved both by ensuring appropriate scrutiny for each party and by the appearances of a range of politicians across a series of programmes. Our audiences – and the electorate – will make up their own minds about the different policies offered by elected politicians.”
Wales Online
Labels:
BBC,
BNP,
Nick Griffin,
no platform,
Peter Hain,
Question Time
September 07, 2009
BNP doesn't deserve political respect
A man who deserves no political respect at all...The BBC is said to be considering inviting someone from the British National party (BNP) on to Question Time – predictably a media storm has ensued. Can "No Platform with Fascists" still work? Should it still be in place? The debate has also raised some myths that typically get dragged out during these occasions. Here are some:
Myth 1: The BNP's arguments can be defeated through rational argument
This argument ignores the reason why most people vote BNP: because they're angry. The idea that they've spent time poring over policy positions of each of the parties and come to a considered decision is nonsensical.
And so the idea the BNP can be defeated via rational arguments and "exposing them" is equally deluded. As various studies on cognitive behaviour have shown, people are emotionally predisposed to the information they receive. So if they already hate the BNP, then they're likely to receive information exposing the BNP with glee. Its supporters will simply see such information as propaganda or falsehoods promoted by people with an agenda.
In fact, Nick Griffin could say whatever he wanted on Question Time, and attempts by Tory, Labour or Lib Dem MPs to expose his lies would be useless. Most BNP supporters are very unlikely to take words by any of the three parties seriously anyway. After all, when they appeal to vote anyone but the BNP it makes hardly any difference.
No one on either side will respond rationally – affiliation with extremist movements is always an emotional attachment. No amount of rational arguments will change that. The only way to affect that would be through emotional arguments.
Myth 2: Persecution will only feed the BNP's victim mentality
Yes, it will. But then, anything less than letting the BNP take over Britain and turn it into a fascist state will feed their victim mentality. The party thrives on positioning itself as the anti-establishment party which is under persecution even from the likes of the Sun (no, really!).
The BNP's core support is derived from people who think the entire nation is under the control of a vast conspiracy against the honest people of Britain. Just because it thrives off a victim mentality doesn't mean we should do anything to avoid that. After all, Islamists thrive off a victim mentality. As do terrorists. That doesn't mean we give in to their every wish, right?
Myth 3: "No Platform" doesn't work
The "No Platform" policy isn't a demand to ban the BNP. It is a democratic decision by right-thinking people not to share a platform with fascists. In fact, "No Platform" worked quite well in sidelining the BNP in mainstream conversation. It wasn't that long ago that the National Front and its affiliates were fearlessly marching through various streets in Britain and expressing support for the National Front was something to be proud of. "No Platform" changed that by actively trying to paint the BNP et al as extremist movements that right-thinking people should shun. It had huge impact.
The existence of the internet doesn't negate the need to shun the BNP – the moral point that "No Platform" agitated for still exists. The party has grown thanks to a mixture of: the Labour party abandoning grassroots politics in key areas, fears over multiculturalism, immigration, and economic collapse in many towns across England. None of them make the case for the BNP being accepted as a "normal" party. As Dr Cammaerts points out on Polis, "The liberal answer ultimately often results in granting the extreme right an open platform, thereby normalising and partly legitimising racism and racist discourses in society in the process."
Myth 4: The BNP has unprecedented popularity
We've had the biggest recession in living memory, a huge upsurge in EU immigration (driving down wages) and a decline in manufacturing over the past decade. The three main parties are held in low regard, partly thanks to the expenses scandal, and still the BNP barely increased their percentage share of the vote. The Green party did better. In fact, they had much more support in the 70s and 80s. And so I refuse to buy the view that the BNP is suddenly a huge force to be reckoned with that needs to be represented across all levels of society.
A question for the BBC
There is a deeper question here for the BBC. Is it merely an independent platform that should offer space to any sufficiently popular viewpoint or should it exercise more editorial judgment?
For example, there is a significant movement of people online who believe they aren't being told "the truth" about who was behind 9/11 and 7/7.
There are a huge amount of "birthers" in America who believe Obama was not born in the US despite the overwhelming evidence. There are the climate-change denialists, the creationists and even the Holocaust deniers. A straightforward reporting position would require that the BBC give roughly equal time to two opposing points of view in the name of impartiality, even if the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts one side.
A similar problem applies to the BBC's formats. Question Time is basically a populist shouting match where facts and figures don't have time to get checked. Someone such as Dan Hannan MEP can claim 84% of our laws are made in Europe and no one calls him out on his rubbish. Nick Griffin could similarly claim he's not racist and repeat lies that go unchallenged live on air. BNP pamphlets have repeatedly featured lies in the past. Who will have the research on hand to challenge that? His fellow QT panellists won't. And so the BBC will be used to spread lies by a party in thrall to antisemitism, racism, sexism and general conspiracy theory madness.
All this will only demean the BBC's reputation.
