BNP get a slot on BBC Questiontime...

[h0m0revolutionary]

Not shocking, but vile none-the-less.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6823364.ece

I'm guttered for some reason, Questiontime is everyones favourite bourgeois political television show right? And more often than not the panelists take it in turn to echo the very same sentiments of the BNP, btu this is still dissapointing :/

I wonder how Griffin will be greeted?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

With a brick.

[Philosophical Materialist]

If they have any sense, the other parties should boycott and the BBC will be forced to cave-in. In any case, if the BNP's mask slips on-air, the BBC may get a bollocking from OFCOM.

[Sam_b]

Not much militancy with this, but it might be an idea calling up the BBC, asking if they have a confirmation this is happening, and protesting him being on. As far as I know, it worked when the rumour mill went around about Griffin being on QT in July.

[Vanguard1917]

It might be a Question Time actually worth watching for once... Better than the four establishment clones and the mumbling celebrity that usually make up the panel. They might actually be forced to have a debate now.

And the Labour response has been hilarious:



John Mann, Labour chairman of the all-party group on anti-Semitism, said: “It’s absurd to give the BNP any space. This is how Hitler came to power..."


Yes, 'course it is.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Not much militancy with this, but it might be an idea calling up the BBC, asking if they have a confirmation this is happening, and protesting him being on. As far as I know, it worked when the rumour mill went around about Griffin being on QT in July.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8240206.stm

Seems it's now a question of the BBC "may" give them a vioce. Hmm..


It might be a Question Time actually worth watching for once... Better than the four establishment clones and the mumbling celebrity that usually make up the panel. They might actually be forced to have a debate now.

You would say that, you're against no platform, you think it'd be fantastic to 'expose' fascists live on television. In the process, giving them a voice and legitimising their views :/.

[Batman]

Not much militancy with this, but it might be an idea calling up the BBC, asking if they have a confirmation this is happening, and protesting him being on. As far as I know, it worked when the rumour mill went around about Griffin being on QT in July.

He's there because he was elected. It would be better to analysis why working people are voting for the BNP, no?

[Vanguard1917]

You would say that, you're against no platform, you think it'd be fantastic to 'expose' fascists live on television. In the process, giving them a voice and legitimising their views :/.

I'm under no illusion that a panel of establishment politicians on Question Time could 'expose' anything of any great significance about the BNP. This is because, unlike establishment-sponsored 'anti-fascists' like those in UAF, i recognise that mainstream politicians pose a far greater threat to immigrants, civil liberties and democratic rights than relative non-entities like Nick Griffin ever have. They will no doubt try to take the moral high ground against the 'Nazi' bogeyman to make themselves look good in comparison, but actually, judging by their own conduct in power, they're in no position to do so. That's what really needs to be exposed here.

[Dr Mindbender]

Not shocking, but vile none-the-less.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6823364.ece

I'm guttered for some reason, Questiontime is everyones favourite bourgeois political television show right? And more often than not the panelists take it in turn to echo the very same sentiments of the BNP, btu this is still dissapointing :/

I wonder how Griffin will be greeted?


I dont think its the first time they've been on a primetime political debate show.

If my memory serves me right last time they were booed and hissed and generally treated like a pantomime villain.

It could go against them splendidly, but nonetheless a visible antifascist presence should still go.

[Sam_b]

He's there because he was elected. It would be better to analysis why working people are voting for the BNP, no?

Well of course, but I don't see this being the biggest point here. In the same vein we could sit about and analyse why some sections of the working class are against immigration and asylum, but not call up and write letters to protest about dawn raids. Or write letters to councils about fascists being allowed to march through city centres (it was this public opposition that stopped the NF in Aberdeen about five years ago). Both should be done.

[Hit The North]

It might be a Question Time actually worth watching for once...

You should join the studio audience and clap along.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You should join the studio audience and clap along.

lol ;)

But i think as soon as it's announed where it'll be, it's very much worth asking to be part of the audience.

[Pogue]

I doubt they'd really let more than one prominent anti-fascist in. It might be worth protesting somehow though.

[Dr Mindbender]

You should join the studio audience and clap along.

You could ask them awkward questions like ''what is the BNP's position on homosexuality'' or ''define ethnically british''.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I doubt they'd really let more than one prominent anti-fascist in. It might be worth protesting somehow though.

In in two minds, of course we should reigtser dissent, but i can picture the opposition outside now, Labour Banners everywhere, Trade Union stewards pushing us back form the building. Ergh :/

[Pogue]

In in two minds, of course we should reigtser dissent, but i can picture the opposition outside now, Labour Banners everywhere, Trade Union stewards pushing us back form the building. Ergh :/

Which is why we need to assert ourselves and do it properly.

[Dr Mindbender]

In in two minds, of course we should reigtser dissent, but i can picture the opposition outside now, Labour Banners everywhere, Trade Union stewards pushing us back form the building. Ergh :/

I can imagine it crawling with pigs in front of a steel cordon as well.

[Hit The North]

We should hold a mass carnival of idiot Hitler impersonators, seig heiling and strutting around outside the venue with our trousers fallen around our jackboots a la Spike Milligan.

It'd also be a great place to egg the fucker again - in front of the BBC cameras.

[Sam_b]

You could ask them awkward questions like ''what is the BNP's position on homosexuality'' or ''define ethnically british''

Why would activists try, or want, to legitimise the BNP by asing question's they would want to answer in a public forum?

[Batman]

Well of course, but I don't see this being the biggest point here. In the same vein we could sit about and analyse why some sections of the working class are against immigration and asylum, but not call up and write letters to protest about dawn raids. Or write letters to councils about fascists being allowed to march through city centres (it was this public opposition that stopped the NF in Aberdeen about five years ago). Both should be done.

