Posted on by qscrisp

BNP Question Time

Just watched Question Time on the BBC iPlayer, since I don't have a TV.

I imagine the whole thing will appear on YouTube soon, for those who can't watch the BBC iPlayer and are interested in the state of British politics.

I don't have any particular comments except that, the member of the panel who 'came off best' in my view was the only non-politician, Bonnie Greer.

Addendum: Ah, the whole thing's up on YouTube now, as predicted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZlSAC8_cMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCAdS6gVZjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgG5W7VVR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Nbwi4KZBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3gDnq9E4vw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jQsTtbR1OU

Further addendum

I said I didn't have any particular comments on the programme. This is largely because I'm not very politically motivated and don't think I'm well informed enough to add anything to what other people have said. However, I've decided to jot down a few thoughts.

I think I'm interested in this issue – the media's relationship with the BNP – primarily because I am a writer (sorry to have to say that, as if I'm wearing a badge), and therefore, by my very nature, I am deeply concerned with issues of free speech. My feeling is that racism (as imputed to the BNP, for instance) is an issue that is understood by more people and to a relatively greater degree, than free speech, which, it seems to me, hardly anyone can grasp or understand. That's because the average human being is incapable of empathising with the enemy. Inevitably, this means that free speech, for the average person, of whatever political persuasion, becomes, "You have the right to say anything you want as long as I'm not offended by it." Clearly, this is not free speech at all. (I'm adding this some time later. I've actually been thinking about how the issues of free speech and racism are very closely related, and in complex ways. Perhaps, rather than racism, I should use a broader term like 'cultural friction' or 'cultural and racial prejudice' or something. People try to deny free speech to others in the power plays that take place within cultural conflicts.)

Watching the broadcast of Question Time posted above, I felt there were strong overtones of what Heidegger called 'Das Man'. People were saying what they thought they should say (especially true of the politicians, of course).

I have searched my heart and I find there no hatred for Nick Griffin. This might be surprising, considering I am quite capable of hatred for other political and public figures who probably (possibly?) are less malign in intent. But then, to compare Griffin to someone with whom he is often compared, I find in my heart no hatred for Hitler. Hitler's name has become a byword for evil – a cliche. He is no longer a human being. It is often said that in order to make us hate our enemies, the politicians and media dehumanise them. It seems to me that the very reason I cannot hate Nick Griffin and Adolf Hitler is because they have been dehumanised. (Incidentally, my impression is that Griffin is not really comparable to Hitler.)

Even if I wanted to hate them, others have already done the job too well for me, and it would be redundant of me to add any hatred.

This gives rise to the question, is it obligatory to hate Nick Griffin, and if so, why?

I would suggest that if it is obligatory to hate Nick Griffin then something very dubious is taking place – a very insidious form of censorship.

Another reason I am interested in this issue is that, particularly since having lived in Japan, I am often preoccupied by questions of identity, diversity and tolerance (for instance, can and should we tolerate intolerance?). In simplified form, I think there is a human dilemma (or question) that goes something like this: Will there always be conflict as long as there is identity? If so, what is to be valued most, identity or peace? And, if identity does not automatically equal conflict, then at what point in the interactions of different identities do conflicts occur? In short, should we all be the same, or is it okay (better?) if we are all different?

This is a dilemma that to me also relates to my interest in the difference between Western and Eastern religion, philosophy, society and so on. Chesterton outlines the elements of that difference brilliantly as follows:

A short time ago Mrs. Besant, in an interesting essay, announced that there was only one religion in the world, that all faiths were only versions or perversions of it, and that she was quite prepared to say what it was. According to Mrs. Besant this universal Church is simply the universal self. It is the doctrine that we are really all one person; that there are no real walls of individuality between man and man. If I may put it so, she does not tell us to love our neighbours; she tells us to be our neighbours. That is Mrs. Besant's thoughtful and suggestive description of the religion in which all men must find themselves in agreement. And I never heard of any suggestion in my life with which I more violently disagree. I want to love my neighbour not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I. I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one's self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship. If the world is full of real selves, they can be really unselfish selves. But upon Mrs. Besant's principle the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person.

