Questions For Question Time: BBC And The BNP
by John Walker on Oct.22, 2009, under The Rest
Question Time this evening will be receiving a slight boost in ratings. With the appearance of the leader of the openly racist British National Party, Nick Griffin, it’s clearly going to be the largest audience the political debate programme will have seen in a long time. What’s not known at this point is what the consequences will be.
Many are arguing that giving the BNP a voice on a respected BBC programme legitimises them, and will increase their popularity. Others counter this by saying his views will be exposed and people will become more aware of the party’s racist and fascist nature. Each likes to accuse the other of patronising the population. But the point where everyone gets caught up is in the figure of 900,000 people who democratically voted for them.
One side likes to argue that these 900,000 people are confused about who the BNP really are, and would not vote for them if they really knew their bigoted values and opinions. Another side likes to argue these 900,000 people want a party who’s willing to stand up for Britain against Europe, or bring in real change, and they’re resorting to the BNP in desperation. What almost no one seems to suggest is the possibility that there are 900,000 hateful racist bigots who voted for a hateful racist party.
This determination that people are either confused or moderate is peculiar in the extreme. They’re bigots, and there’s a political party who shares their views. So they vote for them. It isn’t very complicated. There are racist people. Lots of them. They’re everywhere. Our deranged need to pretend that everyone is just misguided or under-informed prevents us from recognising an important reality. Britain has lots and lots of racist people living in it, and the BNP very adequately represents them.
There’s no ambiguity about the BNP. They’ve made some very haphazard attempts to spin themselves to be an anti-Europe party, who just happen to want immigrants to go back to where they came from and hate the Jews. But you don’t even need to scrape the surface to find their views – they aren’t embarrassed by them, and don’t try to hide them. Andrew Brons, who recently won a seat on the European Parliament, was a member of the Nazi-formed National Socialist Movement in the 60s, and by the 70s was high ranking in the National Front. There’s no secrets in this party – they’re openly, boastfully racists. They’re Nazi-affiliated, if not outright members of neo-Nazi organisations, they’re Holocaust deniers, they believe in white supremacy. I can’t stress enough how out in the open this is. Let’s pluck a ridiculous example. The record label that publishes their racist songs is called Great White Records. No one’s confused.
If someone has problems with Europe, and doesn’t feel like the Tories are going to address it, they’ll vote UKIP or Veritas. (Of course here you can have the fun of hunting for relationships with less savoury roots.) If someone votes for the BNP it’s because they’re a racist.
So here’s the pickle: We’ve got a sort-of-democracy in this country, and with that comes our requirement to allow people to freely vote for whomever they wish. When one party receives almost a million votes, wins council seats and positions as MEPs, we as a nation have welcomed them in.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster. They’re required by law to be non-partisan. But I believe they have discretion and editorial control of a programme like Question Time, and clearly they could have refused to invite Griffin. It’s unquestionably a ratings and attention-gaining coup to make this move, but I have no idea which is their motivation. However, the problem with Question Time as a format for this is quite what a hideous programme it is without a BNP member on the panel.
Born of Radio 4’s Any Questions, both shows follow the same format. A panel of politicians and public figures take unknown questions from the audience. Of course the boast that the panel are not forewarned of the questions is meaningless – whatever the four or five main news stories of the week might have been will be the questions asked, and the panel will have been appropriately prepared for receiving them. The only unknowable is the light-hearted question at the end, where in a week where a politician had been on a fancy holiday they might be asked, “If you could go on holiday with one politician, who would it be and where would you go?” Here they stumble and murmur a confused reply, unsure what their team of advisers would have liked them to say, and the farcical nature of the programme is lit up for all to see. “Um, well, I suppose I’d like to go with David Cameron and his lovely wife, and we’d go to, um, a good British resort to boost our local economy?” Yuck. Neither presenter, brothers Jonathan and David Dimbleby, as it happens, has the wit or gumption to challenge scripted responses, nor force guests to actively debate with or respond to opposing views given. Instead they allow the panellists to take it in turns to say their pre-prepared piece, and then another chance to say it again instead of answering a direct question.
