Quite right, it was one of the most tedious issues of my time at university was constantly hearing about “no platform policies” and how if we stopped the BNP from talking at our university some how their views would never be heard by innocent ears.

Frankness and openness is what is needed in society, not fear and cotton wool

What he said. Exactly.

At the moment we have the ridiculous situation where being ‘anti-fascist’ is equated with being against freedom of speech because of the prevalence of “no platform” pillocks, who make up in hyperbole and loudness what they lack in effectiveness.

I think I disagree.

I agree whole heartedly that the BNP is best beaten by the Labour Party operating at its best. Contrast Newham to Barking and Dagenham for a perfect illustration.

Newham faces no BNP threat because its local Labour run authority has kept in touch with local people, community groups, and issues. B&D has BNP councillors because its local labour run authority did none of the above.

however

I also think that when confronted with fascism and racism everybody has a duty to do all within his or her power to oppose it.

For some of us that just means campaigning on the streets and joining anti-nazi league rallies as we don’t have any other power available to us. For printers though, that means turning down their contracts.

So it seems quite reasonable for those of us doing the only honourable thing (opposing fascism) to condemn those with greater power to hurt the BNP that don’t do the same.

The only criticism I could level at the newspaper is that morally perhaps they should be running counter articles to pretty much everything the BNP publishes, however then you have a situation where the BNP are paying to have a debate against their policies not paying to advertise. Now of course the ideal situation therefore could only be that the newspaper takes the BNPs money, but gives the other parties a heads up about the advert’s inclusion and therefore the opportunity for direct counter-advertising.

Business wise, if it’s taken up the newspaper obviously benefits, and it also keeps its integrity in my eyes. Furthermore if the parties contacted then don’t bother to counter-advertise then that is their issue and not that of the papers in a country where we have some element of freedom of expression and free press.

Lee

Is there not a moral ambiguity introduced by paying for free press?

After all – this newspaper is not in a position to ban the BNP printing leaflets and posting them through doors. It is however in a position to not publish their campaign material but has decided to do so because the have had their palms greased with silver.

And hence my view that the paper should do all within its power to oppose fascism – and in return for cash it is not doing so.

The problem I have with this analysis is that it is contrary to how political campaigning actually works.

Every political party wants to get a high profile, be able to advertise, have their ideas talked about and set the terms of the debate. When they succeed in doing this, they get more votes than when they don’t. This is particularly true of minor parties.

If the BNP gets a higher profile and more support, and manage to move away from the fringes, other parties respond by co-opting some of their ideas, policies and rhetoric (Hodge’s comments were one example of this). The BNP are buying advertising in local newspapers in London because it will help them get more votes.

Sorry, I meant to write market, not press! There is nothing morally reprehensible for the paper to print such adverts, indeed I think it would have an argument about serving all of their readership and therefore some kind of moral obligation for an inclusion of anything that can be deemed legal that would represent those readers views.

Now how it goes about printing them is another issue, and I’m sure the paper did little to think about “balancing the debate”. But really, what does it matter? I hear more on the news about Labour MPs and the like complaining about the BNP getting their views heard somehow (and then ironically both drawing more attention to what was said as well as again creating the platform for the BNP to say they aren’t fascists as they’re the ones being silenced) than I hear about Labour MPs or the like actually initiating campaigns, or press releases, or anything similar that destructs what the BNP are saying.

There’s too much wining on this issue, as if complaining about a need for hypocritical double standards in politics actually engages the public, too much in the way of quick fixes being touted as “morally correct” when I for one believe there is nothing moral or ethically correct about the stance of censorship through “peer” pressure of legitimate (if not reprehensible) views, and not enough actually finding a way to engage with those likely to vote BNP.

Don: The trouble is not that the BNP gets airtime, it’s that others do nothing about it. If the BNP puts one ad in a newspaper then Labour, Lib Dems and Tories (and whoever else has the cash and wants to win) need to put several adverts in several newspapers. If they haven’t the cash to spend on it then firstly, why not? and secondly it doesn’t cost anything for a representative to go and talk to key demographics and engage with them. It doesn’t cost anything to write a letter to the newspaper to make their views on why the advert is morally corrupt known…and I’d love to see a newspaper that didn’t both love the potential sales of a “spat” inside their covers and is so truly devoid of current affairs knowledge that they wouldn’t print such a response.