Many of the BNP's supporters say they're only trying to protect Britain from those who intend to destroy it. But the BBC is giving space to an organisation that itself is anti-democratic, authoritarian and averse to our liberal democratic traditions. It seeks to destroy the very basis of the nation it claims it's trying to protect. Why shouldn't it be treated with less support and respect than the other political parties?
Comment is free
Labels:
BBC,
BNP,
National Front,
Nick Griffin,
no platform,
Question Time
May 08, 2009
Parties join forces to fight BNP
Senior politicians are drawing up cross-party plans to fight the British National party in next month’s local and European elections, amid fears the far-right party could stage advances by exploiting an “anti-politics” tide sweeping the country.
Harriet Harman, deputy Labour leader, and Eric Pickles, Tory chairman, will hold talks next week to draw up a strategy designed to isolate the BNP and to co-ordinate a united response in areas where the party is campaigning.
Ms Harman will propose that mainstream parties should not share a platform with BNP candidates and that they should avoid campaigning on issues that stoke sentiment against foreigners. There has also been talk of setting up a “hotline” where Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would share intelligence on BNP activity. The mainstream parties, and possibly church and other voluntary groups, would then knock on doors to try to raise voter turnout in an attempt to dilute the BNP vote.
Ms Harman has angered her opposite numbers by twice cancelling meetings to discuss the strategy. Lord Rennard, the veteran Lib Dem campaigner, will argue against making joint statements about the BNP on the grounds that they would give the party free publicity.
The rightwing party has long traded on its hostility to immigration and foreigners generally, but is now mining a seam of anger towards politicians, fuelled by stories about expenses claims.
Simon Darby, deputy BNP leader, said on Thursday his party aimed to exploit anger towards “professional politicians”. He said the party would field more than 400 candidates for county council elections on June 4 – nominations closed on Thursday – and that it would field a full slate for the European elections on the same day.
The proportional voting system in the European polls has raised the prospect of the BNP winning its first seats in Strasbourg, with Mr Darby claiming a target of five or six seats was “attainable”.
Hazel Blears, communities secretary, has admitted: “The BNP have got into ‘anti-politics’, which taps into a very resonant public mood.”
Labour’s discontent with the leadership of Gordon Brown is likely to be put on hold until after the polls, but could flare up if the party loses its last four county councils and fares badly in the European elections.
Financial Times
Harriet Harman, deputy Labour leader, and Eric Pickles, Tory chairman, will hold talks next week to draw up a strategy designed to isolate the BNP and to co-ordinate a united response in areas where the party is campaigning.
Ms Harman will propose that mainstream parties should not share a platform with BNP candidates and that they should avoid campaigning on issues that stoke sentiment against foreigners. There has also been talk of setting up a “hotline” where Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would share intelligence on BNP activity. The mainstream parties, and possibly church and other voluntary groups, would then knock on doors to try to raise voter turnout in an attempt to dilute the BNP vote.
Ms Harman has angered her opposite numbers by twice cancelling meetings to discuss the strategy. Lord Rennard, the veteran Lib Dem campaigner, will argue against making joint statements about the BNP on the grounds that they would give the party free publicity.
The rightwing party has long traded on its hostility to immigration and foreigners generally, but is now mining a seam of anger towards politicians, fuelled by stories about expenses claims.
Simon Darby, deputy BNP leader, said on Thursday his party aimed to exploit anger towards “professional politicians”. He said the party would field more than 400 candidates for county council elections on June 4 – nominations closed on Thursday – and that it would field a full slate for the European elections on the same day.
The proportional voting system in the European polls has raised the prospect of the BNP winning its first seats in Strasbourg, with Mr Darby claiming a target of five or six seats was “attainable”.
Hazel Blears, communities secretary, has admitted: “The BNP have got into ‘anti-politics’, which taps into a very resonant public mood.”
Labour’s discontent with the leadership of Gordon Brown is likely to be put on hold until after the polls, but could flare up if the party loses its last four county councils and fares badly in the European elections.
Financial Times
April 24, 2009
Lessons from Wanstead
The excellent and hard-hitting 'Wanstead Matters' leafletTwo issues caused controversy even among anti-fascists. The first was whether it was right to oppose the BNP’s participation in a local hustings meeting, where the other five candidates would have had to share a platform with the BNP. The second was how tough anti-BNP leaflets should be.
There is a well established principle that goes beyond the anti-fascist movement that decent people do not share platforms or debate with fascists, racists and nazis, whether at universities, during elections or elsewhere. The main reasons are that one cannot debate with people of such abhorrent views, and one cannot have a sensible debate with liars. Most of the democratic parties would not be seen dead with the BNP.
Labour has been largely solid on the issue. The Conservatives have been less certain but in recent years leading Conservatives, including members of the Shadow Cabinet, have taken a firm and very public anti-BNP line. Lib Dem views vary and some people in the Green Party seem to have difficulty making up their minds.