But what makes both Question Time and Any Answers so remarkably revolting is the audience. Pre-selected based on their political views, they bray and jeer like disease-infected cattle whenever someone says the binary opposite of their pre-defined positions on a matter, and then clap as if they’re trying to mash their hands into a bloodied pulp whenever someone says something they agree with. Should the audience be divided on a subject then their wire-frame opinions are voiced in a battle to see who can clap the loudest when their representative repeats their asinine position once more. Anything sophisticated or nuanced is ignored or literally shouted down by these fetid idiots.
Tonight’s episode is going to be this times a million. The BBC have allowed a few BNP supporters to be in the studio, and the programme will be dominated by the two audience groups trying to shout each other down, or beat each other on some imaginary clapometer from hell. (Add to that the inevitability of some anti-fascist protesters who will be in there – I can’t help feeling a little confused as I watch the footage of anti-fascist protesters campaigning against free speech. It just doesn’t seem to quite work as a concept.)
My guess about the panel is a lazy display of people trying to outdo each other about how much they’re against Griffin. They’ll each make it their goal to prove that their political party is best at not agreeing with racist opinions, and each will try to get Griffin to say something offensive. I fear that Griffin will have the sense to refuse to address any of these subjects, but instead incessantly bring up matters such as education, the financial crisis, and Europe, and of course immigration. He will talk a lot about how Britons are fed up of immigration. He will state that all the main parties have failed to address these key issues, and it’s time for a party who’s willing to listen to the people, and so on. And of course never even have to suggest what his own solutions will be, because no one will ask him – they’ll be too busy telling him how they hate him more than the others.
Of course I could be wildly wrong. I do hope so. I hope that Griffin exposes himself as the despicable human being he is, and the rest of the panel eloquently rebut his remarks and educate the audience with original and smart thoughts. Although even if this is the case, I doubt they’ll be heard over the frenzied mooing of the audience.
Whatever happens, we need to snap out of our denial about how many racist bigots live in this country, and start working out how we respond to them now they have a political voice.
PS. For anyone not convinced that BNP voters know and understand the party for which they vote, have a fun look through the Have Your Say responses on the BBC this evening.
34 Comments for this entry
1 Trackback or Pingback for this entry
-
The Sunday Papers | Rock, Paper, Shotgun
October 25th, 2009 on 23:47[…] Time National Front thing was quite the thing this week. John blogged about it before it happened, and it’s mostly a fine and appropriately angry piece. (I mainly disagree on the characterisation of the Question Time audience as subhumans. […]
October 22nd, 2009 on 18:20
“I can’t help feeling a little confused as I watch the footage of anti-fascist protesters campaigning against free speech. It just doesn’t seem to quite work as a concept.”
This. Oh, absolutely this. I’ve been slapping my forehead all afternoon at the inherent ridiculousness of that.
In attempting to silence a minority view, they are endorsing the exact behaviour they think they are rallying against.
Obviously, the context is widely different, and few pleasant people would claim to be perfectly happy with a racist bigot shouting from his pedestal for an hour.
But there’s still that nagging feeling that the protesting is at best conceptually flawed, and at worst demonstrative of a deep misunderstanding of its very point.
October 22nd, 2009 on 18:28
Indeed. The level of BNP support scares me witless too, but refusing to give them a platform is not the answer. However, giving them a platform and then essentially playing into their hands as John predicts is far worse. Their core supporters – the racist nutters – aren’t going to be swayed by rational argument, but pointing out that their claims are all bollocks and backing that up with some simple statistics and facts is what’s needed to keep those who are dissatisfied with the mainstream from dragging the rest of us into the proto-fascist space much of Eastern Europe seems to be occupying.