The question ultimately is why is it that some of you feel that if the BNP get more votes because a bunch of people see an advert, that it is the fault of anyone but BNP’s political opposition that such an event has happened.

I’m not convinced that the threat of the BNP is greater than the opportunity it presents for those who classify themselves as on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Labour has long had a tendency to keep silent on subjects like these until election time comes round and they find they have difficulty defining themselves on the doorstep – then, suddenly they find they have a trump card up their sleeves, and, as if by magic ‘Labour – not fascist’ comes the clarion and the call for class warfare to defeat racial war comes out as if on cue. Headlines follow aplenty and any collapse is nicely cushioned.

Ever had a feeling you’ve been conned?

I’m not surprised that Labour feels threatened by right-wing fascists, however, as a large portion of the BNP constituency is with old-style Labour voters – it just shows how close they really are.

So – BNP awareness should really be taken as a measure of failure by the mainstream parties and Cllr Blackwell is a troll-feeder.

Sunny is in favour of letting the BNP behave like any other political party on largely pragmatic grounds. On pragmatic grounds, I hope that the media concerned are insisting on cash on the nail. The record shows that far right promises to pay often bounce.

On grounds of the principles we are conspiring for, I say “I abominate their views, but I wll fight for their right to express them.” Putting ads in newspapers is non-violent, and therefore OK.

Lee and Thomas

I have to question some of your assumptions here.

For a start – what on earth makes you think “others do nothing about it” or “Labour has a long tendancy to keep silent”?

That certainly isn’t my understanding. Trade Unions in particular are constant vocal opponents of the BNP and always were of the National Front. Likewise for Student Unions and groups like the Anti-Nazi League.

Returning to Newham as with my earlier example (A poverty stricken region of East London with no BNP presence despite high unemployment after the loss of the docks) . That success is entirely because of Labour, the largest party in the area by far. Far from the complancency of some local governments, Newham’s local authority has built strong connections to local community groups and has focused well on the sorts of issues that local people care about, despite being one of the poorest local authorities in the country.

They do in effect write to local newspapers, send councillors to speak with community groups, and remain loud rather than silent all the time.

—-

all that aside

Lee – you therefore seem to think that as long as profit is involved, private companies should form no moral judgement about clients who, by their financial agreement, they support in achieving their aims.

Presumably Barclay’s financial underwriting of Zimbabwe’s violent land reforms recently is perfectly moral then?

Thomas – ignoring that you have just compared the only major party with black MPs before this century started of being close to the BNP – If you condemn all those who oppose the BNP for being opportunistic then what does that leave?

Diversity

But if that paper was your responsibility – would you not feel reprehensible for propogating those views?

M4E,

I’m sorry that you only read half a sentence before exploding and then used generalisations to insist your point is the correct one, because I think if you want to skewer your political opponents it helps to be accurate in your criticism.

Please explain why election time concentrates Labour’s collective mindset against the easy target that is the BNP (of course there will be honorable exceptions like your example in Newham, but that only highlights the failure of the rest)? Does this not suggest that any ideological opposition is more a dog-whistle issue than a real interest? Doesn’t my point about the voter overlap between Labour and BNP indicate anything more than coincidence?

It is more than an opportunistic strategy by Labour, it is a deliberately programmed automatic response to divide opinion and gain by subtraction.

We have seen all the old music hall methods of manipulating voters perceptions come out during this election campaign, what with the hopeless ease that the Green party fell for the message and were subverted to become Labour attack-dog and cannon-fodder proxies as the clearest example (are they having second-thoughts now that they’ve done the deed and it’s left a guilty taste in their mouth?).

Labour hardly pays any more than lip-service to the opinion of its Trade Union paymasters for the rest of the year – it’s only when push comes to shove that the activists need appeasement.

So why is it possible to believe there is no coherent pattern involved?

It is part of the strong anti-democratic tendency within Labour – the part that twists itself in knots when trying to remain popular while justifying unjustifiable policies.

First, I’m not sure there’s evidence that a higher profile of the BNP translates to votes. Its not as if people are unaware they exist or what they stand for. The problem seems to be that they’re used as a protest vote. In which case, why are the mainstream parties failing those voters?