The Churches have taken a more vigorous line against the BNP and thrown them out of hustings held in church buildings. Recently church officers had the BNP removed from church property in Brentwood and the Cathedral grounds in Lichfield.
Three local organisations – the Wanstead Society, Counties Residents’ Association and Counties Neighbourhood Watch – had organised a hustings for the week before polling day. All six candidates were invited.
Searchlight contacted people in the local political parties to establish that they would refuse to share a platform with the BNP. The young Labour candidate, Ross Hatfull, responded quickly by calling for the other candidates to join him in stopping the BNP from taking part.
The Liberal Democrat told us that she was reluctant to share a platform with the BNP, especially after she had personally seen the BNP’s aggressive behaviour while out leafleting, The Conservative candidate stated he was prepared to sit down with the BNP and, perhaps most shockingly, the Green candidate who has been active in local anti-racist politics took the view that he could win any debate against Evans, which is not the point.
Ross’s brave stance caused the hustings to collapse, as the organisers were unwilling to exclude the BNP. Even within the Labour Party opinions were divided. One member I spoke to appeared to be more concerned about finding himself in an embarrassing position when he next attended a Wanstead Society meeting. Others were worried that there might be far-right infiltration in the society.
As all this was going on, BNP activists clashed with a local black resident, who wanted to hand back a BNP leaflet pushed through her door. In front of the resident’s five-year-old son, the BNP leafleter told her to “come to me because I don’t come to niggers” and other racist abuse.
The abusive fascist was arrested and interviewed, but no charges have been brought as the only witnesses were the victim and three BNP members.
Within hours the victim was being abused on BNP and other far-right websites, which also posted a photo and her details. Among other things she was called a benefits cheat, when in fact she works as a nurse at a local maternity unit. The police are back on the case.
The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian reported the attack and published a letter vigorously attacking the BNP bullies. But Chris Carter, the editor of the Ilford Recorder, disgracefully attacked Ross Hatfull and the Labour Party. He also set up an online poll on whether Labour was right to refuse to attend the hustings, apparently unaware of the BNP’s policy of rigging such polls by getting members all over the country to vote.
Carter knows well what a bunch of yobs the BNP are. Last year Councillor Bob Bailey, BNP group leader in Barking and Dagenham, launched a foul-mouthed verbal assault on the Recorder’s news editor. After a phone call, peppered with four-letter words in which Bailey called her a “jobsworth” and a Nazi, he turned up at the newspaper’s offices with a group of party colleagues. After spending 20 minutes shouting abuse through a megaphone, they were moved on by the police.
The other issue is how to pitch anti-BNP leaflets. Local anti-BNP activists distributed a leaflet with a very strong message headed “Don’t vote for scum”, which told the full and unpleasant truth about the BNP. It highlighted a BNP organiser’s statement that there was little point in keeping disabled people alive.
It may go some way to explain why the BNP candidate polled so badly, falling far short of the percentage the BNP would need to gain a London MEP on 4 June.
Evans’s final leaflet, distributed just before polling day, was partly about law and order. Perhaps he should remember the person who encouraged him to join the BNP in the first place, a man with a criminal record for his part in BNP-inspired rioting in the North West a few years ago. It is likely the electorate in London will be hearing more about that in the course of the European election campaign.
The “don’t vote for scum” leaflet can be read here.
Hope not hate
Labels:
BNP,
Bob Bailey,
Hope not Hate,
hustings,
Ilford Recorder,
no platform,
Wanstead,
Wanstead Matters
April 02, 2009
Parties unite against BNP ahead of Euro vote
Scotland's four main political parties have agreed a united stance against the far-right British National Party at this year's European Parliament elections. Labour, SNP, Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates will refuse to appear alongside the BNP during the campaign for the June 4 poll.
Scottish Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson said: "We learned the BNP will be running a full slate of six candidates in Scotland and we have all agreed we will not share a hustings with them. We will not share a platform with fascists and racists. If there is anyone who thinks they should invite a BNP candidate to a hustings or TV debate, they won't get the rest of us."
Lothians-based Labour MEP David Martin said: "Politics is about disagreement and competing visions and I'm happy to share a platform with people whom I don't agree 100 per cent with. But the BNP is different because they would deny other people such a platform. They are an anti-democratic party and a pure racist party."
Scotsman
Scottish Conservative MEP Struan Stevenson said: "We learned the BNP will be running a full slate of six candidates in Scotland and we have all agreed we will not share a hustings with them. We will not share a platform with fascists and racists. If there is anyone who thinks they should invite a BNP candidate to a hustings or TV debate, they won't get the rest of us."
Lothians-based Labour MEP David Martin said: "Politics is about disagreement and competing visions and I'm happy to share a platform with people whom I don't agree 100 per cent with. But the BNP is different because they would deny other people such a platform. They are an anti-democratic party and a pure racist party."
Scotsman
Labels:
BNP,
Conservative,
European Parliament,
Labour,
Liberal Democrat,
no platform,
SNP
November 29, 2007
Comment: No Platform works!