October 22nd, 2009 on 18:37
Your points above prove to be a slight argument against democracy. If 75% of the population is of one group then if you give them absolute power over the 25% then it can be horribly abused.
I’m glad to see someone actually get up and condemn the BNP’s supporters. The mainstream media response has been incredibly patronising.
October 22nd, 2009 on 19:02
I’d prefer to see him on Have I Got News for you. Preferably hosting.
October 22nd, 2009 on 19:22
Lewis
Everything in this world has its limits. It is wonderful to live in a liberal society but liberalism defeats itself if it is so liberal that it allows views, that will ultimately lead to freedom being taken away from others, to be propagated. I believe the anti-fascist demonstrators had a duty to speak up against the fascists because fascist organizations exist to take life’s freedoms away from others.
For instance, If someone went from place to place propagating the view that something bad should befall you and your loved ones, (god forbid it of course) and was gaining increasing support for that position, wouldn’t you feel compelled to do or say something to get them to stop? regardless of how liberal you may be?
The view of liberalism being extended even to the fascists is a luxury that only the ethnic majority in this land can afford, i.e. those who are least likely to be picked on by the likes of the BNP. Those who are not likely to be scapegoated by the far right for the failings of the government of the day.
October 22nd, 2009 on 19:31
Alexander – you are making an argument for absolutely refusing to let a large group of people voice their opinions. You are arguing this because you believe if you do so it will prevent others from them being free to voice their opinions. This paradox isn’t so easily compromised.
Surely one can either believe in free speech to the point where you will allow it to stop existing, or you don’t believe in free speech at all. Not believing in free speech is a valid position, but saying you do, apart from when you believe the exact opposite, doesn’t seem so to me.
October 22nd, 2009 on 19:53
A great blog entry.
I really do hope that they show him for the racist idiot he is.
Love your idea LewieP. :)
October 22nd, 2009 on 19:58
Alexander, your assumption seems to be that you cannot be both pro-free-speech and vocally anti-fascist.
If the protestors had taken the opportunity to campaign against the views of the BNP, while still allowing them to voice their argument, I would have no problem with it. I’d probably support it.
But the protest was an argument against the free speech of others. No matter how you dress it up, this remains true.
I hear your analogy but reject it. In that situation, it would probably constitute harrassment of some description. I could have them stopped because they would be breaking the law.
The British National Party have, in the past, strayed that way too. But in their current guise, they are acting above the law, and I cannot think of any justification from preventing either their existence or their right to state their beliefs.
In an ideal world, Nick Griffin would have been invited onto Question Time, and given an hour to exclusively speak of his terrible views, while 60 billion people at home simultaneously changed the channel.
In fact, I do wish this sort of thing would happen when the English Defence League run their march in my hometown next weekend. Instead, people are organising mass protests against the event even taking place.
Many people have told me that, if I’m so passionately anti-fascist, I should be attending these protests. But I’m very intentionally abstaining from doing so. The best thing to do is to let everyone speak, then either explain coherently why they are not talking sense, or ignore them completely.
October 22nd, 2009 on 20:23
Hi John, sorry if I do it again, but it seems I write here only when you speak about racism.
Anyway, I completely agree with this:
“What almost no one seems to suggest is the possibility that there are 900,000 hateful racist bigots who voted for a hateful racist party”
But what surprises me isn’t that in the UK there are 900,000 hateful racist bigots (you’re lucky, we have many more) but the fact they *think* they’re racist bigots. It’s a paradox! You can be racist or bigot, not both together, as you cannot be tolerant and racist at the same time. By definition, if you’re racist you aren’t christian, and vice versa.
I’m not saying this to correct you, I think you know it, but because it’s really baffling to see that people in Europe are so ignorant about religion (as european culture is built mostly on religion) that they associate it with things that are actually the opposite. Really, people don’t know nor understand anymore what religion really is, and yet they raise its banner to try gather more votes. It’s disgusting.