There's more, but I won't quote the whole thing here.

If Chesterton is right and it is the Western impulse to love what is different rather than to make something the same in order to love it, then mine is decidedly the Western impulse. Of course, that's a big 'if'. It might be hard to find love when one looks at the oppression and conflicts of Western history, and even if I claim the ideal of loving difference as my own, it is, so to speak, a different matter as to whether I can actually live that ideal. Nick Griffin's impulse would appear to be not to love what is different. In that sense, he is different to me (at least as in terms of ideals and expressed views). What, then, is my attitude to him to be if I wish to adhere to the principle of loving what is different? (Yes, the old question of whether we tolerate intolerance.)

I have noted the language that the media and public figures have used in relation to Nick Griffin. They seem to feel the need to attach epithets such as "squalid" and "chilling". To me, these epithets are redundant and seem designed to score points in a pharisaical manner. If you describe what appear to be Griffin's intentions and his actions to the best of your ability, there is no need for such epithets. On the programme, one audience member suggested that Griffin should go to Antarctica. In short, this is the failure of integration – it is war. The question is, is war inevitable? Again, does identity always mean conflict?

15 Replies to “BNP Question Time”

  1. I thought the programme was a shambles. David Dimbleby gave the usual lefty-liberal BBC stance, Jack Straw was an inarticulate rambling fool – the best speaker in my opinion was Baroness Warsi. I have seen and heard Bonnie Greer before and wondered why we would want to hear the views of an American – some oblique reference to the US racism issues perhaps? . My impression of Griffin is that he is no Mosley. I like your blog – I enjoy your wide range of views and observations.

  2. Thanks for commenting.I agree that Jack Straw doesn’t look good in this, and it’s remarkable that he shouldn’t look good since, I imagine, one of his primary motivations for appearing on the programme must have been to make himself look good in comparison to Nick Griffin. I think Question Time has a tradition of inviting a mix of people who are ‘relevant’ to whatever issues are set to be on the agenda, and kind of ‘wild card’ guests. Having said that I’m not sure that Bonnie Greer is a ‘wild card’ here. After all, she does live and work in the UK, while at the same time being from a different culture, so can give an outsider’s view with a fair amount of inside knowledge. It’s hard to tell how much self-consciousness was at work (it would be hard to believe that there was none at all) in having Bonnie Greer sit next to Nick Griffin. Anyway, I thought she came across well. I think that this broadcast was always going to be something of a shambles because of the extremely emotive nature of the issues, but I found it to be an interesting shambles. I didn’t get the impression of Nick Griffin as a very strong person, actually. He seemed to need to ingratiate himself (and has now complained of being bullied). I don’t think his party are as much of a threat, therefore, as the protesters seem to fear.

  3. Hey Quentin thank you for this reply – it’s good to have a rational discussion. I have been used to such drivel elsewhere – long story. I am very interested in politics, the arts and music. Anyway back to Bonnie Greer – although the BBC in my opinion attempted to gang-stalk the pathetic character which is Griffin she didn’t relate to the target audience which is the working class. That’s the BNP target. That’s where the BNP votes come from now and in the future. In the past Thatcher soaked them up (National Front votes that is) when she appealed over immigration and council houses etc. The Conservatives will not do that next time under Cameron and Labour and the Liberals are out of it.But Bonnie transmits a patronising American view point in my opinion. I could and can be wrong but that’s the way I perceived her minimal contribution. The audience were the best – frank without a riot. Rob

  4. Hello Rob.I see what you mean about Greer’s contribution being minimal. I suppose I felt it was a sympathetic minimal contribution. Warsi, of those on the panel, was the most forcefully consistent and clear, but I’m not sure I really trust her. Well, I’m not sure I can name a politician I could say that I do trust. I think there was some question from David Dimbleby that she skillfully avoided early on, and I’ve forgotten what it was. Looking her up on Wikipedia now, I think it might have been connected to her position on homosexuality in law and in education:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeeda_Warsi,_Baroness_Warsi#CriticismBut I’d have to watch the show again because I can’t actually remember.The show kind of got onto the issue of the working class (poverty, at least, was mentioned as a factor for those voting BNP), and this seems to be the crux of the matter – that the working class do feel betrayed enough to vote BNP.