One of the most successful weapons devised to combat the growth of Fascism in the United Kingdom is the long standing No Platform policy. It is a policy that thirty years ago seriously hobbled the then ascendant National Front, and which continues to invoke cries of pain and outrage from the British National Party.
No Platform is based on the principle that some views are so extreme, so abhorrent, so divisive, so much based on hate and bigotry, that no platform should be provided for the espousal of them.
No Platform worked.
It ensured that odious organisations such as the BNP could never claim legitimacy or parity for their bigoted beliefs and were never provided with an audience in which to disseminate them. Their failure to obtain television air time or to have their policies reported uncritically in the wider media has caused them an inestimable degree of harm and is a major (perhaps the major) factor in ensuring that organisationally their progress and growth has been at best snail’s pace, and that electorally they are largely moribund.
The No Platform stance of the media unions means that we do not wake up to find a Griffin or a Darby on the breakfast TV sofas, smarming and spinning at full bore for having been invited to comment upon the latest breaking immigration story and matters arising. It keeps them off the Question Time panel and out of the news studios.
No Platform also ensured that the bacillus of fascism and its related -isms were never allowed to infect our places of learning, namely the universities - prime targets for organisations suffering from a cruel intellectual deficit, and thus necessarily overburdened at all levels by charmless low-calibre human material which thinks in simple slogans and believes the bigoted tirade to have a moral and political equivalence with the policies of the mainstream parties.
We anti-fascists daily come upon the illiterate scratchings with which BNP members disfigure various parts of the Internet. To see them in action is to take away any surprise at all that modern-day snake-oil salesmen like Griffin, Barnes, Darby, et al, have risen to the top of the BNP. It could never really be otherwise.
And that’s how we would like to keep it - the decidedly dodgy leading the irredeemably inept, dancing them around and around the houses in continuous procession that always returns to its starting point - thus sustaining a moral-boosting illusion of movement and progress when there is none at all.
Readers of these pages are well aware of the surfeit of problems besetting the British National Party - internal dissent, purges and expulsions, stolen “trade unions”, missing accounts, electoral stagnation … which taken together all adds up to a highly satisfying six months for anti-fascists, particularly as we feared (and the racists expected) that at this point in time we would be dealing with an organisationally larger, slicker and electorally better represented BNP.
Given this, we are entitled at ask: who in their right minds would choose this very time to provide the British National Party with invaluable national publicity, to allow them to spuriously present themselves simultaneously as champions of free speech and “victims” of “left-wing” censorship, and to provide them with a platform on which to do it?
As we are all aware, this week the Oxford Union Debating Society drove a coach and horses through No Platform by inviting the BNP’s Nick Griffin and jailbird “revisionist” author David Irving to address them on the subject of “free speech”.
The president of OUDS is Luke Tryl, a prominent member of Conservative Future, the Tory Party’s youth organisation. He justified the invitations on the grounds that “these people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech”.
From the beginning Tryl must have been alive to the fact that not only would the appearance of Griffin and Irving provoke widespread condemnation and protest, but that he was handing the BNP a priceless propaganda coup which it was certain to exploit and abuse - as it has - to its own benefit.
In fact Tryl had ample warnings, not least from OUDS members, that the only winners in this self-inflicted debacle were going to be the BNP and David Irving.
Yet he persisted, doggedly, to the point where serious questions concerning Tryl’s own motives are being asked.
Did he sacrifice No Platform purely to raise his own profile, with a calculating eye fixed on his own future political career? Or is he really so naive as to believe that “free speech” is an absolute, and that some of the most poisonous characters on the extreme fringe of British politics should be given platforms from which to espouse their creed of hate because Luke Tryl and his idealistic young friends have the arrogance of mind to believe that they are capable of “exposing” and “refuting” their arguments?
Young Mr Tryl might care to recall that both Griffin and Irving are veterans of the legal system, and have crossed swords with some of the best legal minds available. In Griffin’s case a lengthy trial failed to “refute” him, while in Irving’s the sharpest barristers took weeks to nail the man down.
What hope do Mr Tryl and those of like mind believe they have in “exposing” and “refuting” their arguments - assuming, of course, that people of Mr Tryl’s apparent high calibre are on hand to do the refuting?
No Platform having been breached for no particularly convincing reason by OUDS, students at the University of East Anglia have leapt in to widen the crack, claiming that free debate is the only way to tackle extremism.
We might be forgiven for asking the simple question - on what basis is this dogmatic pronouncement made, when every scrap of available evidence and our own long experience tells us that No Platform has achieved that end admirably?
The UEA’s student union displays the same breathtaking arrogance spiced with naiveté (we assume it to be naiveté) as that falling from the lips of Mr Tryl. According to them:
thus missing the point that any invitation extended to fascist groups to debate is in itself an admission that political hate organisations are qualitatively no different to other political organisations; and again making the arrogant assumption that, when faced with some of the wiliest veteran speakers of the extreme right, it is a given that the fresh-faced students will prove them wrong.
