To censor or not to censor?

I am a self-confessed Anglophile. I like Britain, and British things. So much so that had I been around 90 years ago when Ireland got her independence, I would have been shot as a traitor. Probably by my own brother, if our verbal punch-up over the Lisbon Treaty is anything to go by...

One of my favourite British things is its Broadcasting Corporation. I would gladly pay the TV licence fee for BBC rather than the crap RTE churns out. I much prefer Question Time to Questions and Answers. It is QT which prompts my latest musings. There is quite a furore erupting over the BBC's governing body ruling to uphold a decision to allow BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on the programme. Opposition finds its leading voice in Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, who objects on the BNP being allowed to attend on legal grounds. He does this in light of the legal challenge taken against the BNP by the UK equalities watchdog. He argues that as the BNP has not yet amended the offending articles in its constitution, it is an illegal organisation and should not be allowed to participate on Question Time. This is the legal grounds on which Mr Hain bases his objection. Having a long history of fighting racial discrimination, he has many reasons to find the BNP "abhorrent".

The BBC trust, however, has upheld the decision to allow Griffin to attend. Director General Mark Thompson has said that the government would have to make the decision to proscribe the party, as Margaret Thatcher did with Sinn Fein in the 1980s. Speaking to the Guardian today, Thompson argued that the BNP's current level of support warrants their invitation: "It is a straightforward matter of fact that ... the BNP has demonstrated a level of support which would normally lead to an occasional invitation to join the panel on Question Time. It is for that reason alone ... that the invitation has been extended." He argues that the call to ban them from the programme is tantamount to a call for censorship, and that is in Westminster's hands, not the BBC's. Hain, however, argues that extending an invitation to the BNP legitimises both them and their policies.

I find myself torn on this one (as I do on most things. Midget, if you're reading this, I really do think 'Devil's Advocate' should be my epitaph). On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech, and thus deplore censorship. I believe in certain guidelines, e.g strict enforcement of age classification etc, but you can shove the nanny state up your proverbial, mate. I'm a big girl, with my own mind. I don't need the cotton wool blanket you want to put on me. It's itchy, for a start. On the other hand, I can't stand the BNP. I don't care how slick and polished they may be, I don't care if they swapped the National Front's jackboots for snazzy suits, they are right wing, extremist bigots. Nick Griffin has clearly had some success modernising the party (to the chagrin of the extremists who are thankfully too thick to favour political expediency over showing their true colours). He is a fairly good speaker in interviews. At face value, they are almost credible. They avoid the more blatant white nationalist rhetoric of Stormfront et al, but I don't dount that it is there if you scratch the surface. Therefore, I personally wish they would just vanish off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, however, they do exist, and that is a sad but definite reality.

So should they be allowed to speak in political debates such as those on QT? While Hain makes many admirable points about the BNP being "a racist, fascist party in complete contradiction to the BBC's own equal opportunities and anti-racist policies", Thompson makes an unsettling but very valid point: "...It is unreasonable and inconsistent to take the position that a party like the BNP is acceptable enough for the public to vote for, but not acceptable enough to appear on democratic platforms like Question Time." That is the problem. The BNP are not a banned group. They are a legitimate (trust me, using that word hurts my sensibilities. It's purely in the legal sense) political party. They received a slight surge in popularity in the last elections, getting over 900,000 votes which landed them 2 MPs. This, Thompson argues, is why they were invited, because QT aims to include minor political groups from time to time, to balance the monopoly Labour and the Tories have. You can't really argue with that. Like I said, Griffin has successfully modernised the party to reach some kind of respectability. Of course, it is very easy to see that it's all a front, by scratching the surface just a little.

However, there are some people who don't have the time to scratch the surface; they are too busy worrying about things like unemployment. Many people in Britain (or insert any country here really) feel let down and even alienated by the mainstream parties in the current climate. They are in a sense vulnerable, and Griffin & Co are on hand to exploit that. Griffin in particular is no fool. He's a bigoted ignoramus, but not a fool when it comes to politics. He's learned that stomping around in big boots with shaved heads battering Pakis and Niggers around the place doesn't get you very far these days. Most of society has evolved beyond such things. Griffin realises that overt violence, verbal or physical, is not the way to go. You need political savvy. Funny, that sounds awfully familiar. I think remember hearing about some bloke in history class, he wanted to take over his government, so he organised a little revolution in a pub, or beer hall, I think they called it, back in 1923. It was a complete failure really, and when he was banged up for high treason, he got to thinking. He decided that to get political power, he needed to go by the book. Stick to legal means to achieve power. This would be popular with the people, because you can't be doing wrong if you're not doing anything illegal, can you? And it worked too! By 1939, he was the boss! Genius, really. Lucky that during his incarceration he wrote a fascinating book about his struggle to enlighten people about this great idea. I wonder if Nick has ever heard of this fella...

So what to do? Legally, they can't be kept off the air. They have some small endorsment from the electorate. While Hain and his supporters argue that this legitimises the BNP, others see censoring them as being more beneficial to their popularity. I would probably concur with the latter argument. The Britsh Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, puts it rather well: "I have always thought we have to take the BNP on. I have always thought they condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. In a democracy where they have elected representatives not just at European level but at local level it is very difficult for a broadcaster to exclude them and it also allows them to portray themselves as victims. We should not give these people the opportunity to claim they are being gagged." While some people may be vulnerable and sucked in by Griffin's slick "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Fascism" packaging, I have faith that the majority can see that they do indeed condemn themselves as soon as they open their mouths. Censorship lets them play the victim card, which will feed into the culture of fear and paranoia they are trying to promote. Nick Griffin's words before the debate give a flavour of things to come, I think. It is apparently his chance for "political bloodsport" to "take on the corrupt, treacherous swine destroying our beautiful island nation". Oh dear. Maybe we should censor him after all. I mean, how on earth can people like that "token Asian Muslim woman" Lady Warsi possibly counter such sound reasoning...