Thoughts on politics and life from a liberal perspective

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Would the BNP "No Platform" this?

Peter Black AM draws our attention to a very interesting suggestion from a correspondent to The Guardian yesterday regarding the BNP's appearance on BBC's Question Time:


If the BBC is to invite the BNP on to Question Time, might I suggest that the other political parties all send non-white Britons to represent their point of view, to further emphasise how extreme is the BNP view of the country. Also, it is likely that the BNP would in turn "refuse to share a platform" with such people.

Andy Hunter
Hull

Peter thinks this is well worth a try and I am inclined to agree. The question is as Andy asks, if this was what was on the table, would Griffin "No Platform" the idea?

9 comments:

Jon Harvey said...

possible line up with Griffin?

Peter Tatchell
Shami Chakrabarti
Lord Victor Adebowale
Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones
David Steele

Malcolm Todd said...

I think it's extremely unlikely that Griffin would "no platform" a panel composed of ethnic minorities. He'd be delighted to show up and send the unspoken message that the BNP is the natural home of white people.
Either continue to shut him out and hope their moment in the sun passes quickly, or send big hitters (of any background) to debate him and make sure they're on top of their game. - From Jon's list, Shami Chakrabarti strikes me as a very strong candidate. But please, not Peter Tatchell, the man's a liability and can make almost anyone seem reasonable.

Jon Harvey said...

the purpose of Question Time is to have a good debate - Peter Tatchell would make it very good TV!

captainff said...

"BBC invites elected MEP to Question Time panel shock!"

Surely in this age of equality we should be treating Griffin the same as everyone else? Or is equality only available to certain people?

I don't agree with the policy positions of many of the guests on the show, a situation that many of you probably find yourselves in, but the idea of loading the panel against one specific guest is one of the the most ridiculous suggestions I've heard.

Ryan said...

They had better keep the discussion to race and social issues. Much of the audience might get a shock if Griffin gets to talk about economics.

Matthew Huntbach said...

I fear this would enable the BNP to turn it into a "blacks v. whites" discussion, with themselves as the "voice of white people". So I feel it would be better if the case against them were made by at least one white person, though I agree it needs also at least one nonwhite panelist.

Mark Reckons said...

Actually the more I think about it, the more I agree that having all the other panelists from BME backgrounds could backfire but certainly having a couple would be a very good idea and would represent how far we have come in this country and make Griffin look very isolated with his hopeless politics.

Anonymous said...

I see no reason why Griffin would 'No Platform' this proposal. Without wishing to sound like an apologist, the BNP are at least willing to confront their opponents regardless of their origin.

It would serve them well to be surrounded by a group of minorities as it would illustrate the mentality shown towards those who wish to represent the majority.

As a white christian hetero. male, I must admit, life for me seems somewhat restricted. It would seem I am to pay for the apparent sins of our fathers. If this is the modern understanding of equality - count me out.

Andrew Hickey said...

Anonymous - grow up. I'm a white hetero male, and those things have *NEVER* in any way impeded my life - quite the opposite (I went to a school where girls were limited to 1/3 of places, I was able to marry rather than enter a civil partnership, which made getting my wife a visa to stay here infinitely easier, etc etc).

On the other hand, my life has been *improved* no end by women, GLBT people, and members of ethnic minorities being treated as equals, in a myriad ways from little things like being able to buy a kebab easily at all times to huge things like my transgendered friends not being in constant fear for their lives.

If your life is so restricted by merely having *some* advantages over the bulk of the population, rather than having a *lot* of advantages over them, may I suggest that that's because the things you otherwise would have done would have been hurtful and against your professed religion anyway?