The UEA students further say:
Hello?
Hasn’t that been exactly the position for the last three decades? Has it harmed anybody other than the fascists themselves, as was the whole intention?
Then we have:
So that’s all fine and dandy then. What this seems to be saying is that those lovers of free speech who feel themselves impelled to invite hate groups onto campus will take no responsibility for the actions of their esteemed guests, which must be dealt with by the police - presumably after people have been hurt, since “you cannot assume people are guilty … before they act”.
It’s a risk the “ethnic minorities, LGBT students and other discriminated against groups” will just have to take, apparently for the sake of somebody else’s “free speech”.
No Platform has hurt organisations like the BNP as nothing else could. They know it and we know it.
They know that the needless (and perhaps self-serving) actions of Luke Tryl and the OUDS represent an important first strike against No Platform, and could be a major step along the road that eventually will lead the BNP into the sun-lighted uplands of craved-for respectability.
Already the BNP are crowing that No Platform is broken, and that the remaining dominos will fall. In their fevered collective imagination the likes of Griffin and Darby are about to park their ample backsides on the breakfast TV sofas and to take their places as equals amongst the great and good on Question Time.
We must break the spell.
The breach is not yet so wide as to be beyond repair, and we understand that moves are afoot within the relevant organisations to restore the status quo.
No Platform must then be applied with renewed vigour.
It is a point of honour amongst liberals to claim that though they may disagree with another person’s point of view, they will fight to the death for the other’s right to say it. While the danger of death is remote, this well-known slogan is empty cant.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Though I may disagree with another person’s point of view, I will do all in my power to preserve the other’s right to say it - unless that other’s point of view is founded upon hate and bigotry, in which case I will do all in my power to suppress it.
No Platform is based on the principle that some views are so extreme, so abhorrent, so divisive, so much based on hate and bigotry, that no platform should be provided for the espousal of them.
No Platform worked.
It ensured that odious organisations such as the BNP could never claim legitimacy or parity for their bigoted beliefs and were never provided with an audience in which to disseminate them. Their failure to obtain television air time or to have their policies reported uncritically in the wider media has caused them an inestimable degree of harm and is a major (perhaps the major) factor in ensuring that organisationally their progress and growth has been at best snail’s pace, and that electorally they are largely moribund.
The No Platform stance of the media unions means that we do not wake up to find a Griffin or a Darby on the breakfast TV sofas, smarming and spinning at full bore for having been invited to comment upon the latest breaking immigration story and matters arising. It keeps them off the Question Time panel and out of the news studios.
No Platform also ensured that the bacillus of fascism and its related -isms were never allowed to infect our places of learning, namely the universities - prime targets for organisations suffering from a cruel intellectual deficit, and thus necessarily overburdened at all levels by charmless low-calibre human material which thinks in simple slogans and believes the bigoted tirade to have a moral and political equivalence with the policies of the mainstream parties.
We anti-fascists daily come upon the illiterate scratchings with which BNP members disfigure various parts of the Internet. To see them in action is to take away any surprise at all that modern-day snake-oil salesmen like Griffin, Barnes, Darby, et al, have risen to the top of the BNP. It could never really be otherwise.
And that’s how we would like to keep it - the decidedly dodgy leading the irredeemably inept, dancing them around and around the houses in continuous procession that always returns to its starting point - thus sustaining a moral-boosting illusion of movement and progress when there is none at all.
Readers of these pages are well aware of the surfeit of problems besetting the British National Party - internal dissent, purges and expulsions, stolen “trade unions”, missing accounts, electoral stagnation … which taken together all adds up to a highly satisfying six months for anti-fascists, particularly as we feared (and the racists expected) that at this point in time we would be dealing with an organisationally larger, slicker and electorally better represented BNP.
Given this, we are entitled at ask: who in their right minds would choose this very time to provide the British National Party with invaluable national publicity, to allow them to spuriously present themselves simultaneously as champions of free speech and “victims” of “left-wing” censorship, and to provide them with a platform on which to do it?
As we are all aware, this week the Oxford Union Debating Society drove a coach and horses through No Platform by inviting the BNP’s Nick Griffin and jailbird “revisionist” author David Irving to address them on the subject of “free speech”.
The president of OUDS is Luke Tryl, a prominent member of Conservative Future, the Tory Party’s youth organisation. He justified the invitations on the grounds that “these people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech”.
From the beginning Tryl must have been alive to the fact that not only would the appearance of Griffin and Irving provoke widespread condemnation and protest, but that he was handing the BNP a priceless propaganda coup which it was certain to exploit and abuse - as it has - to its own benefit.
In fact Tryl had ample warnings, not least from OUDS members, that the only winners in this self-inflicted debacle were going to be the BNP and David Irving.
Yet he persisted, doggedly, to the point where serious questions concerning Tryl’s own motives are being asked.
