Is a "No Platform" policy against the BNP counter productive?

[carrandrewj]

A radio show debate involving leader of UAF, Weyman Bennett and Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP exposed Weyman Bennett as nothing but childish and pathetic.

The UAF leader refused to answer any of Simon Darby's questions directly, as his organisation has a strict 'no platform' policy against the BNP. Instead, the radio host had to repeat what Darby said before Bennett would answer.

Although I can understand the reasoning for not allowing the BNP a platform in which to promote their bigotted views, is it not also possible to confront the BNP with intelligent and thoughtful responses to their opinions in order to make them look childish instead of refusing to debate with them?

Surely, debating with them will expose their flaws and allow an alternative message to be distributed? I understand that they are attempting to to create a more respectable public face in a bid to conceal their darker side to the electorate. Nick Griffin himself said that he had to choose words such as 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'security' and exchange phrases such as 'racial purity' with more acceptable concepts such as 'identity' to avoid criticism.

However if they were exposed as the lying fascist scum that they are through strong grassroots organisation and thoughtful public debate then they would have nothing left to run with and would be exposed as the bigots that they are.

I'd be interested to read other people's thoughts on this issue.

[Pogue]

Well these debates tend to just be political spectacles and rarely worth the time. But certainly, if the fascists are spouting their shite, you should challenge - shout them down, use your gift of the gab, if you have it, to humiliate them, refute their points. It demoralises them and makes them look like the twats they are in front of people. Of course, often there are much better ways to stop them doing things. If you can beat their arguments down in front of an audience, its good. I've done such things before to people with views held by the BNP. However, the liklihood of being in such a situation where you'd 'debate' them is low - if say someone at work or school was spouting it, argue them down, but its unlikely if you were out opposing them in an action or demo, your gonna have time to have a rational exchange of views with them.

Basically, if they are preahcing and theres an audience say in school, work, destroy their arguments verbally, but don't go out of your way to engage them in debate, they are thick and stubborn idiots, and not worth the time, focus more on the sorts of people who may become influenced by them.