You're missing the point. In the bigger picture, it's not going to a major tactical victory if Griffin speaks. If he does, it's a success, if he doesn't it's still a success.

The tactical victories are being won by the long hard slog being put in by the BNP in working class estates where they're gaining a foothold while the left in Britain stand back and have shitty little protests about Griffin being allowed onto some political programme.

[Batman]

We should hold a mass carnival of idiot Hitler impersonators, seig heiling and strutting around outside the venue with our trousers fallen around our jackboots a la Spike Milligan.

It'd also be a great place to egg the fucker again - in front of the BBC cameras.

Oh dear.

[Holden Caulfield]

sad as it is to admit, Batman is probably pretty close to the mark,

[Vanguard1917]

Oh dear.

The thing is, he's being totally serious.

[Batman]

The thing is, he's being totally serious.

To be honest, I didn't know if he was taking the piss or if he wasn't.

[Vanguard1917]

Meanwhile, the real reactionaries from the three main parties -- including people who, unlike the BNP, actually have legal powers to make life hell for immigrants in Britain -- are apparently respectable and their ideas are legitimate. Is that not the implication of the complaint: 'letting the BNP have a platform on telly will give its views legitimacy'?

[Dr Mindbender]

Why would activists try, or want, to legitimise the BNP by asing question's they would want to answer in a public forum?

Because they wouldnt be able to worm their way out of questions like that without showing themselves up for the bigoted neurotics that they are. I dunno, i concede it wasnt the best thought out plan but it would be funny to see them squirm while they're being burned by the glare of national TV.

[nuisance]

Why would activists try, or want, to legitimise the BNP by asing question's they would want to answer in a public forum?
Does the BNP being on the electoral roll, having 2 MEPs and 55 councillors not legitimate them enough within the realms of representative democracy?


Because they wouldnt be able to worm their way out of questions like that without showing themselves up for the bigoted neurotics that they are. I dunno, i concede it wasnt the best thought out plan but it would be funny to see them squirm while they're being burned by the glare of national TV.
You seem to be confusing fascism with rationality.

[bailey_187]

There are racist parties on question time every week.


(when does question time start again?)

[Sam_b]

The Tory policy, UKIP, Labour, Liberal policies on immigration are inherently racist, yes. But that, however, does not make them fascist parties. We advocate no platform for genuine fascist parties: be that BNP, NF, BPP or whatever; but certainly not for Tories.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Not sure this will be particually worthwhile, but if you want to register a complaint, call: 03700100222

*24hr hotline*

[bailey_187]

The Tory policy, UKIP, Labour, Liberal policies on immigration are inherently racist, yes. But that, however, does not make them fascist parties. We advocate no platform for genuine fascist parties: be that BNP, NF, BPP or whatever; but certainly not for Tories.

Although the policies of the BNP are more disgusting than of Labour, the Labour party is more dangerous.

[Holden Caulfield]

the Labour party is more dangerous.
ooo we should have a 'social-fascism thread'. Does some M-L want to kick that thing off?

[bailey_187]

I never said the Labour party was fascist.

[Hit The North]

To be honest, I didn't know if he was taking the piss or if he wasn't.

Of course I was taking the piss :rolleyes:. On the other hand, the absurd Fuhrer pretensions of Nick Griffin needs to have the piss taken. For all the threat that the BNP represent, they also represent a pathetic and squalid self-aggrandisement of their own mediocrity.

But there is an important point and that is the necessity of maintaining the approach of exposing the core of this organisation as fascist. Every time Griffin smarms his way into an apparently 'respectable' position, we need to remind people that he's also recently written an article where he blames the Holocaust on "Bolshevik Jews".

Those who believe, like vanguard1917, that the BNP should be treated like any other bourgeois party operate either from a position of ignorance about how fascists always use electoral support to groom hardcore street organisation, or from a more suspect position of wilfully ignoring this fact.

A typical smokescreen that BNP apologists like V1917 use is this:


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Meanwhile, the real reactionaries from the three main parties - the three main parties -- including people who, unlike the BNP, actually have legal powers to make life hell for immigrants in Britain


Does he not realise the qualitative differences here? If the BNP had the legal powers, we'd see confiscation of property belonging to ethnic minorities; mass deportations of non-whites; an end to immigration; criminalisation of homosexuality; suspension of the rights to abortion; imprisonment of socialists, communists and anarchists; a ban on strikes; etc. All topped off with the terrorism of their militias.

But according to Vanguard, the BNP are not even the real reactionaries.

Next he'll be telling us that the BNP are actually progressive; that the real reactionaries are those who oppose them.

But we'd expect this from someone who supports Spiked, a motley group of free marketeers, corporate greed excusers and media opportunists who are intensely anti-socialist.

[Hit The North]

I never said the Labour party was fascist.

I think Holden's quip was aimed at Vanguard1917 who's position is remarkably similar to the policy of the Stalinists in the 1930s.

[h0m0revolutionary]

the Labour party is more dangerous.

Labour have control of border controls, immigration dentention centures and it's Labour beaurocrats (or rather civil servents watched over my the Labour clenched fist of liberties) have the final say on deporting someone back to their 'home' country; sometimes quite literally sending them tot heir death.

So yeah Labour are dangerous, right now.

But if you're doing that whole Stalinist ultra-left posturing thing, where you dismiss the BNP as stemming from the policies of Labour, you're wrong, fascism is a much greater threat to our communities. And you're argument to the contreary would hold much more weight if anyone of us here did not acknowledge that our struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against the establishment; it's racist border controls, detention, policing, criminal justice system etc. etc.