A racist bigot is like an anti-fascist protester campaigning against free speech. The notion itself should cause the same pain.
October 22nd, 2009 on 20:29
I’m not sure you’re translating the word “bigot” correctly. It means:
“a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
October 22nd, 2009 on 20:54
Sorry John, my mistake.
Here it is still used only for people who are religiously closeminded and reject things outside of their religion.
I thought it was the same, because here the biggest of the racist parties (Lega Nord) does put a stress on it being a christian party too.
My apologies.
October 22nd, 2009 on 21:05
No worries at all. I’d like to see my attempts to discuss something like this in Italian! (Or indeed ask the way to the bus stop).
October 22nd, 2009 on 22:22
Sorry about my very-likely politically inept comment in advance, but:
You raise the issue of there being a large proportion of racist bigots residing in the UK, who have the potential to vote a prejudiced party like the BNP into power. This is a real point, but what I’d like to know is: is there any real solution?
If you believe in the sanctity of free speech, then surely these people have every right to vote in the BNP; that’s one of the tenets of democracy. Refusing to let a party like the BNP speak, or reach power (despite their awful views) would be staking your belief in free speech. Yet to let them vote in the BNP would surely be a blow for liberal values, those which we hold dear (freedom from racism/prejudice, not being racists etc.).
It seems the only strategy is to try and make the BNP look like a bad party; but as you said, if we do have such a large number of frothing racists that probably won’t change their views based on the media image of the BNP, that doesn’t seem likely to be very successful. So our choice seem to be: sit around and cross our fingers to hope that the BNP don’t get into power, or try to stop them by other means, destroying the idea of a free platform.
Myself, I find the whole mess to be thoroughly depressing to think about, and so would prefer to spend my time hoping for an invasion of robots/zombies/aliens. I can but dream.
October 22nd, 2009 on 22:54
“or try to stop them by other means, destroying the idea of a free platform.”
Not necessarily, because we actually have a really impressive system in place to make our voices heard and prevent those with whom we disagree from attaining positions of high power.
It’s called the Getting Off Your Backside And Voting system.
October 22nd, 2009 on 23:07
…Well, I… it… quiet, you.
Okay, I probably forgot about voting. Voting always helps.
Eh. I’m tired.
October 23rd, 2009 on 00:05
Thanks John. This is the kind of thing I’ve been saying to anyone that’ll listen for quite a while.
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the Getting Off Your Backside And Voting system in this thoroughly inept and only serves to encourage the kind of infantile political debate that John describes, I think today has been a deeply troubling day. Not because I don’t think Griffen should have been there – he had every right to be – but because of the effect it will likley have. I suspect Jack Straw’s assertion that this will prove a bad week for the BNP will itself proove sadly ill-judged. Griffin’s target audience will have seen a man who’s views resound with their own shouted down, laughed at and bullied by five of the liberal elite; two of whom don’t even belong in Britain anyway. They will have seen themselves forced to stand and justify themselves before a crowd of Jews, Muslims and foreigners, and they will have asked themselves why the hell they should have to do that in their own country?
It is a fundimental paradox of democracy that allowing free speach means allowing people you don’t agree with a voice, even if those people would seek to remove your own. A free democracy should allow its members always the option, but never the desire, to vote for its own abolition. Until we find a more sophisticated level of political discorse than that seen tonight, that desire will not be challenged on a meaningful level.
October 23rd, 2009 on 00:07
Gah. “voting system in this *country is* thoroughly inept.
October 23rd, 2009 on 07:01
James, I don’t see how voting encourages “the kind of infantile political debate that John describes”. Not voting is just giving the minor parties a higher proportion of the vote. Statistically you are just giving a percentage of your vote to every party.
Surely you have some sort of preference? Even if you just randomly pick a party that isn’t the BNP you are stopping them getting seats. The BNP got a seat in Europe because people didn’t vote. Less people voted for them than in the last European election but the overall voter turnout was lower so they got in.
