After the furore over Nick Griffin’s Question Time appearance has died down somewhat, perhaps we might be able to see more clearly its potential consequences for the British political landscape. Dianne Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, argues in The Independent that it was not the triumph for free speech that “white metropolitan liberals” tend to think it was. On the contrary, she says that it “legitimised” Griffin, and brought his extreme views a level of acceptance they would not otherwise have achieved. She makes the point that although Griffin has the right to express his views however he sees fit within the law, it is by no means his right to appear on the BBC with other “legitimate” politicians. That is true enough; however the reason for his appearance was not only the fact that he represents a small minority of voters, but also that he would inevitably expose his views for how ignorant and unacceptable they really are.

Although Abbott speaks confidently about “legitimisation”, she provides no real evidence for her thesis, and indeed fails to make clear what she means by it. What does it mean, really, to say that Griffin has become legitimised? In any case, does it not show—especially for a politician—a worrying faithlessness in democracy that merely because a political party is legitimised we must all fear that the ignorant British public won’t be able to resist the deviously seductive call of the siren-like British National Party? To extend the metaphor: surely Griffin’s appearance is rather the political equivalent of a map of the seas, which if a sailor should look at closely enough, he will know to avoid the sirens entirely.

So then, what does Abbott mean by “legitimate”? It may seem obvious. And perhaps it was obvious to Abbott when she wrote the piece. What she means by it, probably, is “to be treated the same as other politicians.” If that is what she meant, then clearly that isn’t the case. By devoting the show almost entirely to Griffin and his party, that’s a very clear statement that they’re treating him very differently to other politicians. Furthermore, it implies that there won’t be many editions of Question Time in which Griffin gets a say at all. If they were to legitimise him in the above sense, then they would have to have spoken on topics unrelated to the BNP, and Griffin would merely contribute his opinion like the rest of the panel. If his treatment on Question Time is legitimisation, then he is now the most legitimate politician in Britain.

This kind of legitimisation is no bad thing. Griffin is still very clearly cast as an outsider in the political realm, and such appearances as we witnessed on Thursday will only happen very rarely if at all. The British public still won’t be as exposed to his views as often as they would be to those of the three major parties. At the same time, they would be thoroughly more exposed to them than before, and if the BNP is as much of a threat as many think, then that can only be a good thing.

Perhaps the only risk with this kind of very limited legitimisation is that political debate may well focus more than it previously did on the BNP’s policies. This would only be something to fear if these policy discussions crowded out all other subjects. But that is unthinkable—after all, the BNP’s policies deal with a very limited range of issues, and as important as immigration is, it is not quite on the same level as extracting the country from the economic mess, an area which as far as I know Griffin has no proposed solutions for.

Abbott writes of Thursday’s Question Time that “although they were denouncing the man, the debate stayed firmly on territory delineated by the BNP. Thus does the introduction of the BNP into mainstream discourse drag our politics further rightward.” A very strong statement to make, by any measure, and yet again she offers no proof. Apparently, the BNP are a vicious animal introduced into a helpless, New Zealand-like ecosystem in which the animals have lost the ability to defend themselves. The discussion on the show may have been in some sense dragged rightward, but only in the same way that a Tory would be dragged leftward in a debate with a Labour politician. One of the major reasons for the BNP’s rise is the fact that they can walk unchallenged in policy areas that the other parties don’t dare to tackle directly. The occasional injection of extremist fringes into mainstream discussion can only be a healthy thing for our collective immune system, acting like a vaccine and better equipping us to fight.

Certainly, a one-hour public debate can do but little to change the views of anyone. But is this reason enough not to invite Griffin on? It seems to me that it is not. Democracy is based on the fundamental principle, whether true or not, that the people are capable of coming to their political positions with all the information at their disposal. BNP supporters probably don’t much listen to any of the major three parties. Perhaps if Griffin came on, they would at least listen to them, and thus have more information to chew on.

The major parties probably don’t do much talking to Nick Griffin’s fan base. Although they are still (and will probably remain) a small minority, and perhaps a waste of time to try to dissuade, some engagement could have positive results. Without engagement, it is difficult to know the causes of their views. One can spend years publishing pamphlets and making speeches, and make no discernible difference. But with direct engagement, one can at least cause BNP supporters to question the basis of their beliefs. Is it so naive to think that some may see these foundations for how shaky they are? If any BNP supporters make up part of the audience on Griffin’s possible appearance, then presumably there is a possibility that they do want to hear opposing views, if only to shut them down more vociferously. That may be better than wanting only to hear Griffin’s views, un-contrasted with those of other politicians. It is generally the attitude of a politically minded person that they would like to hear their spokesperson defend their view, if only to become better able to defend it themselves.

In any event, Question Time is hardly the ideal forum for such noble-minded examples of democracy. For all its pretensions of being a serious debating program, it patently is not. Topics are rarely discussed in any depth, and whenever they are in danger of doing so, the ravenous nature of the crowd puts a disappointing halt to it. Almost certainly, the BNP will be violently mocked and insulted by those who hate them, and valiantly defended by those who don’t. A more serious political debating show would hardly be better: it would presumably only be watched by the sort of person who does not take the BNP’s views seriously anyway.

Whether Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time (yet to be secured) will have a positive effect is doubtful. However, it is equally unlikely that the effect will be negative. Indeed, the only likely negative consequence is the fury from those who are against his appearance as a matter of principle. Yet it is surely a matter of even greater principle to allow Griffin on the panel. If we have any faith in our democracy, let us seek to prove it. Surely it is strong enough to withstand such a minor shock to its system.