[Batman]

But there is an important point and that is the necessity of maintaining the approach of exposing the core of this organisation as fascist.

There is no moral high-ground anymore. You call Griffin a nazi or fascist and he'll turn around and call you a communist. In most peoples eyes, the crimes of the USSR were ten times greater than those of Nazi Germany.

The last remaining victims of Hitler's concentration camps and gas chambers are all nearly gone so any personal recollections of fascism and nazism will be gone with it. In Britain at the moment it is the far-right putting in the work in working class areas and not the far-left.

[h0m0revolutionary]

In most peoples eyes, the crimes of the USSR were ten times greater than those of Nazi Germany.


I don't think that's true at all.

[Batman]

I don't think that's true at all.

Ok, maybe a slight exaggeration but the point remains.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The last remaining victims of Hitler's concentration camps and gas chambers are all nearly gone so any personal recollections of fascism and nazism will be gone with it. In Britain at the moment it is the far-right putting in the work in working class areas and not the far-left.

Sorry, i also have to question this.

Where are the far-right putting in the leg work? where are they in industrial disputes and community actions?

They aren't, the far-right have made, all-be-they limited, gains recently percisely because the establishment is echoing their concerns about immigration, crime and patriotism. And insofar as that's true, it's much more acceptable for the main parties toblame immigrants for the shortcomings of capitalism, than it is to question the system itself.

I tinhk the left in the UK is in a pretty shit way, but to claim they're not in and around workign class communities isn't true. They could be better, sure. But look at who's mobilising against war and privitisation, look who's instigating actions against ID cards, racist policing and denteniton centres.

Contrast the far-right, they're doing nothing but enjoying the atmosphere of racism created by the establishment, they dont have to put in any effort in working class communities, in fact I imagine before the recent bout of leafletting prior to the Euro Elections, many of them had never been to a councel estate in their lives.

[JohannGE]

"A Labour party spokesman said the BBC's decision had forced it to review its position of never sharing a platform with the BNP"

I also heard a quote that nulab intended to put forward a "heavyweight" (Prescott ? ;)) to challenge him.

UAF getting realy active on this one:-

"One anti-fascist group has already said it will stage a demonstration outside Broadcasting House this week to protest against the BBC's decision. Weyman Bennett from Unite Against Fascism accused the corporation of being "complacent and naive" by treating the BNP as a "normal political party". He said: "We will send the BBC a letter saying that it's not legitimate to give them a platform of respectability when they have a policy of discriminating against people on grounds of race."

:laugh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/06/nick-griffin-question-time

[Hit The North]

There is no moral high-ground anymore. You call Griffin a nazi or fascist and he'll turn around and call you a communist. In most peoples eyes, the crimes of the USSR were ten times greater than those of Nazi Germany.


The logical conclusion of that argument is that if we want to make gains, irrespective of whether this is in competition with the BNP or not, we'd have to hide our politics from the working class.

Fortunately, I belong to an organisation which has never bowed to pressure to recognise the USSR, China or any of their client states, as socialist, never mind communist.


The last remaining victims of Hitler's concentration camps and gas chambers are all nearly gone so any personal recollections of fascism and nazism will be gone with it.

Then this seems like the perfect argument for us to continue reminding people of what disasters and horrors the politics of fascists like the BNP lead to.

[Hit The North]

UAF getting realy active on this one:-

"One anti-fascist group has already said it will stage a demonstration outside Broadcasting House this week to protest against the BBC's decision. Weyman Bennett from Unite Against Fascism accused the corporation of being "complacent and naive" by treating the BNP as a "normal political party". He said: "We will send the BBC a letter saying that it's not legitimate to give them a platform of respectability when they have a policy of discriminating against people on grounds of race."

:laugh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/06/nick-griffin-question-time

The UAF are obviously leaving a space to allow Antifa to spearhead the protest and storm Broadcasting House.

Will they take up the challenge?

JohannGE, will you be joining them? :glare:

[JohannGE]

JohannGE, will you be joining them? :glare:

Nah...

Unfortunatly, I'm well past my storming date!

;)

[h0m0revolutionary]

You've got to admit Bob sending a letter, is a little bit weak.

On the other hand though, we shouldn't judge UAF by revolutionary standards, they're not a revolutionary force, and they don't claim to be.

[bailey_187]

If Labour refuse to go on they should get George Galloway to. He would probably do better.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Galloway?!

You mean that guy who supports a points system for immigration?

yeah he'd do a fantastic job.

[bailey_187]

Galloway?!

You mean that guy who supports a points system for immigration?

yeah he'd do a fantastic job.

Better then some labour twat like they usually have, no?

Did i say i supported Galloway?

[Hit The North]

You've got to admit Bob sending a letter, is a little bit weak.



Not if Weyman wipes his arse on the letter before sealing the envelope. :lol:

I'm sure the letter will be only the first step in the UAF mobilisation.

[Jazzratt]

If Labour refuse to go on they should get George Galloway to. He would probably do better.

George Galloway does not need any more reasons to be on TV.

[Dr Mindbender]

George Galloway does not need any more reasons to be on TV.

well he does a bang on job of winding up the murdochian media hacks, you have to give him that.

[nuisance]

well he does a bang on job of winding up the murdochian media hacks, you have to give him that.
And making an embarrasement out of the left. Great, lets get him on!

[Dr Mindbender]

alright, fuck question time.

We'll put Galloway and Nick Griffin in a mud wrestling ring and resolve the nation's political differences that way.

[Sam_b]

You've got to admit Bob sending a letter, is a little bit weak

Are you going to tell that to your comrades in the Glasgow Anarchists as well then, regarding all their good work with regards to phone calls and letter-writing about dawn raids and immigration detentions?

