Return to: Home | Blogs | The God Blog

Question Time BNP: Disgusted -- but by Griffin's fellow panellists

They had the opportunity to show themselves to be better. And they blew it

I am the son of an immigrant. My close family includes Jews and Muslims as well as Christians. I oppose everything the BNP stands for. And I too feel disgusted about Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC1's Question Time on Thursday night - but not because he was invited to appear on a respected, high-profile national discussion programme. No. I am angry and ashamed that his fellow panelists, three senior members of our main Westminster parties and one leading cultural figure, acted in a way that betrayed the very principles that were invoked as reasons why the BNP leader should not have been on the programme.

Griffin 's views, it is argued, are beyond the pale. It was wrong to give him the oxygen of publicity and, by his presence on Question Time, tacitly accept his party as a legitimate element in mainstream political discourse. But he was there, and given that he was, it should have been ridiculously easy to demonstrate how repulsive his party is.

It should have been enough to confront him with past comments that have been recorded in a manner that makes them undeniable. It should have been enough to examine his party's stated policies, and its ludicrous elevation of an indigenous ethnicity in an island that has assimilated waves of immigrants for centuries. (They, after all, include such successful invaders, like the Normans and the Dutch of William of Orange, that history barely considers them to have been belligerents, as well as those actually invited to leave Britain's former colonies to take up jobs this country needed and who, along with their descendants, have contributed so much to our society and economy; not to mention, of course, our own royal family - whose surname would still be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha had anti-German sentiment in the First World War not made the change to Windsor seem prudent. "Royals go home" doesn't sound like much of a vote-winner.)

It should have been laughably straightforward for the panelists to debate with and destroy Griffin 's arguments. Instead, inflated by their outrage, the other speakers repeatedly interrupted, spoke over and cut short the BNP leader. They could have given him all the rope he needed to hang himself. By treating him as a pariah not even granted the liberty of finishing many of his sentences, never mind a particular proposition he was beginning to elaborate, they showed precisely the disregard for others and their views that they condemn in Griffin 's party.

Nearly one million people voted for the BNP in the Euro-elections. Whatever one thinks of their party's platform, they have a right to be heard. Some parties cannot be more "legal" than others. That is a consequence of living in a democracy, and it is part of cherishing the right to free speech. You persuade such people that they are wrong by discussion of what they say; and that means exactly what they say, not what it can be distorted into sounding like (the BNP's appropriation of Churchill was thus a weak example for its opponents to concentrate on, because so many of his statements and beliefs would be seen as racist and objectionable by the standards of our time).

In debate you extend every courtesy to the BNP that they might possibly curtail if they were in power. You merely rest on the force of your argument. And you do all this because you are confident in the superiority of your position, and that morality and good sense are all that is needed to show how odious Griffin's band of fascists actually are, however slick and more media-savvy they may seem compared to their predecessors.

On Question Time, however, we saw four men and women who occupy offices that convey the appearance or prospect of weighty national power and influence. And how did they show themselves to be better than this man, this outcast unfit to take part in our civilised political discourse? By using the bullying tactics so often deplored in those of Griffin 's ilk. By shouting him down. By indulging their indignation - never mind that in the process we lost the opportunity of hearing him condemn himself in his own words

Shame on them, I say. If BNP support increases as a result of Griffin 's appearance, they should reflect on the fact that it was they, not the BBC, that disgraced themselves on Thursday night.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

19 comments from readers

David Cain
23 October 2009 at 13:35

At last, today's most sensible take on the BBC QT fiasco and an eloquent voicing of the feelings many of us will be struggling with today - an abhorrence of BNP policies but disgust at the way they were treated. I fear the BNP can only gain from this.

Duckham
23 October 2009 at 14:22

Very interesting. I am on the other side of the world so did not see the show. Wrote a piece about it nevertheless as it seems to me not only was a chance missed, as the writer here explains, to grill Griffin professionally, but also a chance was missed, again, to further an important debate on immigration and integration and the demonisation of Islam. No further forward; no ideas. http://tiny.cc/JD979

Jason
23 October 2009 at 14:28

I'm afraid it was always destined to be thus.

No current politician would be permitted by his party to not participate in a popularity contest with no loser.

