|
U-Know! Forum » opinions on last night's question time |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
ratcni01 916 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 13:00
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I'd expect the BNP rank and file would be taking orders to chill out while they're getting all this press. My concern is that, if the criteria for censorship is how the public reacts to someone being on TV, do you apply that to everyone? What if you had someone who is anti-BNP on the air and it correlated with a rise in attacks? Do you ban them too? I'm not just talking about abstract concepts of free speech, here... if legal precedents can be set against the BNP that can end up coming back around and sabotaging progressives too, it might be wise to beware the impulse to censure. Good question Dave, though can't see why there would be any air time given to an anti-fascist if there weren't fascist activity, antifa etc and organisations like them are reacting to active fascism/racism etc. If there's no fascist/racist activity why would an anti-fascist (all the main political parties representatives as well) be given air time? Thing is very difficult, could Griffin be said to have incited racial violence? Which is a crime, on QT, I doubt it. Doesn't mean that his appearance won't cause there to be more attacks. Agreed free speech is vitally important but there are plenty of things that get censored, and this runs against the principle of free speech, yet the judgement is made that this is the right thing to do, this is because the world is messy and complex, and a best judgement (least evil, born out of a grey area) made which sometimes runs against principles we hold to be absolute, such as freedom of speech.
|
|||
drewbhoy 2555 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 13:44
|
||
|
Popel Vooje wrote: drewbhoy wrote: Why have us in Scotland continually got to watch the BNP, Tories, Libs, Labour, UKIP, all British parties on our TV. We're a multi racial country or trying to be and Britain drags us down, bring on the next election. Britain/Engerland would be much better without us!! Underneath the facetiousness, your post does raise a valid point. There are just as many areas of Scotland that could lay claim to being neglected by complacent Labour councils as there are in England, and yet the BNP seem to have made no inroads whatsoever up there. This is despite of the fact that the percentage of Asian people living in Glasgow is now not that much lower than in London. That is the point, apart from obvious areas where loyalism is strong and has a sectarian/bigoted edge the BNP have made no real inroads. To be fair to the Scottish National Party they have engaged with all the ethnic groups including the English population many of whom are members of that party. To be honest they don't have a clue about Scotland and it's internal issues, independence is coming sooner or later so being British will be a thing of the past. Personally I'd rather the BNP, EDL, SDL, Orange Order etc. be things of the past drowning in a cesspit of their rhetoric and bile!
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Oct 25, 2009, 14:19
Oct 25, 2009, 14:19
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I'd expect the BNP rank and file would be taking orders to chill out while they're getting all this press. The problem is whether or not the rank and file can take orders. The BNP's legal officer has already decried Griffin's attempt to make the BNP appeal to the mainstream with the QT appearance and suggested: "perhaps there needs to be a few 'white riots' around the country a la the Brixton riots of the 1980s before the idiot white liberal middle class and their ethnic middle-class fellow travellers wake up" handofdave wrote: My concern is that, if the criteria for censorship is how the public reacts to someone being on TV, do you apply that to everyone? What if you had someone who is anti-BNP on the air and it correlated with a rise in attacks? Do you ban them too? Why is this still being framed as a censorship / freedom of speech issue? It isn't. Why is that so difficult to take on board for so many people? The BBC have never invited me onto Question Time. Are they censoring me? It's an editorial decision. The BNP are regularly interviewed on the BBC. They get to make Party Political Broadcasts on the BBC. Failing to invite them onto QT is NOT censorship. I publish (irregularly) a blog. I have never, and never will, invite a BNP member to contribute to it. Am I guilty of censorship? Of course I'm bloody not. Censorship is -- in the context we're talking about -- state intervention to prevent certain people from expressing their views. The editorial policy of the QT producer has nothing to do with it. And the right to free speech does not imply the right to appear on whatever TV programme you want. It's not a free speech issue. It's not a censorship issue. If you disagree, then explain why. handofdave wrote: I'm not just talking about abstract concepts of free speech, here... if legal precedents can be set against the BNP that can end up coming back around and sabotaging progressives too, it might be wise to beware the impulse to censure. What "legal precedents"? How does an editorial decision by one BBC programme constitute a legal precedent? Are newspapers setting legal precedents when they decide to publish one article rather than another? Or employ one columnist over another?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 14:36
|
||
|