Extreme political views always creep into areas of apathy. It’s pretty similar to religion, whenever there is a decline and rebirth then the rebirth tends to be more “extreme” than the declining group was. The best thing to do if you actually care is to either try and find a party you support and campaign for them (at least for one election) or run for government yourself.
October 23rd, 2009 on 08:27
Well, I watched the thing. It… could have been worse. The entire show was devoted to beating on Nick Griffin, and seemed farcical whenever Jack Straw was talking (he just had these massive speeches prepared for whatever question was being had, and droned on incessently). The other panel members were better, and in particular Griffin looked pretty ridiculous on holocaust denial.
I’m not entirely sure how Bonnie Greer could bare to sit next to that maggot of a man, but meh.
I would argue that while I won’t disagree that most BNP voters probably are a bit racist, most racists are ill informed. Racism is a position born of ignorance after all, and exposing exactly the beliefs of the BNP may well change some waverers minds- I would hope there aren’t 900,000 holocaust deniers in this country.
October 23rd, 2009 on 08:29
I don’t think we really have anything to worry about the BNP, in the grand scheme of things they are a very minor party and in an election they will always get dwarfed by Labour and Conservatives. I just wish you actually could choose another party ther then Labour and Conservatives.
I also find the Anti-Fascists to be sometimes more fascist then the fascist. Always saying the BNP shouldn’t speak, they will never get on a stage with them and basically saying we like free speech except for people over there. Well go away Anti-Facists you are hypocrites and Yes I would rather have Nick Griffin speaking then you. At least I can hear the vile racists things spewing out of his mouth.
October 23rd, 2009 on 11:25
I would be surprised if there weren’t 900,000 holocaust deniers in this country. The traditional curtain-twitching antisemites, the new-left antisemites and a large proportion of those who believe in Islam (like those represented by the Muslim Council of Britain) would easily add up to a million or so.
October 23rd, 2009 on 11:29
I would be very surprised if it were not a lot more than 1m. I think people are peculiarly naive about the reality of people outside their circle of friends. Dangerously so.
October 23rd, 2009 on 13:05
And anyone can enjoy a good conspiracy theory…
Not “voting encourages infantile political debate”; the kind of voting system we have in the UK. In a system where there is seemingly no real choice people are unsurprisingly disillusioned. We saw last night that even facing an actual fascist our elected representatives (or unelected ones, in the case of the Tory) can’t help but drop to party political point scoring as soon as they’re granted the floor. Given the staggeringly poor understanding of the concerns of real people demonstrated by the main parties, and their flexible moral integrity, I’m frankly amazed there are still so many of us that persist in voting.
October 23rd, 2009 on 14:25
John, I think your appraisal of Question Time (and Any Questions) is wholly unfair. My only criticism is that they should go further – ideally they should be produced in tandem so that the popular issues / questions are split between the two shows, giving more time to properly debate them.
I also think David Dimbleby does a very good job of picking up on statements by the panellists and calling them to account (often quoting them or other senior members of their party) in opposition to what they have said.
As for the audience, yes, well, they could do with trying to get more people on there who don’t seem to think they are on a daytime quiz show, but apart from that people will be people.
And don’t worry, Nick Griffin got roasted on there, to the point that he is now going to complain to the BBC that the audience was a “mob” and that it should not have been held in London as levels of immigration meant it was “no longer a British City”.
It would be interesting to know what qualifies people to be part of the audience and what is done to ensure the only people who want to be part of it aren’t those that have an axe to grind.
October 23rd, 2009 on 14:48
Sorry, forgot to mention – there was an interesting article on the BBC (a couple of weeks ago) about the way US politics differs from ours in the way US politicians are much more distant from voters than ours are. The author mentioned the horror that US political advisers have expressed about the open format of programmes such as Question Time – where senior political figures sit on a panel regularly exposing themselves to cross-examination on their views, record and comments from their political opponents, the chairman and an audience.
