Once more on the “No Platform” policy
The BNP are to appear on the BBC’s Question Time programme, and the Left is suddenly in uproar – divided into those who support the “No Platform” policy of not appearing beside BNP speakers and those who wish to take on the arguments of the BNP on national television. Amidst all this there are accusations that one side is afraid that, faced with BNP propaganda, fascism will conquer the ultimately irrational working class, and on the other there are accusations that people against the “No Platform” policy are soft on preventing the spread of fascism.
It should go without saying that I cast neither aspersion, and I think it is well known that I am a solid supporter of the “No Platform” policy of Left and socialist groups to the effect that a) every effort should be made to prevent the BNP getting a foothold in the public space and b) that if they do, no Left figure should grace the same public space, but that counter-demonstrations and counter-propaganda are the way to go. In this instance, the aim of the latter would be to distract attention from endless media rehashing of what the BNP said on Question Time.
There are a couple of deeper points which I think are being missed in the general debate between pro- and anti- “No Platform” positions.
First, that the media is not some socially neutral forum for disinterested public debate. Who acquires air time is a decision with many moderating influences: the hegemonic ideology (i.e. liberalism), class pressure, ‘political’ pressure, the potential intervention of the State are just some of these. All of these have to interact with the ethics and codes of practice internal to broadcast journalism, but these too are not simply predicated upon disinterested logic. They are socially mediated and subject to ideological and material pressures.
Most obviously this manifests itself in who gets invited to speak on any given show. The last time that the idea of the BNP appearing on the show was talked about, back in 2003, the programme was due to be filmed in Burnley. The rationale given for not inviting the BNP was that the members who would appear were only councillors, they were not MPs or MEPs. Agree or disagree with this, it is a clear ideological determination that privileges status as an MP or an MEP above the role of a councillor or even a person picked at random off the street or blogosphere.
Importantly, the determination is not made on the basis of cogency, truth-telling or any number of other key bases on which we could exclude the BNP (not to mention other panellists) and include people whom the BBC would never think to invite on Question Time.
With this in mind, there is absolutely no reason for Unite Against Fascism and other groups to condone inviting the BNP on to Question Time. There is a clear question of ideological difference involved – as there would be were Nadine Dorries or Phil Woolas or other lying shitbags invited, but the ideological difference is stretched to its most extreme possible when fascists are appearing in the national broadcast media. There is no reason why we shouldn’t make that difference clear and by popular action prevent, if possible, Nick Griffin’s appearance.
Two complaints are being made by people against “no platform” – one, that someone needs to challenge Griffin’s bullshit; two, that trying to stop him appearing simply feeds into the persecution and conspiracy narratives which the BNP like to play up.
I think the first complaint ignores the role of the Conservatives. Conservative HQ has put out a statement declaring that they would be “very happy” to field a shadow cabinet member against Griffin. Do we imagine for a moment that the Tories are going to offer a nuanced critique of the BNP? Hell no; they’re going to trumpet their own anti-immigration policies and the failure of Labour in this field. So now we have two people outbidding each other for the right-wing vote.
Will Labour or the Lib-Dems be able to call the BNP and Tories out on their proposals? Yeah, put Phil Woolas on, then we’ll have two Tories and a fascist.
Both Labour and Lib-Dem leadership each buy into parts of the same narrative; stress on resources, immigrants must integrate, ‘economic benefits’ of the free flow of labour etc. So on the one hand you have the genuinely racist parties, on the other you have parties with no solution but tinkering with the status-quo, which is not what people facing massive unemployment, the privatisation of public services, higher taxes and smaller pensions want to hear – rightly so, because the status quo sucks.
So to those people suggesting that the arguments of people like Griffin can be dealt with in a public forum, I’d like to ask, by whom? I think that too many people – especially the liberals I’ve had this conversation with – are liable to judge whether Griffin is ‘dealt with’ or not by whether or not their own views are espoused on air, rather than taking into account how the rest of the country will view things. From the point of view of Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Tories, that’s not heartening because its obvious many voters are unhappy with the answers they’re hearing.
Continuing along this theme that someone needs to challenge Griffin’s bullshit, I don’t see how it’ll happen. Griffin says X, a blatant lie, someone else says “you’re wrong”, Griffin says “no I’m not”. Worse, Griffin says X, someone else says “you’re a liar” and Griffin says, “Accusations of lies coming from a government which sold peerages for cash, which is funded up the arse by big business, of which peers have been suspended for taking cash for questions” and so on. And Griffin’s attacks, populist though they are, will be right – but are being put to the wrong use.
Meanwhile the Lib-Dem and Tory will nod their heads in sage smugness.
The second complaint, that stopping the BNP appearing will play into the persecution complex of the far right ignores two things. First, if people are so far gone as to believe that the far right are the victims of persecution (e.g. Griffin’s comment that “It’s like a fascist state!” was the highest point in the history of irony) then not much rational argument will sway them. Secondly, playing for the remaining sane people who are watching, there are ways to protest and act to make it clear that those against the BNP are not a minority or cranks.