pooley wrote: A Question of FreedomSo Nick Griffin has finally ‘graced’ Question Time with his presence. And guess what? We didn’t turn into the Third Reich overnight! And who suggested we would? The BNP do appear to have received a bump into the opinion polls as a result of Griffin's appearance, and splinter factions within the party are now calling for "white riots" as a response to the programme (hopefully with little effect). But I don't know anyone who was worried about a major overnight shift to the Far Right. Nobody said that would happen. What I -- and many others -- worry about is the slow, 30 year evolution of the NF. It's taken them only a generation to move from racist football hooligans to participants in mainstream political debate. Given the likelihood of economic contraction in the face of Climate Change and resource depletion and the fertile ground that often provides for fascism, society should be trying to marginalise the BNP, not normalise them. pooley wrote: I’m being flippant, I know, but I was firmly on the BBC’s side in the recent furore over the BNP leader’s appearance. Yes, I find his politics – and his party – repugnant, but like it or not, he’s an elected representative, and in a democracy is therefore entitled to a say. To effectively censor him would be to stoop to the very tactics that he himself might espouse. Again, who the hell is censoring him? How can anyone who is regularly interviewed on the BBC and who is entitled to make Party Political Broadcasts on all terrestrial channels be censored? This is NOT a free speech issue. It's an editorial one. I don't cry "censorship" every week because I'm not invited on QT. To do so would be fricking insane. Yet people don't see the insanity in claiming that Griffin is being censored by the same decision. Are we to assume that Griffin has a right to publish a weekly column in every newspaper in the land? And if they don't let him he's being censored? Does he have a right to be invited onto Have I Got News For You? and the Jonathon Ross show? And if he isn't, is it a free speech issue? The guy gets more goddamn airtime than his two MEPs warrant already! Why is this being framed as censorship? pooley wrote: Not that people didn’t try. Inevitably, a large group of well-meaning – but in my view rather naïve – anti-fascist protestors were firmly camped outside the gates of Television Centre, blithely oblivious to the fact that their very presence was ensuring far more media coverage than Mr Griffin might otherwise have enjoyed. Having to be sneaked into the studio past an angry mob also lent him an unfortunate air of martyrdom, and lent unwelcome credibility to his claims of being demonised. Absolutely right. And the anti-racism demos I went on in the late 80s / early 90s merely gave more publicity to racists. We should simply allow fascists and racists to do whatever the hell they want and keep our mouths shut while they do it. Up until now I was under the impression that this was an ideology to be actively opposed. Now I realise the error of that position. The BNP should be treated with respect and allowed to get on with their business unhindered. After all, there's never any danger in allowing neo-Nazis to stand unopposed, right? Ignore them and they'll just go away. Bloody ridiculous argument. Fascists should be actively opposed. And it should be as public as possible. Every time a BNP member gets up to speak on a public platform there should be a hundred anti-racists telling the media, telling the world, that this is a repulsive and objectionable ideology. When something is as objectionable as the BNP, then it should be objected-to loudly. Oh, I can't be arsed with the rest. I think my position is clear, for the little it's worth.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 15:03
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: But are they actually seeing a rise in support? As already established, yes they are. handofdave wrote: I should add that the KKK and it's equivalents in the USA are Republicans, for the most part, and tho that parties official line on racism is 'it's bad', they tacitly encourage hatred of nonwhites by giving a wink and a nod to the racists, as evidenced by the tone of the GOP rallies in the last election, where Sarah Palin was given free reign to whip up the mob with talk of Obama being a 'Kenyan terrorist' and the like. I can only echo stray's sentiments on this. To fail to see the difference between mainstream rightwing politics and fascism is not merely bizarre, it's genuinely dangerous. Thanks to the US's 2-party system, it makes perfect sense that the KKK and the Far Right would vote Republican. Just as I'm fairly sure that Farrakhan's Nation of Islam followers all voted for Obama. Are we to assume they represent your views, handofdave. As an Obama-voter do you feel a kinship with them? "All KKK vote Republican" is not the same thing as "All Republicans have KKK sympathies". Having lived in the States I've met numerous republican voters, to label them all as being members of the racist rightwing is fantastically insulting and just plain wrong. For a start, my cousin's best friend is a staunch Republican. He's also black. I guess you'd say he was what, "self-hating"? What about Condoleeza Rice, Alan Greenspan and Colin Powell? I'm not suggesting they demonstrate that the Republican Party are 100% non-racist, but are you suggesting that the KKK have appointed black and jewish people into prominent positions in their organisations? Just because some Republicans are racist does not make centre-right politics inherently racist. No more than Farrakhan's support of Obama implies that the Democrats share his position. handofdave wrote: Perhaps what's different about here and over there is that most of the fascist-leaning types in the USA have learned to be more careful about their language in public forums. Amongst themselves they still retain the same old language and attitudes they always have had. No. The fascist-leaning types in the USA are not careful about their language. Ever encounter a KKK member? How "careful" is StormFront magazine about it's language? Ever trawled some of the US neo-Nazi messageboards? Not much "care" being taken there. handofdave wrote: What's better... to have the fascists come right out and be who they are, without apology, or disguise their real intentions? I've heard some black folks say that they'd rather live down south, where the racism is overt, and unmistakeable, than live up north, where it's still present, but masked. Know thine enemy. Then those folks are not only black, they're idiots. They'd really rather live somewhere their kids will be openly abused and even risk being lynched for their skin colour, than somewhere their kids will face disguised racism? Do you really know people who've said that? When I moved to London in the late 80s my Irish accent drew the occasional look of contempt. When my Dad spent time there in the 60s he passed guesthouses and pubs with signs saying "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish" on the door. What sort of masochistic Irishman wants