October 23rd, 2009 on 15:26
The Question Time audience is a great way to demonstrate why we have exactly the country we deserve. Hurrah for democracy.
October 26th, 2009 on 00:35
I disagree with the assumption that everyone who voted for the BNP knew exactly what they were doing, I believe it’s crediting the general public with way too much intelligence. They were the only party to put anything through my letterbox in the run up to the European election and I was, on some level, impressed with how they presented themselves. The flyer was about immigration, Europe and economic issues and contained nothing that was even slightly racist (unless read by one of the people that thinks expressing concern over immigration makes you racist by default.) It was solid, direct, common-sense stuff.
Of course, you or I will take one look at it, screw it up and chuck it in the bin, but what about people who hadn’t heard of the BNP? I did a quick poll of younger (18-21) friends and many of them hadn’t heard of the BNP. They hadn’t been making headlines for a while and we seem to be living in an age where a lot of people grow up not knowing things because they’re simply not told. (I spent three years working as a higher level teaching assistant at a primary school and you’d be amazed at the things I had to teach children that I assumed everyone just picked up at home.)
I’m not denying that the vast majority of BNP voters are racist bastards that know exactly what they’re doing, but I do think there were a lot of people who were duped into voting for a racist party because they were the only ones talking about the issues they cared about.
October 26th, 2009 on 09:39
well, it seems you pretty much called it right.
I don’t get why the BBC felt that the BNP’s first big break should be on Question Time of all places. It’s more of a circus than anything. They should have put him in a 1-1 interview on one of those serious politics shows that they have on sunday morning. Maybe people would have watched. And a decent interviewer would have torn Griffin apart (yet still given him a chance to air his views).
—-
For me, the interesting thing is that the world that Griffin describes (and which a large percentage of the BBC “Have your say” commenters seem to agree with) isn’t a world I recognise.
Maybe it’s my lack of experience, but all the people talking about “multi-culturalism being a failed experiment” seem to be living in a different world to me.
Half of our companies are multinational. Meaning they have multinational workforces. Every company i’ve ever worked for has dozens of nationalities… yet they are mostly invisible – we are just people, all together. Music, games, movies, work, friends, etc… it’s all multi-cultural, and it all seems to work fine.
In-fact, due to the internet, I have friends in a dozen countries, and many of them I have no idea what race they are. It just doesn’t matter.
It seems like no-one notices the 1000s of places where we are all totally integrated, just because we are totally integrated. But the 1 or 2 places where things break down are magnified.
PS/ If the BNP is forced to open up it’s membership, we should start a twitter campaign and all join… like the always-funny twitter takeovers of the Daily Mail polls. ;-)
October 26th, 2009 on 13:57
I might be coming a little late to this party but Ian Bell’s piece in The Herald was a good read: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/ian-bell/we-cannot-grant-the-bnp-the-rights-it-would-not-grant-us-1.927461
I agree with it to an extent; but we’re almost getting into personal morals here, so it’s hard to say who is right or who is wrong. Hence why this turned up in the comment section I suppose :)
October 26th, 2009 on 17:18
Let me play devil’s advocate:
There is no such thing as absolute free speech. It doesn’t exist anywhere, nor should it. It is all a matter of where you draw the line. Disagree – show me some examples of places that have absolute free speech.
‘Absolute free speech’ isn’t the fundemental basis of democracy in any case, nor is ‘voting’. A level of freedom yes (not ‘absolute’) and some form of voting, but also a pluralistic society, various institutions, levels of material equality, security and protection of people, a functioning society that hasn’t broken down into violence and warfare. The rule of law. Lots of things are important, not just one abstract concept.