Did he sacrifice No Platform purely to raise his own profile, with a calculating eye fixed on his own future political career? Or is he really so naive as to believe that “free speech” is an absolute, and that some of the most poisonous characters on the extreme fringe of British politics should be given platforms from which to espouse their creed of hate because Luke Tryl and his idealistic young friends have the arrogance of mind to believe that they are capable of “exposing” and “refuting” their arguments?
Young Mr Tryl might care to recall that both Griffin and Irving are veterans of the legal system, and have crossed swords with some of the best legal minds available. In Griffin’s case a lengthy trial failed to “refute” him, while in Irving’s the sharpest barristers took weeks to nail the man down.
What hope do Mr Tryl and those of like mind believe they have in “exposing” and “refuting” their arguments - assuming, of course, that people of Mr Tryl’s apparent high calibre are on hand to do the refuting?
No Platform having been breached for no particularly convincing reason by OUDS, students at the University of East Anglia have leapt in to widen the crack, claiming that free debate is the only way to tackle extremism.
We might be forgiven for asking the simple question - on what basis is this dogmatic pronouncement made, when every scrap of available evidence and our own long experience tells us that No Platform has achieved that end admirably?
The UEA’s student union displays the same breathtaking arrogance spiced with naiveté (we assume it to be naiveté) as that falling from the lips of Mr Tryl. According to them:
If fascist groups were to come to campus to debate, our representatives should be inside the room arguing with them and proving them wrong, not just protesting pointlessly outside
thus missing the point that any invitation extended to fascist groups to debate is in itself an admission that political hate organisations are qualitatively no different to other political organisations; and again making the arrogant assumption that, when faced with some of the wiliest veteran speakers of the extreme right, it is a given that the fresh-faced students will prove them wrong.
The UEA students further say:
If we ban these groups, we give them the moral high ground - they can claim they are unfairly treated and accuse those who do believe in democracy of being hypocrites
Hello?
Hasn’t that been exactly the position for the last three decades? Has it harmed anybody other than the fascists themselves, as was the whole intention?
Then we have:
[Perceived objection to new policy] ‘Fascist/racist groups will attack people [on campus], especially ethnic minorities, LGBT students and other discriminated against groups.’
This may be true. However, if it is, this is a matter for the police as it would be a criminal offence. You cannot assume people are guilty, however unpleasant they are, before they act.
So that’s all fine and dandy then. What this seems to be saying is that those lovers of free speech who feel themselves impelled to invite hate groups onto campus will take no responsibility for the actions of their esteemed guests, which must be dealt with by the police - presumably after people have been hurt, since “you cannot assume people are guilty … before they act”.
It’s a risk the “ethnic minorities, LGBT students and other discriminated against groups” will just have to take, apparently for the sake of somebody else’s “free speech”.
No Platform has hurt organisations like the BNP as nothing else could. They know it and we know it.
They know that the needless (and perhaps self-serving) actions of Luke Tryl and the OUDS represent an important first strike against No Platform, and could be a major step along the road that eventually will lead the BNP into the sun-lighted uplands of craved-for respectability.
Already the BNP are crowing that No Platform is broken, and that the remaining dominos will fall. In their fevered collective imagination the likes of Griffin and Darby are about to park their ample backsides on the breakfast TV sofas and to take their places as equals amongst the great and good on Question Time.
We must break the spell.
The breach is not yet so wide as to be beyond repair, and we understand that moves are afoot within the relevant organisations to restore the status quo.
No Platform must then be applied with renewed vigour.
It is a point of honour amongst liberals to claim that though they may disagree with another person’s point of view, they will fight to the death for the other’s right to say it. While the danger of death is remote, this well-known slogan is empty cant.
Allow me to rephrase it:
Though I may disagree with another person’s point of view, I will do all in my power to preserve the other’s right to say it - unless that other’s point of view is founded upon hate and bigotry, in which case I will do all in my power to suppress it.
Labels:
BNP,
David Irving,
free speech,
holocaust denial,
Luke Tryl,
Nick Griffin,
no platform,
Oxford Union
June 14, 2007
Lancaster BNP's Chris Hill gets all over-excited at eviction
Eviction from Lancaster University student's SCAM forum, that is!
A couple of years ago, a bunch of Lancaster University students got together to form an online alternative to the worthy but dull Students' Union newspaper Scan, and eventually came up with a forum which they named SCAM. Everything you might expect to find on it is there - discussions on politics, courses, uni life, music, lust, gossip, booze and so on. All the things in fact, in which one would expect students to show an interest.
As expected before long, someone recently asked the question 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' The usual arguments were aired - 'it's a legitimate political party', 'no platform', 'allow a platform then shoot their arguments down', 'they're not welcome on campus' and so on.