[Lyev]

I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the BNP on Questiontime. It'll liven things up. Also Nick Griffin should be allowed to voice his opinions all he wants because they're just so fucking ridiculous. How can he be taken seriously when he says stuff like this? 'I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat.' Also, maybe if there's a decent protest against it, it might help raise awareness about Antifa or UAF and the fight against the far-right.

[Sam_b]

So AGW, you are not a supporter of no-platform for fascists? Even when members of their party have murdered and been part of hideous racist attacks? Its not just ridiculous - its downright frightening. This isn't some sort of "can't take them seriously" game when people's lives are at stake. You say he should have the right to speak under some sort of freedom of speech guise: but why should we defend bourgeois democratic 'rights' to fascists when they want to take it away from minority communities, LGBTQ people, trade unionists, socialists? Have we not learned our history about fighting fascism and the rise of it as a power? [not that we have freedom of speech in this country anyway - go tell your boss what you think of him tomorrow and see how far you'll get]. It is absolutely self-defeating to support supposed democracy for an anti-democratic movement.

The BNP are a threat to free speech itself. Do we want to fight them as a minority in a field in Derbyshire, or when they control the state power?

[Holden Caulfield]

BNP doesn't deserve political respect (http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/09/bnp-doesnt-deserve-political-respect.html)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/SqT2z5s1jyI/AAAAAAAACXc/nIIia330m_o/s320/griffininshadow.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XLxL5xIl-m8/SqT2z5s1jyI/AAAAAAAACXc/nIIia330m_o/s1600-h/griffininshadow.jpg)
A man who deserves no political respect at all...

Inviting a BNP representative to take part in Question Time will ultimately only demean the BBC's reputation

The BBC is said to be considering inviting someone from the British National party (BNP) on to Question Time – predictably a media storm has ensued. Can "No Platform with Fascists" still work? Should it still be in place? The debate has also raised some myths that typically get dragged out during these occasions. Here are some:

Myth 1: The BNP's arguments can be defeated through rational argument

This argument ignores the reason why most people vote BNP: because they're angry. The idea that they've spent time poring over policy positions of each of the parties and come to a considered decision is nonsensical.

And so the idea the BNP can be defeated via rational arguments and "exposing them" is equally deluded. As various studies on cognitive behaviour have shown, people are emotionally predisposed to the information they receive. So if they already hate the BNP, then they're likely to receive information exposing the BNP with glee. Its supporters will simply see such information as propaganda or falsehoods promoted by people with an agenda.

In fact, Nick Griffin could say whatever he wanted on Question Time, and attempts by Tory, Labour or Lib Dem MPs to expose his lies would be useless. Most BNP supporters are very unlikely to take words by any of the three parties seriously anyway. After all, when they appeal to vote anyone but the BNP it makes hardly any difference.

No one on either side will respond rationally – affiliation with extremist movements is always an emotional attachment. No amount of rational arguments will change that. The only way to affect that would be through emotional arguments.

Myth 2: Persecution will only feed the BNP's victim mentality

Yes, it will. But then, anything less than letting the BNP take over Britain and turn it into a fascist state will feed their victim mentality. The party thrives on positioning itself as the anti-establishment party which is under persecution even from the likes of the Sun (no, really!).

The BNP's core support is derived from people who think the entire nation is under the control of a vast conspiracy against the honest people of Britain. Just because it thrives off a victim mentality doesn't mean we should do anything to avoid that. After all, Islamists thrive off a victim mentality. As do terrorists. That doesn't mean we give in to their every wish, right?

Myth 3: "No Platform" doesn't work

The "No Platform" policy isn't a demand to ban the BNP. It is a democratic decision by right-thinking people not to share a platform with fascists. In fact, "No Platform" worked quite well in sidelining the BNP in mainstream conversation. It wasn't that long ago that the National Front and its affiliates were fearlessly marching through various streets in Britain and expressing support for the National Front was something to be proud of. "No Platform" changed that by actively trying to paint the BNP et al as extremist movements that right-thinking people should shun. It had huge impact.

The existence of the internet doesn't negate the need to shun the BNP – the moral point that "No Platform" agitated for still exists. The party has grown thanks to a mixture of: the Labour party abandoning grassroots politics in key areas, fears over multiculturalism, immigration, and economic collapse in many towns across England. None of them make the case for the BNP being accepted as a "normal" party. As Dr Cammaerts points out on Polis, "The liberal answer ultimately often results in granting the extreme right an open platform, thereby normalising and partly legitimising racism and racist discourses in society in the process."

Myth 4: The BNP has unprecedented popularity

We've had the biggest recession in living memory, a huge upsurge in EU immigration (driving down wages) and a decline in manufacturing over the past decade. The three main parties are held in low regard, partly thanks to the expenses scandal, and still the BNP barely increased their percentage share of the vote. The Green party did better. In fact, they had much more support in the 70s and 80s. And so I refuse to buy the view that the BNP is suddenly a huge force to be reckoned with that needs to be represented across all levels of society.

A question for the BBC

There is a deeper question here for the BBC. Is it merely an independent platform that should offer space to any sufficiently popular viewpoint or should it exercise more editorial judgment?

For example, there is a significant movement of people online who believe they aren't being told "the truth" about who was behind 9/11 and 7/7.

There are a huge amount of "birthers" in America who believe Obama was not born in the US despite the overwhelming evidence. There are the climate-change denialists, the creationists and even the Holocaust deniers. A straightforward reporting position would require that the BBC give roughly equal time to two opposing points of view in the name of impartiality, even if the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts one side.