  5. Hi Quentin – indeed – it’s the lower income bracket which will perceive progress, a step towards the “God knows what” philosophy of geopolitics – but be rest assured it will be of the Right. Baroness Warsi may have slight of kilter views on homosexuality but the majority counts as it always does in our culture. On that basis Griffin may perhaps grow votes or if the Blue Politic blossom then it will be curtains for a rather toothless Fascist I feel. Great blog site – you are an interesting gentleman. Rob.

  6. Thank you, Rob.I’ve just been looking through related clips. This one’s interesting in that the only one on the panel who stands up for free speech is the Muslim who is presumably supposed to be most offended:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b2iOhfYpUQ&NR=1Also found this amusing cut-up of the BNP Question Time:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7CcTz37YfsI have to say, despite suspicions and reservations I find Baroness Warsi personally attractive.

  7. Just re-watched part of it. I think it was the question about the Gately article on which she seemed slightly evasive, after all (not at the beginning of the programme), but I think this was basically summed up in that Wikipedia link. I’m not sure if there was something else, as I only caught that bit by chance while going through the YouTube clips of the show to post just now.

  8. Hi Quentin – Thank you for the two interesting clips – the first coincidently pulls into focus another interesting subject I took an interest in – Geert Wilders – here was a politician from another EU country being banned from entering this country – when other perhaps more loathsome creatures have been – think in terms of Red Ken Livingstone and his welcoming of Irish nationalist terrorists/murderers for example. Baroness Warsi I feel has a golden future even if there were to be hung Parliament next year. She will be snapped up by the punch-drunk Gormless Brown by then – if he is allowed out of the almost dead Labour Party stocks by then – covered in eggs and rotten tomatoes!Rob

  9. Just been reading through various news stories in the aftermath of the BNP Question Time. Looks like there’s still a lot of dust to settle. I hope we don’t see a violent turn in events.

  10. I’ve just remembered another thing that bothered me. I’ll have to re-watch it before I can really give details, but I have a notion that when Warsi said that Nick Griffin was confused in his attitude to Islam she was somehow exposing her own Achilles’ heel. I’m not sure why – there was just something odd about it. I don’t know how reliable the source is, but in the Wikipedia article she’s quoted as saying that the BNP have some good points – something she would never have said directly on Question Time the other night, I feel. Maybe Griffin’s confusion is a mirror of her own.

  13. Oh damn! I haven’t got round to this yet – tomorrow – I promise I am doing a post-it note to self right now! It’s 20:14 and I’m just going out – tomorrow it is … Rob … your blog’s great! Not enough hours in the day …

  14. Hi Quentin – I found this interesting clip through Wikio/YouTube …http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjNIrolsgRwIn the words of Jagger/Richards … “you cant always get what you want” …. Perhaps the good points you were thinking about were that of her belief in free speech. Coincidently I pick up on this point of free speech in our society through an experience of an event in my life on my own blog … “Some time ago …” piece. The way people communicate especially in times of conflict and stress fascinates me. Years ago I read an excellent book called Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown – a cornerstone reference to me on communication, negotiation, mediation and diplomacy. Rob.

  15. Hello.Thanks for the link. I followed a trail of clips from it. Of course, the fact that words have come from Nick Griffin’s mouth don’t make them wrong. I believe he recently spoke about the invasion of Iraq as being an illegal war. I don’t know enough about international law to say whether or not that is true, but, from a human point of view, it certainly seems to me that the war was a crime.I had the feeling about the Question Time programme that no one on it would have even felt able to say, “Yes, but…”, instead feeling that they had to say, simply, “No”. (This is one thing I wondered about, if Warsi had previously expressed sympathy with a BNP policy or policies before, as the Wikipedia article suggested.)If conflict is to be avoided at all then I think it can only be through freedom of speech. If speech is not free then people necessarily resort to other means. I’m sure you know this, anyway.I’ll see if I can find that piece you mention.

Leave a Reply