John Robertson
23 October 2009 at 14:32

The BNP is a very convenient smoke screen for the political mainstream in the UK. By embracing neo-liberal economic theory over more than twenty years and by sheepish allegiance to US global military strategy, they have done far more damage to the people of these islands and the unfortunate victims abroad than the BNP will ever achieve. Jack Straw taking the high moral ground - positively nauseating!

Attrition47
23 October 2009 at 15:21

~~~~~It should have been enough to confront him with past comments that have been recorded in a manner that makes them undeniable.~~~~~

They couldn't do this in case he was similarly equipped. His most effective opponent was Bonnie Greer, because she's a decent person. They other squalid stooges of the other cruel right-wing parties were in glass houses and knew it.

William
23 October 2009 at 16:24

The leader of the BNP played the Question Time fellow panelists according to what is legalese in the European Union, after all he is a member of their political ruling elite.

PHOLDINQUE
23 October 2009 at 18:24

Byrnes has nailed the only sensible take on this. Furthermore the demonstration outside the BBC was more akin to the sort of maniacal mobbery that seeks to deny and crush freedoms rather than defend it. This sort of blind bullying only creates an underdog and we all know they're far easier to root for.

Sholto Byrnes
23 October 2009 at 18:49

Pholdinque?! I have to ask, is it? I had an old friend who went by that nickname. If it is, unveil yourself old chap. You can make a reference to "the Hice" that will make it clear if you are...

Either way, thanks for the comment.

laura
23 October 2009 at 19:51

Dear Mr Byrnes

I totally agree with your opinion

last night's Question Time was a disgrace

What is the point of bringing on the leader of the BNP and only to confront him and belittle him with the same tactics that far right wing or extremist people use?

He was bullied left right and centre.

I can see now that this will give the BNP even more votes at the next election and why? Because Nick Griffin has come to represent the small man of Britain and he has manipulated that position - but the small man of Britain and yes he is probably white race is the grass roots people of the UK who have been bullied by the ruling elite and aristocracy for centuries, watch this space because Griffin may lead this country into political unrest and it won't be his fault, it will be the very heads of governments calling themselves 'fair' but ripping off the ordinary man and never telling the truth either.People have had enough of this bullying.

Dodie Buchanan
23 October 2009 at 20:44

Yes!!! - I agree so entirely with Byrnes article. I was so ashamed of the panel. They should have risen above bating and entered into civilised discussion. Only this way could they have defeated Griffin's views.

Helen Wright
23 October 2009 at 21:28

I was disgusted at Griffin's treatment. The panel, and especially Jack Straw, looked like they were hyenas on a feeding frenzy. I dislike the BNP, but I dislike the anti-democratic tactics of the UAF and Labour Party even less. Sad to say, Griffin got the sympathy of many working class people on my street and at work.

I must say though, I enjoyed the way Jack Straw squirmed when Griffin said Straw's grandfather refused to fight for Britain in the 2nd world war. I didn't know that. Now everyone does. And yet that tosser sends our sons and daughters to die for his sleezy government? That alone was worth the watching.

A friend today said, "If a vote for the BNP makes the other parties confront the high levels of immigration, then its worth the effort." She is right, isn't she?

Ben Walton
23 October 2009 at 22:29

I totally disagree with Sholto here. The panellists didn't shout Griffin down, and by and large Griffin did have plenty of long uninterrupted passages to set out his stall. What the panellists did do, however, was show their honest anger and disgust with BNP policies. Is there anything wrong with that? I thought one of the criticisms especially of Labour politicians in recent years was that they followed the "line to take" too much and sounded like robots. Last night on QT all three mainstream pols sounded at last like good old fashioned politicians of passion, giving vent to their real beliefs and feelings.

They (and the blessed Dimbleby) were also forensic in their preparation of damning evidence. Sholto should know by now that Griffin is a past master at subterfuge and has to be confronted vigorously. The Humphrys, Paxtons, Boultons and Marrs have conspicuously failed to do this so far. A more robust approach was called for.

