It came and went without the great collapse of British democracy that fearful political activists foretold. Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP), aired his views on the BBC’s Question Time late yesterday evening.
The shaking, sweating Mr Griffin spent the better part of 45 minutes shielding venomous attacks against him from panellists and audience members. It was expected of course. The great media spectacle was orchestrated with the intention of throwing the hated BNP head into the lion’s den. But all said and done, the highly anticipated event was a letdown for anyone hoping for a real debate on the issues.
While Griffin didn’t pack any punches, neither unfortunately did the panellists. A third of the debate centred on Griffin’s link to Nazis, with a slew of hollow attacks by members of the panel resorting to name-calling. Later the debate began to heat-up when the issue of immigration was raised. But instead of refuting Mr Griffin’s inane views, the panellists including government Justice Minister Jack Straw, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, used the opportunity to campaign for their parties in the lead up to the elections. Rather than debating Mr Griffin’s argument that the doors to immigrants should be closed, all three attacked one another’s policies. The other panellist Bonnie Greer, a black American playwright, was not allowed a word in edge-wise on the subject.
Instead of addressing the assault on Islam made by Mr Griffin, in which he described the entire religion as sexist and hate-filled, Conservative member Baroness Warsi, from Pakistani origin, said “Mr Griffin is no friend to Muslims.” Yes Ms. Warsi, we gathered. Now can we address the fact that a man, who garnered one million British votes and shockingly, a number of claps from audience members, has just promulgated a view in need of wide clarification? Mr Griffin says that he is a devout Catholic, a religion with arguably, a long tradition of patriarchy. Extremists from all faiths have a habit of distorting the tenants of organized religion and failing to apply the principles of their doctrine to modern society. Islam, like any other faith, can be adapted by racists, sexists, and bigots to promote intolerance. But that does not mean that the religion itself is intolerant, and this is no reason to outlaw it. This is a very simple and clear rebuttal which failed to make an appearance in the debate as panellists and audience members let their fear of Mr Griffin’s growing influence dominate the dialogue.
As Britons tuned in to watch the programme that sparked a national outcry, what they got was a combination of mud-slinging, campaigning, and hollow words. Host David Dimbleby asked the panel whether the show was an early Christmas present to the BNP. If the show was intended to lay bare the inconsistencies and idiocy of the far-right party it failed to accomplish the task. Will Britons be swayed by Mr Griffin’s appearance? Only time will tell. But the squirming and anxious party leader did not leave the room with his ideology torn to shreds. My only hope is that the viewers were not as narrow-minded as the panellists. And Mr Griffin can count on a lump of coal from the British electorate.
It is only on the rarest occasions that I open the pages of the morning newspaper and start my day with some positive news. It is even rarer that I scan through the Guardian broadsheet and find myself bursting with glee. But this exactly what happened on my commute to work this morning when I read about ‘Obama’s war on Fox news.’
The US president has refused to appear on the channel for an interview.Obama’s communications director Anita Dunn summed up the administrations’ position nicely: “The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party… let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.”
Finally, a voice of the highest authority is confirming what we all knew already. That is, all of us except the US Midwest and perhaps some of the more brainwashed Fox news staff. I often wonder if Fox isn’t just a very elaborate joke. Surely no one could be as insane as Bill O’Reilly or Glen Beck? It is only a matter of time before the two admit that it was political satire all along; a social commentary in the vein of Lord of the Flies, designed to reveal the furthest depths of human ignorance.
Perhaps the president is deserving of a Nobel Prize after all; he has shown unprecedented political prowess by avoiding the greatest charade to hit US cable. For all intensive purposes, Obama’s ‘war on Fox’ is a battle worth fighting. Now if only he could get on with the peace side of things, we may yet see progress.
Barak Obama is the third US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize, only nine months since taking office. Ok, he is the first US black president. And he doesn’t sing songs about bombing Iran like his former presidential rival. But has the Nobel committee fallen for the Obama charm offensive too easily?
Obama has expanded diplomatic ties with nations previously on the US blacklist, including Iran and Venezuela. He brought the Israeli and Palestinian leaders together at the table in renewed peace talks, and pledged to tackle climate change. Suffice to say, he has made considerable efforts to wipe out the stain of the Bush era and restore the semblance of US credibility. But on the face of it, what has he concretely accomplished? Conflict in the Middle East is nowhere near a turning point, war in Afghanistan still rages, and the environment remains on the backburner in the largest consuming nation of the world. That is not to say that he won’t address these issues, but just nine months on the job is hardly telling.
As Dominic Dyer, the executive director of the American European Institute in London told the Christian Science Monitor, “he is a great, eloquent speaker and people admire that, but Tony Blair was also very eloquent, and many Britons are now cynical about what [Blair] ultimately achieved.”
The committee told reporters that it was seeking to encourage Mr Obama’s ideals rather than recognising results. Perhaps this is a wise move; increasing pressure for the president to make good on his promises. Then again, the prize was also awarded to Shimon Peres in 1994, and look where that’s got us. Nor does it bode well for a man that has backed down on major human rights issues like ‘extraordinary rendition’. What was once an award for merit now it seems, is a bribe for peace.
“Stop the fascists, sign the petition to ban the BNP from Question Time!” shouts the girl standing outside Sainsbury’s, holding a mostly blank petition. So far, there is only one signature. Most passers-by aren’t interested in the usual sight of a few Socialist Worker members passionately calling for the protest of one thing or another. But this time the cause strikes a chord.
Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party, was invited to appear on the BBC programme Question Time in a move that has sparked widespread criticism. Many Britons are deeply opposed to giving a party that promulgates racism a platform in the media. There is no denying that the party, once on the fringes of British politics, has begun to make its mark. In June the BNP won two seats on the European Parliment. After years of debate, the BBC decided that the BNP would have to be allowed to appear on Question Time if the party attracted enough support in the European elections. The BBC argues that other smaller parties elected to the European parliament, such as the Green party and Ukip, have been represented.
Yet this is dangerous, say critics. The BNP calls for an all-white Britain in it’s cleverly disguised slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’. They fear that the more discontent people become with mainstream parties in in the wake of a worsening economic situation, the more likely a nationalist far-right party will hold appeal. After all, Hitler rose to power in the midst of Germany’s worst economic depression. “If the BNP gets into power it will destroy freedom of speech,” says the girl holding her petition. “Voices that promote racism must be silenced.” She argues that a government run by the BNP would destroy democracy itself.
But I’m still not convinced. Denying anyone the right to express their views is a slippery slope. Banning the BNP from the media would not crush the party itself. And just as book-banning always sparks higher sales, prohibiting a political party from public-speaking may get people more interested. Allowing the BNP to speak, and more importantly, forcing it’s leader to defend his policies in a televised debate gives people the opportunity to make their own choice. Besides, if Griffin is up against rational panelists it also serves to expose the party’s weaknesses.
The bottom-line is this: real democracy is a gamble. Yes, there is the danger that the people will choose a party that could shake the very foundations of the electoral system. But interference in this process is like democracy with training wheels. Banning views that disagree with the promotion of political tolerance and equality is like saying, your government, elected by you, does not trust you to ride the bike on your own. It is the sacrifice of freedom for the security that you won’t fall off.
Will the BNP attract voters by appearing on Question Time? Maybe. But what is the point of supporting democracy, ie. rule by the people, when you don’t trust them to make the right decision?