to go back to that? And what sort of idiot suggests they'd rather live in that environment? Subtle, disguised racism is still vile and needs to be opposed and eradicated. But it's a damn sight better than being in constant fear of being beaten up, or worse, because of your accent or skin colour. handofdave wrote: In other words, let the fascists make themselves known. That way there's no second guessing who's who. Don't let them go underground... drag them out into the light and show everyone what they're really about. The fascists already have made themselves known. They are regularly interviewed in the media, get to make their own broadcasts on the BBC, have a website, literature, meetings you can attend, merchandise you can buy from their shop. They're not underground. handofdave wrote: Don't let them disguise themselves in more 'moderate' clothing. What? You mean like invite them on mainstream political debate shows and give them the opportunity to appear more moderate than they are? handofdave wrote: I expect that the BNP is NOT going to get more support from Griffin being on this show. Well, I expect you're wrong about that. They've already received a minor bump in the polls. But the problem is about the longterm legitimising of their position within politics and this programme was just one tiny step along that path. But make no mistake, however small it was, it was definitely a step. handofdave wrote: Instead, it's opened up a wider dialog about why the BNP is wrong. Just as it has right here on this forum. We don't need a dialogue about the wrongness of the BNP. We simply need to examine the historical record of fascism and ethnic nationalism. Once you've done that, you realise that the best thing to do with fascists is oppose them at every turn and refuse to allow them to take even tiny steps towards legitimacy.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 15:17
|
||
Nick Griffin should take a DNA swab to find out just how 'pure' he is. Of course there's no such thing. A few years ago there was a programme on where a load of mid to far right wing folk, all of whom spoke with pride of their "100% Englishness", were DNA tested and all of them were revealed to be of a hugely diverse racial and ethnic background, from across the globe. Some of them were stunned and chose to ignore it, but others did actually review their perceptions of the so called 'purity'of racial heritage.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 15:29
|
||
|
I think any future encounters of such a mainstream, public nature with the BNP, if it happens, should make some effort to engage them on just what their policies are on other issues of Government are - transport, health, the arts, sport, economy, the general mechanics of governance. It seems pretty clear to me that they are such one track party that Griffin would flounder completely when faced with issues aside from immigration. Obviously, it is essential to continue to attack their bigoted line, but I think it would serve to reveal to an even greater extent just how half-baked and clueless they really are as a 'political party'.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Oct 25, 2009, 16:04
Oct 25, 2009, 15:44
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: I think any future encounters of such a mainstream, public nature with the BNP, if it happens, should make some effort to engage them on just what their policies are on other issues of Government are - transport, health, the arts, sport, economy, the general mechanics of governance. It seems pretty clear to me that they are such one track party that Griffin would flounder completely when faced with issues aside from immigration. Obviously, it is essential to continue to attack their bigoted line, but I think it would serve to reveal to an even greater extent just how half-baked and clueless they really are as a 'political party'. And I think that would be a disastrous idea. Possibly the worst thing that could happen to British politics in fact. The fact is the BNP have some very sound policies in other areas. Would you vote for a party that has pledged to create "a bulk transport tax regime that pushes supermarkets to supply more local and seasonal produce"? How about a party that promises to "eliminate the unhealthy, energy intensive and cruel factory farming of livestock"? Would you vote for a party that intends to "encourage an extensive and rapid switchover to organic and low fossil fuel farming techniques"? Or one that wishes to "remove unsightly overhead power lines from beauty spots and [bury them] underground"? The BNP have promised major investment in public transport and offshore wind farms. They want to close all foreign military bases on British soil, withdraw from NATO and close the majority of British overseas military installations. They actively opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and believe that British troops should only ever be used when Britain is under direct attack. They are also "committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens" and intend to reverse the part-privatisation of the NHS. Yes, they are vile racists and they certainly have policies that exist in the far reaches of absurdity. But (metaphorically speaking) the Nazis got the trains running on time, and who doesn't want that? Question Time usually features 5 or 6 questions in total. I can easily imagine 6 questions in which the BNP would come across as vastly more reasonable and sane than Labour, the Tories or the LibDems. And what would such a programme do for their legitimacy, I wonder?
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 16:04
|
||
Oh.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Oct 25, 2009, 16:13
Oct 25, 2009, 16:12
|
||
|
Don't get me wrong. They also have lunatic policies like re-implementing National Service, the return of corporal punishment for petty offences and capital punishment for "paedophiles, terrorists and murderers" (yet he has a problem with Sharia Law!) I'm not saying they appear reasonable on everything other than race and immigration, but given the right line of questioning, they can certainly put forward enough sane policies to appear reasonable. And that's especially true on a soundbite-format show like Question Time.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