That is how UAF people appeared with their egg-throwing stunt. This will not be the case if Jon Cruddas and all the credible Labour and socialist groups get their supporters together, call out the trades unions and stage a massive protest to demand that Griffin’s participation be shelved by the BBC. Whether it happens or not, at that point, the Left is at least acting to challenge the overriding media theme, which will hang on every word that comes out of Griffin’s mouth – not to mention out of the mouths of however many fascist supporters he manages to cram into the actual Question Time event.
For there will be such supporters, every one of them starting their sentence with disavowals of racism, or claiming never to have supported the BNP (while hastily covering up the swastikas tattooed on their arm). I trust the British working class to see through such charlatanry, but this is despite rather than because of everything that will happen on any political show where Nick Griffin is allowed to present himself as affable, reasonable and defender of everything British. With all this in mind, why do it?
Get the lying racist toerag off the air, off the front page and keep him off.
See also: The sky is not falling down from AVPS, a straightforward “No” from Susan and “No Platform” is good manners from Lenin’s Tomb.
No platform to the BNP is a perfectly rational stance to take. Just because the vagaries of a highly imperfect voting system and an apathetic populace, coupled with an imploding political class, have allowed Griffin a technically legitimate platform doesn’t mean his politics and the politics of his ilk is something *we* should help to consolidate. It’s not a question of us running away with the ball because we don’t like the rules of the game. Sometimes, at certain moments in history, the rules of the game are bent out of shape. This is one of those times. We should not sully the game by bestowing approval of the BNP through a visibly constructive engagement. We should, instead, continue to draw studied attention to the fact that the rules are being distorted and half-truths are being peddled; but by doing so we must also ensure we do not set up lines of communication with people who are simply not interested in real debate. This is, in fact, one of those times when intolerance of political opinion – intolerance of intolerance, that is to say – is our only option. The 20th century requires us to draw that marker in the sand. The BNP are a hollow shell of a discourse and they deserve only to be ignored.
I concur; and welcome back Mil.
The problem is you can ignore these awful people and keep them off the air etc but that will not serve to do anything other than play badly with the many people in formerly Labour wards across key seats who now vote for the BNP or simply stay at home. A great many of the people who vote for the BNP are not inherently ‘bad’ people they just feel marginalised and isolated and that their concerns (real or otherwise) are not being addressed. If you ban the party they voted for from the air it will simply make them feel even more disgruntled.
The Labour party should put up a big hitter to take apart the nonsense and bile of the BNP on QT and also address the issues which fester in many areas and which cause people to turn to them.
Three points for now:
1. This:
“The second complaint, that stopping the BNP appearing will play into the persecution complex of the far right ignores two things. First, if people are so far gone as to believe that the far right are the victims of persecution (e.g. Griffin’s comment that “It’s like a fascist state!” was the highest point in the history of irony) then not much rational argument will sway them. Secondly, playing for the remaining sane people who are watching, there are ways to protest and act to make it clear that those against the BNP are not a minority or cranks.”
Is IMO wrong, and puts carts before horses. Firstly, the BNP has constructed a successful myth of themselves as outsider underdogs battling a liberal elite. Griffin et al certainly go too far when they say it’s a fascist state, but the core message that BNP is a party for “ordinary white British people” has been successful, and has gone hand in hand with the underdog rebel image. Having the BBC – that bastion of establishment – refuse them a platform *will* strengthen that image of underdogs battling. Thus, the picture is more subtle than you allow (i.e. by saying Griffin et al are *only* engaged in the “fascist state” rhetoric. They’re not).
2. The BBC is constitutionally sworn to treat all parties equally. The BNP has two MEPs. Legally, the BBC can’t do a no platform. Whether Labour should adopt a no platform position is of course a different matter. But it’s worth noting how insulting this will seem to the tens of thousands of people who voted BNP: it’s a snub, saying “your party is not worth speaking to”. OK, we think that’s right. But it’s hardly likely to inspire agreement from those already supporting the BNP. It’s more likely to inspire resentment…and generate further BNP support. No-platform is not the way to win hearts and minds.
3. Question Time isn’t a debate show, it’s a sounding board for idiots, so all the arguments about whether the BNP can be beaten through debate via the BBC are full of shit. Post scheduled to go up at 9am tomorrow at Bad Conscience arguing precisely this (i.e. if we have an argument about the merits of debate, let’s not joke that QT is a debate forum).
Paul S. I am not asking the BBC to refuse them a spot. I am the trades unions to force the issue with the BBC – and these carry infinitely more authority in the eyes even of many BNP supporters, who often come from Labour backgrounds.
Incidentally, on your first objection, I wasn’t saying that the BNP were *only* overplaying their rhetoric.
As to your second objection, I understand that the BBC is constitutionally sworn to treat all parties equally. But it does not, period. Whether or not the average BNP supporter will take it as an affront should “their” representatives not be permitted to appear is something that can be handled in multiple ways other than simply allowing the BNP to appear.