The NUS has a very clear 'no platform' policy regarding fascists, generally followed by the Uni and Lancaster University Students' Union (LUSU) except when corporate crooks want to use the facilities, and Scam appears to actively adhere to this policy. So when Lancaster BNP's Chris Hill, who is a grad student, posted in the 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' thread, the forum administrator acted in a way that would make any anti-fascist (in the NUS or not) proud - immediate deletion of all Hill's posts followed by this unequivocal statement:
'As owner of this website I wish to inform Chris Hill that he is specifically not authorised to post messages on this forum, under his own name or otherwise, and that for him to cause this server to carry out the operations required to post a message will therefore be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
I would further like to inform him that any such messages he posts will be deleted. Now being aware of this, should he continue to post he should take note that the actions he knows I will take will cause me annoyance and inconvenience. Therefore, posting in this knowledge and to this purpose would be an offence under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Chris Hill may like to remember that it is not necessary for him to be prosecuted for any law breaking to affect him. The University will doubtless wish to avoid their systems being used for acts which are of questionable legality and may reconsider their provision of services to him in this event.
To everyone else: don’t encourage him, don’t debate him, don’t take actions that support him. Ultimately, this is a privately run site and I’ll not have my money going to spread the message of the BNP.'
Bravo to the site admin/s, whoever he, she or they may be. But Chris Hill has taken great exception to being denied a platform to spread his lies and the BNP's racist filth.
Over on his third-rate blog, he has descended into the usual barrage of abuse that the BNP always indulges itself in when denied a space to preach, throwing the word 'fascism' about with reckless abandon, droning on about his 'right to reply' and free speech (something the BNP denies on many of its own sites - the Chairman's own blog and that of the party's Press Officer to name but two).
This is what Hill had to say:
'Fascism (of the left wing sort that is) is alive and thriving on campus at Lancaster University. The National student union organisation has, for a long time now, had a far left slant to its ruling body. A policy called no platform, which basically allows it to deny free speech to anyone they disagree with, has been introduced by some student unions, although not yet by LUSU (Lancaster University's Student Union)...This is of course the only action these left wing fascist can take when faced with reasoned debate, because they know they would lose in a free and open discussion of policies. Today the local student internet discussion forum removed my right of reply to postings made on its site...The no platform policy is supposed to apply to fascists; the irony is they are the very people who impose it...Can I assure the people running Lancaster’s SCAM forum, your fascist censorship will not in any way stop, or hinder, the growth of the British National Party in Lancaster...'
Quite why Hill imagines the BNP is growing in Lancaster is beyond any rational human. As the graph here plainly shows, the BNP's presence in Lancaster is rapidly waning and, pending another Margaret Hodge stupidity, will continue to do so. However, that's all beside the point. As a commentor points out on Hill's blog; 'It's not just the left who hate the BNP. The right don't like them either...'[and the] student body at large regards a chunk of its manifesto to be gravely offensive...prospective students (be they black, white, purple, blue or green) would be put off Lancaster University if they knew that there was an active BNP group.'
Hill's response is atypically BNP. 'As for the activities of a group on campus putting potential students off coming to Lancaster to study, don’t you think that the potential students might be put off knowing they are not allowed free political association on campus, which by the way is guaranteed by the human rights act.'
Which, for what it's worth, the BNP doesn't and wouldn't under any circumstances subscribe to, although naturally they're prepared to make use of it when it suits them.
Hill then states his case on four sections of BNP policy; race, immigration, homosexual rights and Islam.
On race: 'We do not want to see the mongrelisation of any race...'
Which clearly means that he is opposed to mixed-race relationships, diversity and a multi-cultural society.
On immigration: '...along with the vast majority of British people I would stop all immigration tomorrow.'
Obviously not true or Nick Griffin would have his feet tucked under the table at 10 Downing Street right now.
On homosexual rights: 'My own view is that homosexuality is a mental illness.'
My own view is that Chris Hill is a homophobic idiot who needs to get out more.
On Islam: 'This is not a religion, it’s an evil cult.'
Clearly showing that he's spent more time listening to the insane rants of Nick Griffin instead of investigating Islam through one of Lancaster's friendly mosques.
Hill then makes this strange statement; 'I hold no commission to talk for the British National Party on any issues or policies...'
Er, yes you do. You're the local BNP candidate. If you don't have a commission to talk for the party, who the hell does?
All of which goes to show that fascists believe they have a right to go anywhere and spout their ridiculous opinions, no matter who they offend in the process, that anyone who opposes them is automatically either a raving red or a fascist themselves (or preferably both) and that Chris Hill has no idea of the role a candidate plays within a political party - indicating that for all the smart suits and weasel words the BNP is no nearer to being a political party than I am to being a duck.
A couple of years ago, a bunch of Lancaster University students got together to form an online alternative to the worthy but dull Students' Union newspaper Scan, and eventually came up with a forum which they named SCAM. Everything you might expect to find on it is there - discussions on politics, courses, uni life, music, lust, gossip, booze and so on. All the things in fact, in which one would expect students to show an interest.
As expected before long, someone recently asked the question 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' The usual arguments were aired - 'it's a legitimate political party', 'no platform', 'allow a platform then shoot their arguments down', 'they're not welcome on campus' and so on.