A very good argument for keeping BNP people off Question Time type shows is that they disrupt debate just as if someone came on amnd started shouting “cunt cunt cunt” at everyone, or came on and made vicious insults against audience members and other panelists. The BNP talk utter shit and lie. There fundemental programme undermines the concept of debate and democracy (ie that we can come together and discuss things equally). Many people find what they stand for, who they are and what they do in society more insulting and replusive than someone shouting “cunt”, someone who would be banned from the airwaves within seconds.
Is it a contradiction to allow them to run for election but also for editors to keep them off the airwaves, not interview them, for other panelists to refuse to debate with them, for people to protest against them and harass them? Not really, because the former is a minimum and legalistic right and proscribing political parties should be a last resort (they are barely legal as a political party in any case). The latter is about social interaction and they are getting the ‘interaction’ they deserve: i.e.
If someone tries to deny my humanity and equality then I will use all legal means to neutralise them – hence doing things to deny them a platform. If an organisation aims to destroy debate and undermine democracy then they don’t deserve to be permitted to participate.
The only kind of debate any of these people would get from me would be ‘go fuck yourself’.
October 27th, 2009 on 14:25
A very good argument for keeping BNP people off Question Time type shows is that they disrupt debate just as if someone came on amnd started shouting “cunt cunt cunt” at everyone, or came on and made vicious insults against audience members and other panelists.
Ironically Nick Griffin did exactly the latter part of that paragraph in the first few minutes of the show. Jack Straw attacked the policies & principles of the BNP, Nick Griffin countered by arguing that while his father was fighting in WWII, Mr Straw Senior was languishing in prison for avoiding the call up (paraphrased obviously, I can’t remember his exact words but have look on iPlayer or some where else if you doubt it).
Personal attacks seem to be fair game when the BNP are involved but wouldn’t be tolerated on any other edition of this show.
October 27th, 2009 on 23:31
Freedom of speech is a funny thing. The classic case here in the states was a guy who shouted “Fire!” in a crowded movie theatre, then claimed it was his right under free speech. I’ve never bothered to look up to find out whether this actually happened or is simply used as an example, but it’s still a good example. Free speech means that you have every right to declare ever one of your putrid, racist remarks. And it means I have just as much right to tell you that you are a putrid racist. I always find the British system interesting, as it has so many similarities, and yet shades of difference in its laws. Anyway, my point is that my right doesn’t extend to telling you to shut up. But it does give me the right to call bullshit.
I’ve never seen this show, but if I may put in my two cents worth, the complaint could be easily moderated at least with good moderators, who shut off any of the guests when they take too long or wander off of the point of the argument. If the BNP (curious question- is the a different party than the British Fascist Party?) talks about their views on taxation and such, all well and good. If they start talking about Jews and such, shut them down. But disgusted as I am by these kinds of racists, I do agree that they have the right to say what they want. And if the British people show that they indeed want such a society, then that’s what they’ll end up with. It cannot be helped. We had that idiot Bush for 8 years because he fixed the votes- er, I mean, because he was voted in. Nobody had a gun put to their head and was told “Vote for Bush, or else!” That’s what the people wanted. And they got what they deserved.
And yea, I’ve been there a few times and been taken aback by some of the off-the-cuff racist I’ve seen and heard. In one breath someone can defend Jews, but in the next, go on about the goddamn Paki’s.
October 29th, 2009 on 17:56
Oddtwang above thinks the BNP are “racist nutters”.
Labour plus Tories invaded Iraq on the basis of doctored intelligence reports and a pack of lies (more or less the reasons Hitler invaded Poland). In contrast the BNP always opposed the war. A million Muslims and Kurds died as a result. Who are the racists and the nutters? I’d say Labour and friends are about a million times as racist as the BNP, though I’d accept a mere 100,000 or even 10,000 at a pinch.
October 30th, 2009 on 12:29
Er, the racists are the racist people? The war in Iraq may have been ill-conceived, wrongly motivated, or bogus, but it wasn’t racist. I’m not convinced you’re aware what the word means.
And you might want to look a little deeper into the circumstances behind Hitler’s invasion of Poland.