A similar problem applies to the BBC's formats. Question Time is basically a populist shouting match where facts and figures don't have time to get checked. Someone such as Dan Hannan MEP can claim 84% of our laws are made in Europe and no one calls him out on his rubbish. Nick Griffin could similarly claim he's not racist and repeat lies that go unchallenged live on air. BNP pamphlets have repeatedly featured lies in the past. Who will have the research on hand to challenge that? His fellow QT panellists won't. And so the BBC will be used to spread lies by a party in thrall to antisemitism, racism, sexism and general conspiracy theory madness.

All this will only demean the BBC's reputation.

Many of the BNP's supporters say they're only trying to protect Britain from those who intend to destroy it. But the BBC is giving space to an organisation that itself is anti-democratic, authoritarian and averse to our liberal democratic traditions. It seeks to destroy the very basis of the nation it claims it's trying to protect. Why shouldn't it be treated with less support and respect than the other political parties?

Comment is free (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/07/bnp-question-time)

[Lyev]

I guess you're right Sam. There's no room for the BNP is there? We simply must not tolerate the fascists. I knew they were Nazis, but when have they murdered? And this- 'Have we not learned our history about fighting fascism and the rise of it as a power?' is particularly relevant since we're in a recession. I actually feel a bit ashamed after saying- 'I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the BNP on Questiontime.' Sorry.

[Holden Caulfield]

Another view from the blogs (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/):


Most readers will now know the BBC is entertaining the possibility (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8240206.stm) of inviting Nick Griffin onto Question Time. As you would imagine this has sent some sections of the left into howls of rage. Some have argued this gives the BNP the layer of "legitimacy" and "acceptance" they crave. Others have said Griffin should not be afforded a platform to spout his racist drivel.

This is the stock response we should expect from establishment anti-fascism. No doubt tomorrow's press release from Unite Against Fascism (http://www.uaf.org.uk/) will wag its finger at the BBC and ask if the editors know the BNP is a Nazi organisation full of Holocaust-denying freaks and people with criminal records. Nor would I be surprised if the UAF commit itself to picketing future Question Times Nazi Nick has been invited to.

The problem with all this is it plays right into the BNP's hands. We may not like it but the BNP has successfully built up a semi-stable, semi-localised electoral base who are receptive to what the fascists have to say. A core element of their propaganda is a persecution complex where the BNP are victimised by powerful forces for daring to tell the "truth". This is compounded by anti-fascists attempting to no platform the BNP without offering a rebuttal of their racist narrative. In the minds of casual BNP supporters it looks as though they have the establishment running scared.

Underlying this commitment to a no platformist strategy is a thinly veiled belief the BNP's target audience - white working class people - have a hard time thinking for themselves. They need shielding from their Nazi lies because there's a danger at any moment they'll become slobbering racists.

I for one have much more faith in working class people. If they can see through the bollocks regularly churned out by Gordon Brown and co, they are more than able to see Griffin for the thick prejudiced tosser he is.

[Holden Caulfield]

From Ian Bone's Blog (http://ianbone.wordpress.com/)



Griffin on Question Time? Yes!

The one thing the Left in Britain is strong on is it’s complete lack of faith in the working class.Of course they are theoretically bound to the proletariat as a concept – but you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry one. Most people on the organised Left – including many anarchists – think the working class are brutish, racist, gullible and therefore……….they must not be allowed to hear what the BNP has to say because the gullible idiots might agree with it! Of course the SWP/UAF are the worst examples of this – as complete enemies of the capitalist state they are the first to call for it to issue bans and proscriptions on its opponents…even when they have been elected by working class people. Griffin is as entitled to be on Question Time as George Galloway – in fact representing more votes than the apologist for Islamisism. The question the Left needs to answer is why Griffin got those votes in the first place – but that would lead to a far too painful bout of self-examination. So expect the usual leftist kneejerk call for Griffin to be barred from Question Time and the workers in their millions to flock to the BNP after the programme. God help us in what leftist idiots they’ll put on the programme against him. He’s far more likely to run into trouble from someone from the populist right rather than the organised Left.Who do we reckon would really take him apart – Kelvin McKenzie or Tariq Ali? Though Bob Crow v Nick Griffin – that’d be worth a look if Crow could ditch his antedeluvian politics but keep the patter! Don’t forget – it’ll be a high risk strategy for Griffin if someone lands a few telling blows on him or better still makes him look like a twat it could be over and out.

[Sam_b]

knew they were Nazis, but when have they murdered?

The London Nail Bomber David Copeland was a former member of the BNP. Joe Owens, a former candidate, was jailed for sending razorblades to Jewish families. The BNP has argued in the past that Steven Lawrence's murder was justifyable because he was a 'black mugger' and his murderers were acting in self-defence.

Nazi solely isn't a term for electoral politics: it has and always does have a ground movement behind it to enforce the 'brick, boot and fist'.

[The Feral Underclass]

...Not to mention the guy who edits their website was convicted of bombing a South African school.

Where is this question time going to be held?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Where is this question time going to be held?

we dont know yet. It'll only be announced a fortnight before it's due to be aired.

And as of yet, this is only the BBC speculating they'll allow Griffin on, it's not confirmed as of yet.

[Magdalen]

This is just a sign of the quiet legitimisation of the fascists by the bourgeois media.

[Lyev]

I've been thinking about this and although I absolutely hate Griffin and the BNP with a passion is them being on Questiontime actually gonna gain them respect and votes? Questiontime isn't broadcast live, is it? So the BBC wouldn't broadcast anything that put the BNP in a good light, would they? Anyway, it's questionable to ban the BNP from being on Questiontime, because the BNP would ban Muslims, gays, Jews and immigrants from being on Questiontime, so isn't there a bit of hypocrisy in that? Anyway, won't it just make the BNP look like the ignorant twats they are?