I’m sure BNP supporters would be equally gratified if we banned immigration, but we’re not going to so they can live with it – meanwhile we can do other things to win them back.
As for three, well quite.
Chris Gale: So here’s what I’m proposing – let’s have our political fight to keep them off the air *and* couple it to the struggle to do something (like get rid of Labour’s leadership?) to tackle the material conditions from which fascism grows. You can’t have one without the other.
Good post Dave.
Interesting to the the difference in emphasis between UAF and Searchlight actually, the emphasis on direct community involvement with the latter vs. the attempted concentration on superstructural politics with regard to the former.
I am quite prepared to work with either, but I definitely oppose egg throwing. Violent front against fascism shouldn’t be opened by the left, but should of course be vigorously defended should they come to be in such a state via fascist aggression.
I agree with Miller 2.0, who puts it well esp the UAF thing.
Incidentally, Miller 2.0 needs to do the odd blogpost here now that TCF is soaring up the wikio numbers.
Dave,
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you were saying the BBC had an optino to no-platform (dunno, upon reflection, why I even wrote that bit).
“I am the trades unions to force the issue with the BBC – and these carry infinitely more authority in the eyes even of many BNP supporters, who often come from Labour backgrounds.”
Now this I can agree with. But I don’t think it necessarily constitutes a no-platform policy: the Trades Unions could do lots of things to draw attention to the horrors of the BNP, whilst saying “but by all means, let Griffin take the stand and show the world what a horrible little toe-rag he is”. Indeed, this might be even more effective if pre-empted by a concerted TU effort to expose him and his ilk for what they are.
Note that Griffin has an amazing aptitude for making himself look shit. Even on the debate-free zone of QT, he will probably put his own foot in his mouth. A big TU campaing ahead of this would probably make this more likely, because it could generate concrete, publicly-known charges for him to deal with on the night. So I guess my reply here, is, “why do you think the TU option works better with no platform than with?”
“Whether or not the average BNP supporter will take it as an affront should “their” representatives not be permitted to appear is something that can be handled in multiple ways other than simply allowing the BNP to appear.
I’m sure BNP supporters would be equally gratified if we banned immigration, but we’re not going to so they can live with it – meanwhile we can do other things to win them back.”
It’s surely about scales and degrees, and in turn tactics though? There’s a big difference between granting Griffin a platform and ending immigration! The former seems like a plausibly sensible strategic decision as part of a longer game – the latter would be a wholesale self-defeating capitulation. Saying we won’t do the latter so we shouldn’t do the former is bogus, given the asymmetries in play.
My piece went up much faster at LibCon than expected so no need to wait till tomorrow for my thoughts (i’m sure you were lying awake in anticipation, ahem). Mr Monkeyfish is being nice, as usual…
@Paul S. I agree, there is a question of scale and I do exaggerate. My point was simply, pissing off BNP supporters should be no bar to whatever action we take – whatever we do, short of granting them what they [think they] want will piss them off. So let’s piss them off and meanwhile tacklet their genuine material concerns.
As for asking the trades unions to tackle the BNP and this not necessarily constituting a “No Platform” policy, well you are right of course. As you will hear in Marxist circles, “No Platform” is a tactic, not a principle. I would say, however, that the tactic of challenging BNP appearances in the mainstream media and is pretty effective.
While I was at university, a radio station invited the BNP to appear on air. The radio station was using SU property at the time, and the President of the SU subsequently barred the interview. Rightly so, because SU policy – democratically chosen – was “No Platform”. In the ensuing debate, despite the reactionary role of the local student papers (crewed to the brim with tossers) and the national media, the elected representatives of the SU council, in a packed meeting, endorsed “No Platform”.
This is the sort of praxis I endorse: pontificating the theory online is fine, but subjecting it to the self-organisation of workers (in this case, students) is also necessary. This is what is lacking with UAF: the anti-fascist groups have not taken the next step, to organise local opposition, including pro-active measures to combat the causes of fascism.
Clearly, a large protest would be the most effective way of moving these debates from the blogosphere to mainstream media, but who will call it? Can we organise ourselves effectively and at short notice? My guess is that the BNP could mobilise their supporters at some speed. The possibility of direct action should also be considered, and promoted – the BBC would either have to broadcast the show in a media storm or record in private, both of which would detract attention from the content of the show.
UAF, Searchlight and the various members of various unions who are part of anti-fascist campaigns could mobilize such a demonstration quickly and effectively. Will they? I have no idea.
As for direct action, I am in favour of direct action – but the people taking it would have to have some organic connection to the workers on the show, lest we alienate people who could be huge allies.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it,” as Griffin’s most famous political forerunner once said. Allowing the BNP on national television to disseminate their sickening propaganda cannot be tolerated – the vast majority those who listen to them are immune to the forces of rational debate, and prefer rhetoric that suits their own prejudices to facts.