The NUS has a very clear 'no platform' policy regarding fascists, generally followed by the Uni and Lancaster University Students' Union (LUSU) except when corporate crooks want to use the facilities, and Scam appears to actively adhere to this policy. So when Lancaster BNP's Chris Hill, who is a grad student, posted in the 'Should the BNP be allowed on Campus?' thread, the forum administrator acted in a way that would make any anti-fascist (in the NUS or not) proud - immediate deletion of all Hill's posts followed by this unequivocal statement:
'As owner of this website I wish to inform Chris Hill that he is specifically not authorised to post messages on this forum, under his own name or otherwise, and that for him to cause this server to carry out the operations required to post a message will therefore be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
I would further like to inform him that any such messages he posts will be deleted. Now being aware of this, should he continue to post he should take note that the actions he knows I will take will cause me annoyance and inconvenience. Therefore, posting in this knowledge and to this purpose would be an offence under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Chris Hill may like to remember that it is not necessary for him to be prosecuted for any law breaking to affect him. The University will doubtless wish to avoid their systems being used for acts which are of questionable legality and may reconsider their provision of services to him in this event.
To everyone else: don’t encourage him, don’t debate him, don’t take actions that support him. Ultimately, this is a privately run site and I’ll not have my money going to spread the message of the BNP.'
Bravo to the site admin/s, whoever he, she or they may be. But Chris Hill has taken great exception to being denied a platform to spread his lies and the BNP's racist filth.
Over on his third-rate blog, he has descended into the usual barrage of abuse that the BNP always indulges itself in when denied a space to preach, throwing the word 'fascism' about with reckless abandon, droning on about his 'right to reply' and free speech (something the BNP denies on many of its own sites - the Chairman's own blog and that of the party's Press Officer to name but two).
This is what Hill had to say:
'Fascism (of the left wing sort that is) is alive and thriving on campus at Lancaster University. The National student union organisation has, for a long time now, had a far left slant to its ruling body. A policy called no platform, which basically allows it to deny free speech to anyone they disagree with, has been introduced by some student unions, although not yet by LUSU (Lancaster University's Student Union)...This is of course the only action these left wing fascist can take when faced with reasoned debate, because they know they would lose in a free and open discussion of policies. Today the local student internet discussion forum removed my right of reply to postings made on its site...The no platform policy is supposed to apply to fascists; the irony is they are the very people who impose it...Can I assure the people running Lancaster’s SCAM forum, your fascist censorship will not in any way stop, or hinder, the growth of the British National Party in Lancaster...'
Quite why Hill imagines the BNP is growing in Lancaster is beyond any rational human. As the graph here plainly shows, the BNP's presence in Lancaster is rapidly waning and, pending another Margaret Hodge stupidity, will continue to do so. However, that's all beside the point. As a commentor points out on Hill's blog; 'It's not just the left who hate the BNP. The right don't like them either...'[and the] student body at large regards a chunk of its manifesto to be gravely offensive...prospective students (be they black, white, purple, blue or green) would be put off Lancaster University if they knew that there was an active BNP group.'
Hill's response is atypically BNP. 'As for the activities of a group on campus putting potential students off coming to Lancaster to study, don’t you think that the potential students might be put off knowing they are not allowed free political association on campus, which by the way is guaranteed by the human rights act.'
Which, for what it's worth, the BNP doesn't and wouldn't under any circumstances subscribe to, although naturally they're prepared to make use of it when it suits them.
Hill then states his case on four sections of BNP policy; race, immigration, homosexual rights and Islam.
On race: 'We do not want to see the mongrelisation of any race...'
Which clearly means that he is opposed to mixed-race relationships, diversity and a multi-cultural society.
On immigration: '...along with the vast majority of British people I would stop all immigration tomorrow.'
Obviously not true or Nick Griffin would have his feet tucked under the table at 10 Downing Street right now.
On homosexual rights: 'My own view is that homosexuality is a mental illness.'
My own view is that Chris Hill is a homophobic idiot who needs to get out more.
On Islam: 'This is not a religion, it’s an evil cult.'
Clearly showing that he's spent more time listening to the insane rants of Nick Griffin instead of investigating Islam through one of Lancaster's friendly mosques.
Hill then makes this strange statement; 'I hold no commission to talk for the British National Party on any issues or policies...'
Er, yes you do. You're the local BNP candidate. If you don't have a commission to talk for the party, who the hell does?
All of which goes to show that fascists believe they have a right to go anywhere and spout their ridiculous opinions, no matter who they offend in the process, that anyone who opposes them is automatically either a raving red or a fascist themselves (or preferably both) and that Chris Hill has no idea of the role a candidate plays within a political party - indicating that for all the smart suits and weasel words the BNP is no nearer to being a political party than I am to being a duck.
Labels:
BNP,
Chris Hill,
fascist,
homophobia,
Lancaster Uni,
LUSU,
no platform,
NUS,
racist,
SCAM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