[Holden Caulfield]

So the BBC wouldn't broadcast anything that put the BNP in a good light, would they?


you must have missed the BBC's "white" season. Racist against whites, blacks, asians, poles, everybody

[Die Rote Fahne]

They should give time to a member of Britain's Socialist Workers Party. Nothing like a Trotskyist to pimp smack a fascist.

[*Red*Alert]

With a brick.
Yes, that's a good "British" method.


Councillor Pat Richardson, leader of the BNP group on the local council, said her party was not behind the attacks on Ramjanally. "Firebombing is not a British method. A brick through the window is a British method, but firebombing is not a way of showing displeasure," she said.

[Vanguard1917]

But according to Vanguard, the BNP are not even the real reactionaries.

Next he'll be telling us that the BNP are actually progressive; that the real reactionaries are those who oppose them.

The BNP are not the real reactionaries in British society because, in the real world -- i.e. outside of the imaginations of bankrupt elite politicians, sensationalist media commentators, and hysterial government-sponsored 'anti-fascist' activists -- the BNP are not the real threat to progress in British society. They're not even close to being this. In fact, the BNP are a pretty miniscule organisation with no power in British society and with extremely limited support.

In the real world, the biggest threat to progress, to immigrants, to democratic rights, to civil liberties, etc., comes not from the BNP but from mainstream establishment politicians.

That's why the pro-establishment liberal-left tactic of joining forces with the real reactionaries in British society in order to 'smash the BNP' is not radical but wholly reactionary.



But we'd expect this from someone who supports Spiked, a motley group of free marketeers, corporate greed excusers and media opportunists who are intensely anti-socialist.


Repeatedly making the same claims while never being able to provide a gram of evidence... Is that your debating tactic?

[Hit The North]

You do know what the word "reactionary" means, don't you?


Repeatedly making the same claims while never being able to provide a gram of evidence... Is that your debating tactic?

I think the fact they condemned everyone for slagging off the bankers was such a give away that it precludes the necessity for any further evidence.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The etsblishment may be an anti-working class force, obviiously. But we recognise that at least under 'democratic' capitalism we're granted basic liberties. The same is not true of fascism, thats why we don't take your braindead approach of ignoring them until they ARE the establishment, we strangle them while they're weak.

[Vanguard1917]

You do know what the word "reactionary" means, don't you?

Yes, do you?



I think the fact they condemned everyone for slagging off the bankers was such a give away that it precludes the necessity for any further evidence.


No, they 'slag off' those who seek to scapegoat a few individuals for the deeper underlying problems of the system -- e.g. leftwing radicals like the Conservative Party leader David Cameron, along with a plethora of other establishment figures. As do Marxist generally.

[Vanguard1917]

The etsblishment may be an anti-working class force, obviiously. But we recognise that at least under 'democratic' capitalism we're granted basic liberties. The same is not true of fascism, thats why we don't take your braindead approach of ignoring them until they ARE the establishment, we strangle them while they're weak.

By pretending that they're a bigger threat than the actual political rulers of capitalist society and joining forces with the latter?

[h0m0revolutionary]

By pretending that they're a bigger threat than the actual rulers of capitalist society and joining forces with the latter?

joining forces?
oh come off it. You can't possibly be that stupid?!

[Vanguard1917]

joining forces?
oh come off it. You can't possibly be that stupid?!

Ask Bobthebuilder if it's OK to join forces with each establishment party to fight the BNP menace.

And what else lies beneath the notion that having the BNP on the bourgeois, establishment media will give it legitimacy? The assumption is that there is something legitimate about such a platform, and the individuals who normally occupy it, in the first place.

[Hit The North]

Yeah, go on, ask me!

[Leo]

Bob the Builder, is it OK to join forces with each establishment party to fight the BNP menace?

[Hit The North]

No, I don't think so.

[h0m0revolutionary]

No, I don't think so.

Really?
you know what's coming don't you comrade? *giggle*

David Cameron, Sir Teddy Taylor, Peter Hain. All UAF supporters and signatories, all given a platform by UAF.

Ken Livingstone as Chairman. Is he not part of the establishment?

[Hit The North]

All UAF supporters and signatories, all given a platform by UAF.Well, I'd question what kind of platform (if any) these individuals are given by the UAF (with the exception of Livingstone who counts himself as a democratic socialist).

But the question is whether I believe we should join forces with each establishment party and my answer is no. I have less concerns about uniting with sections of the Labour left (which is where Livingstone is) and I also think that just because a couple of Tory MPs have opportunistically signed their support (and when this was done and under what circumstances, no one seems to know), this does not support the conclusion that UAF has "joined forces" with the Conservative Party. This is not where the UAF draws its active support from.

We should also bear in mind the Labour Party 'establishment' - the Right - has launched the Hope Not Hate campaign in order to distance itself from the UAF.

Btw, as I often repeat, I am not a member of the UAF myself. Nevertheless, I'd like to add that I would rather "join forces" with Livingstone than with Vanguard1917 who doesn't even consider the BNP to be reactionary!



.
Ken Livingstone as Chairman. Is he not part of the establishment?

It depends what you mean by the "establishment". Livingstone is not even part of the Labour Party establishment, nevermind the self-recruiting oligarchy which runs this country

[Vanguard1917]

Btw, as I often repeat, I am not a member of the UAF myself. Nevertheless, I'd like to add that I would rather "join forces" with Livingstone than with Vanguard1917 who doesn't even consider the BNP to be reactionary!

That's low even for you. I didn't say that the BNP aren't reactionary, and you know i didn't. You can't debate, so you make things up.