Incidentally, it can't have been easy for any of them personally to be in the position of carrying the hopes and fears of all good anti-fascists on their shoulders. It could have gone badly wrong and given Griffin a boost. In the end, thank God, and thanks to the audience, Dimbleby and - yes - the panellists who spoke with authentic passion, Griffin looked like the weird fantasist and shifty thug that he is.

It's easy to carp, but would Sholto have done the deed that had to be done? It took real personal courage for Straw, Warsi and Huhne to step up to the mark. This was an important political moment, and the three politicians were not found wanting.

Mr Commonsense
24 October 2009 at 02:47

The truth is no one recognizes the essential goodness and sense of fair play that runs through our island people.If this has been manipulated by the elites of the establishment then do not underestimate the wrath of the people when they have been taken.The recent report on political shennagins and the hidden agenda of planned multiculturism may well be the swan song of the elites in the days of wrath to come.

John Carp
24 October 2009 at 13:50

Helen Wright -

Conscientious objectors can brave as anyone, simply in a different way. Why should what Jack Straw's father did in the war have any bearing on Jack Straw or his views?

Supercal
24 October 2009 at 17:48

In your column (NS 26th Oct) you quote Peter Hain as citing Griffin's criminal conviction. But baroness Warsi is a convicted criminal also, is she not? Leaving aside the 'convicted' bit, a significant number of MP's are also 'criminals', althogh not yet brought to book, (for mortgage fraud, fiddling HMRC et al). I looked up Wikapedia, to see why Ms. Warsi is a baroness in the first place. It seems that she was in practice as a 'specialist' solicitor. I don't think this means a cross section of multi-ethnic clients wanting conveyancing and 'getting off' car parking penalties...don't you? I smell tokenism here!

J.DRON
24 October 2009 at 18:23

We had the same problem in France twenty years ago with Le Pen. No doubt that his first appearance on French TV his party received a larger success particularly among old people. This appearance was inevitable after the electoral success his party- Front National-FN - had canvassing constituencies where immigration was growing and resented by the “natives.” It culminated in 2002 with Mr. Le Pen challenging Mr. Chirac on the second ballot where he received an 18% of the vote. But today the FN is slowly but surely loosing electors half of whom voted for Mr. Sarkozy.

Bill Griffin is exactly following the same path the FP was twenty years ago. His appearance on “Question time” was then inevitable. Would Bill Griffin enjoy the same political career? I have my doubts about that. He has not Mr. Le Pen’s charisma but he may improve his political image. He will probably, as Mr. Le Pen did with the French right, attract some regular Conservative voters. Will Gordon Brown do what Mr. Mitterand did to defeat the French Right making use of the FN to weaken The Right? The British electoral system prevents more or less that. Furthermore the majority of BNP voters comes from former Labour voters. BNP or FN vote is a protest vote.

Politicians whatever their side should be aware of that. Could Mr. Byrnes convince jobless white Britons in Liverpool or Newcastle not to vote for the BNP after they voted for The Labour then for The Conservative or The Lib-Dem to no avail?

Nationalism, racism and anti-sSemitism are chronic political diseases you cannot eradicate. Economic crisis always are the cause of political epidemics.

Peter Inness
26 October 2009 at 00:59

BNP racist? Er, excuse me, but Jack Straw voted to invade an Arab country on the basis of doctored intelligence reports and a pack of lies. A million Muslims and Kurds died as a result. In contrast, the BNP always opposed the war.

Spencer James
29 October 2009 at 11:34

I couldn't agree more with this article. There are many ways to fight racism but making a victim out of it's figurehead whilst he acts far more appropriately than you, is not one of them. Like religion, the most effective form of combat is to calmly educate people with the truth so that they can come to their own sensible conclusions. Bullying won't work for the BNP and it didn't work for Question Time either.

Emma
13 November 2009 at 11:28

I read this article and breathed a sigh of relief. This is the only common sense response I have read/heard to what happened on Question Time.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Who are you calling anti-Semitic?

17 November 2009 17:43

A giant leap forward for Muslim women

11 November 2009 17:23

Goldmans boss says he does "God's work"

09 November 2009 10:07

"Jesus was a leftie"

06 November 2009 17:37

It's official: faith in science is a belief

04 November 2009 15:43

Cameron on Blair and Europe

28 October 2009 10:53

Jewish: or just Jew-ish?

27 October 2009 12:30

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker