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. [Read more →]

Following the BBC’s revelation that it is considering inviting Nick Griffin of the British National Party onto Question Time, there has been much angry debate. Sunny Hundal is firmly against it, and in the Guardian summarises the liberal “myths” that are posed as good reasons to have him on the show. The first and perhaps most obvious of these is: “the BNP’s arguments can be defeated through rational argument.” That in itself is not a myth: their arguments can be defeated through rational argument. After all, most reasonable people rightly think that the BNP’s views and policies are unjustified and evil. What Hundal means to say is “the BNP’s supporters can be converted through rational argument.” I have very little doubt that Sunny Hundal’s view on the matter is correct: there is no possible use of logic that can convert someone committed to such illogic. The BNP’s supporters, as he rightly says, are driven to their position by emotion, not reason—but they were driven to their position in the first place. Hardly any politician convinces by logical reasoning: why not apply their rhetorical and political skill in this case? [Read more →]