[Vanguard1917]

David Cameron, Sir Teddy Taylor, Peter Hain. All UAF supporters and signatories, all given a platform by UAF.

Ken Livingstone as Chairman. Is he not part of the establishment?


Yes, he was, and in his capacity as such, he was a far bigger real-life opponent of working class people than the nonentity Nick Griffin ever has been. Ask the London tube workers.

But yeah, it's okay to join forces with him against the bogeymen of British politics...

[Hit The North]

That's low even for you. I didn't say that the BNP aren't reactionary, and you know i didn't.

You claimed they weren't the "real reactionaries". I took it you meant that they were therefore the "fake reactionaries" - i.e. not reactionary at all. You need to think where your arguments lead you. Such as your strong inference that even if the BNP are reactionary, they are not as reactionary as Ken Livingstone.


You can't debate, so you make things up.

You can't debate, so you talk shit. But wait...



But yeah, it's okay to join forces with him against the bogeymen of British politics...

There you go, you're getting it. :)

[Leo]

The BNP obviously is a disgustingly reactionary, chauvinist, xenophobic and ultra-nationalist organization.

This being said, did the Labour Party not actually take such measures against immigrants, minorities as well as the working class as a whole which the BNP, being a pathetically small organization from what I understand, wasn't even capable of imagining of doing?

Any revolutionary has to acknowledge that the BNP is an organization that is an enemy of the working class. But why do we not see anyone among those highlighting BNP getting a slot on BBC Questiontime complain about the same program giving space to the Labour Party?

Or, an even better question, why do people who say they are against capitalism end up advising a media tycoon of the bourgeoisie on how to run and how not to run its class propaganda?

[Hit The North]

This being said, did the Labour Party not actually take such measures against immigrants, minorities as well as the working class as a whole which the BNP, being a pathetically small organization from what I understand, wasn't even capable of imagining of doing?



Nice rhetoric, Leo, but which measures are you referring to? And if they stop short of mass deportations (including non-whites who were born in Britain), confiscation of property and public beatings, then, no, they don't exceed the lurid imagination of our tin-pot nazis.

[Melbourne Lefty]

uh huh...

Well all the waffle aside this looks like being a pretty shitty thing.

Even if he gets ripped up the BNP will still be on the air in a venue they have never been before.

Some good protests might do something, but short of another egg throwing episode I dont see them having that much impact.

A pie or something like that accidently falling onto Nick's fat ugly face might make some really good news through!

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think the best weapon is te propaganda we get from him not even being allowed itno the venue unchallenged. Just as with Manchester Town Hall on election night. He had to be hidden in a police vana nd then smuggled into the hall. If that is the same scenario for the venue Questiontime is to be held, it's good prop for us.

Sadly I don't know if we can hope for any better. The police, and possibly a counter-demo in support of BNP, will do absolutly everything to get him in.

[Invader Zim]

A typical smokescreen that BNP apologists like V1917 use is this:



Does he not realise the qualitative differences here? If the BNP had the legal powers, we'd see confiscation of property belonging to ethnic minorities; mass deportations of non-whites; an end to immigration; criminalisation of homosexuality; suspension of the rights to abortion; imprisonment of socialists, communists and anarchists; a ban on strikes; etc. All topped off with the terrorism of their militias.

But according to Vanguard, the BNP are not even the real reactionaries.

Next he'll be telling us that the BNP are actually progressive; that the real reactionaries are those who oppose them.

But we'd expect this from someone who supports Spiked, a motley group of free marketeers, corporate greed excusers and media opportunists who are intensely anti-socialist.

Indeed, I don't know why we continue to tolerate him. Surely he is either a clever troll or raving loon.

[Steve_j]

This being said, did the Labour Party not actually take such measures against immigrants, minorities as well as the working class as a whole which the BNP, being a pathetically small organization from what I understand, wasn't even capable of imagining of doing?


Any revolutionary has to acknowledge that the BNP is an organization that is an enemy of the working class. But why do we not see anyone among those highlighting BNP getting a slot on BBC Questiontime complain about the same program giving space to the Labour Party?

I see what your saying Leo, and i dont see the BNP holding much political power any time soon (i hope) but the BNP has a very powerful propaganda machine that is capable of influenceing mainstream politics.

There are slogans used by the BNP which are interchangable with that of New labour. This is unfortunatly occuring because New labour is not doing enough to debunk right wing myths and instead pandering to the propaganda.

Yes New Labour is guilty of some terrible things. Including legitimizing some key BNP policy in terms of mainstream politics and they should be pulled up and publically opposed for this. But there is also the greater issue of the source of the myths. And much of it is from the BNP (and other far right groups)

The left is very small and divided and with some many issues on hand we are far from ready to take down mainstream politics. At best we can limit/eradicate the influence of far right policies and move from there.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think the best weapon is te propaganda we get from him not even being allowed itno the venue unchallenged. Just as with Manchester Town Hall on election night. He had to be hidden in a police vana nd then smuggled into the hall. If that is the same scenario for the venue Questiontime is to be held, it's good prop for us.

Sadly I don't know if we can hope for any better. The police, and possibly a counter-demo in support of BNP, will do absolutly everything to get him in.

A pro-BNP counter demo that has alot of the same faces seen at EDL demo's I would think, if such a thing were to happen.


Indeed, I don't know why we continue to tolerate him. Surely he is either a clever troll or raving loon.

We keep him to stimulate discussion, plus he winds SWP people up which is always a laugh.

[Vanguard1917]

Such as your strong inference that even if the BNP are reactionary, they are not as reactionary as Ken Livingstone.



In a real-world sense, they're, of course, not. In the real world, establishment figures like Ken Livingstone have had a far greater reactionary influence than tiny, powerless organisations like the BNP.

In an abstract sense, however -- i.e. dealing with political ideas as though they exist outside of real-life society, in the way that Political Science textbooks at universities do, for instance -- yes, the BNP's politics are more reactionary than those of establishment figures like Ken Livingstone. So are those of, say, Islamic fundamentalists who want to enslave women, imprison atheists and enforce Sharia Law. In the abstract, most progressives would have to agree their views are a far more more reactionary than those of self-described democrats like Ken Livingstone or David Cameron.

But since Islamic fundamentalists have relatively little influence in British politics and have no real power in British society, we must state that they -- in the real world -- play a far less reactionary role in British politics than do establishment figures whose politics may in the abstract indeed seem more progressive.


You claimed they weren't the "real reactionaries". I took it you meant that they were therefore the "fake reactionaries" - i.e. not reactionary at all.

You knew exactly what i meant. In the context of what i was saying, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that 'the BNP are not the real reactionaries in British society' means that they are not the main or primary reactionaries.

But, since you have a habit of lying in order to dodge debate, you decided to try twist it to mean something else.

[Rory]

In a real-world sense, they're, of course, not. In the real world, establishment figures like Ken Livingstone have had a far greater progressive influence than tiny, powerless organisations like the Socialist Party.

In an abstract sense, however -- i.e. dealing with political ideas as though they exist outside of real-life society, in the way that Political Science textbooks at universities do, for instance -- yes, the Socialist Party's politics are more progressive than those of establishment figures like Ken Livingstone. So are those of, say, the Socialist Workers Party who want to establish socialism. In the abstract, most progressives would have to agree their views are a far more more reactionary than those of self-described democrats like Ken Livingstone or David Cameron.

But since the Socialist Party has relatively little influence in British politics and have no real power in British society, we must state that they -- in the real world -- play a far less progressive role in British politics than do establishment figures whose politics may in the abstract indeed seem more reactionary.

Now I've edited your quote to show the folly of your argument. It works both ways. Whoever is in power is instantly more reactionary than people who are theoretically most reactionary? Therefore those in power are equally more progressive in actuality than those who theoretically are more progressive.

[Vanguard1917]

Now I've edited your quote to show the folly of your argument. It works both ways. Whoever is in power is instantly more reactionary than people who are theoretically most reactionary? Therefore those in power are equally more progressive in actuality than those who theoretically are more progressive.

No, it's not logically consistent, because I don't see the establishment as progressive.

[Devrim]

Nice rhetoric, Leo, but which measures are you referring to? And if they stop short of mass deportations (including non-whites who were born in Britain), confiscation of property and public beatings, then, no, they don't exceed the lurid imagination of our tin-pot nazis.

But one does have to ask who has deported more asylum seekers or put them in camps? Who sent the army to Iraq and Afghanistan? One could go on...

For those not in tune with British politics it was the Labour government, not the BNP.

Devrim

[RotStern]

Hahah! I liked pogues post "with a brick" xD.
I think that is the solution.
:cool:

[Die Rote Fahne]

Will George Galloway be on the same question time? He would put them through the ringer.

[Melbourne Lefty]

You could ask them awkward questions like ''what is the BNP's position on homosexuality'' or ''define ethnically british''.

Dude even I know their pat answers for those.

1. gay people should be allowed to be gay but pride marches and the like should be banned.

2. anyone from celtic, anglo-saxon or norse background who have had ancestors here for over one thousand years.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Dito to what Ian Bone said...
But really i couldnt give a shit if he goes on or not, its a dull fucking show.
Also, last time anyone from the BNP on any political show they got made a fool of, and the people who support them are pretty much idiots or just misguided. But once the misguided finally wake up and see that the BNP are no more then angry tory's, they'll move on to UKip, and then UKip will pass under our radar.... UKip are probibly worse then BNP because they arent seen as racist, when they are. Sorry to use this to go on a UKip rant, but their policies are to stop immigration for 6years (i think its 6years anyway, correct me if im wrong) and want to get rid of the human rights act.

[shadowmare]

We should hold a mass carnival of idiot Hitler impersonators, seig heiling and strutting around outside the venue with our trousers fallen around our jackboots a la Spike Milligan.

It'd also be a great place to egg the fucker again - in front of the BBC cameras.


Oh oh!
And someone can come as Stalin, then the Hitler impersonators all have to piss themselves and run away!
:thumbup1:

[Holden Caulfield]

^ please don't make it into chit-chat, by all means take the piss but then let it die

[Red Apex]

If they have any sense, the other parties should boycott and the BBC will be forced to cave-in. In any case, if the BNP's mask slips on-air, the BBC may get a bollocking from OFCOM.
We can only hope!

[Killfacer]

If they have any sense, the other parties should boycott and the BBC will be forced to cave-in. In any case, if the BNP's mask slips on-air, the BBC may get a bollocking from OFCOM.

Not likely though is it. If they have their usual panel then i'm sure Griffin will be able to pad away most of the awkward questions and then someone will ask something stupid and he'll smash it for six.

Gotta love cricket.

[Holden Caulfield]

then someone will ask something stupid and he'll smash it for six.


Sadly there is a good chance somebody dumb will try to be "PC" in the pissy middle class liberal guardian reading why they are and Griffin will come out as a champion of working class common sense.

I'll be watching it thought for shits and giggles, might even take a shot of vodka everytime Islam, Immigrants, Jews, Nazi's or Muslims are mentioned

[Melbourne Lefty]

The date and place has been decided according to BNP blogs.

Is anyone going to try and get into the studio?:D