Secondly, it already looks like many in the Labour high-command prefer to adopt the BNP’s arguments than challenge them head on. This applies to asylum seekers and immigrants (nicking jobs, taking houses, scroungers etc) and ignoring working class concerns on falling living standards.

I quite like the fact that sometimes Labour sounds like the BNP. I’m not saying it does all the way throughout, and its right to point out that the Trade Unions have done the most to challenge the fascists.

But the no-platform policy doesn’t seem to be working in a modern era – where directly rebutting their ideas is more important than not providing legitimacy. Otherwise, the right-wing papers seem to like playing games and constantly find excuses to plug the BNP. In this case, will allowing the BNP an ad really make much of a difference?

But it does appese the activists who agitate and deliver leaflets – it’s more of an internal motivating device for the Labour electoral organisation than something the leadership cares about.

So, taking an ad in the Ham&High is a logical device directly designed to provoke the maximum audience of a particular segment of half-hearted armchair supporters with large disposable incomes.

Labour has a vested interest in racism remaining on the political agenda – conservatives and right-wingers are guilty by association and don’t have a leg to stand on, while third-parties can be painted as an electoral liability with no hope.

It would be interesting evidence to have a recording of the management meeting which came to the decision, as much as it would be to know the hand-in-glove links that produced the MediaGuardian article.

Though I won’t go so far as to accuse Glenda Jackson or Cllr Blackwell of pandering to prejudice (partly because the real culprit is institutional), please feel free to take notes on how to whip up a mouth-frothing storm while remaining above the fray.

Sunny,

“I’m not sure there’s evidence that a higher profile of the BNP translates to votes.”

If higher profile doesn’t translate to support, why do political parties try to raise their profile? Indeed, why do companies advertise?

“Its not as if people are unaware they exist or what they stand for.”

Worth remembering that quite a lot of people can’t name more than 1 or 2 politicians, and can’t think of a single example of a policy from the Tory Party (indeed, some people under 25 hadn’t even heard of the Tories), so plenty will be unaware of the BNP, which is a fringe party. Many people don’t know that there are elections on the 1st May, either.

“it already looks like many in the Labour high-command prefer to adopt the BNP’s arguments than challenge them head on”

There’s been nothing this year to compare with Margaret Hodge’s idiocy 2 years ago.

More generally, Labour’s recent policies include allowing the biggest migration of people to Britain ever, civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people and big increases every year in the amount of taxpayers’ money which goes to people in Africa. This isn’t really ‘adopting the BNP’s arguments’.

‘the no-platform policy doesn’t seem to be working in a modern era’

The Hackney Gazette’s backed down and isn’t publishing the BNP’s election adverts. I’m not even sure this is really an example of no-platform, seems to me more like good old consumer pressure.

“More generally, Labour’s recent policies include allowing the biggest migration of people to Britain ever, civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people and big increases every year in the amount of taxpayers’ money which goes to people in Africa. This isn’t really ‘adopting the BNP’s arguments’.”

Well policies created because of european law aside, the BNP support the NHS…does this mean they aren’t an evil party after all? For as many anecdotes we can quip here about singular instances of non-fascist and non-civil rights infringing policy in either party, there is still a wealth of more authoritarian policy that both parties can be called on, unfortunately for Labour much more in recent history than the past. Of course it swings both ways, but isn’t the over-riding point here that Labour really aren’t whiter than white?

“That certainly isn’t my understanding. Trade Unions in particular are constant vocal opponents of the BNP and always were of the National Front. Likewise for Student Unions and groups like the Anti-Nazi League.”

I’m not saying that they don’t say anything, I am saying they say the WRONG things. I’ve mingled with those student groups all too much and while the (marginal) majority are reasonable enough to not support no-platform in terms of who turns up politically active, there are too many of the really vocal students barking about throwing BNP supporters off of their courses and shunning them from the university. I continuously found this highly amusing, but frequent and prevalent. I’ve no doubt there are soles in the Labour party and around the country that do things properly, but it is my distinct opinion that the majority are lazy hypocrites when it comes to the BNP.

Is this because they see too many similarities, see the BNP as a nuisence rather than a threat, or honestly think ironic stances on freedom of speech will work? I don’t know.

“They do in effect write to local newspapers, send councillors to speak with community groups, and remain loud rather than silent all the time.”

Then what’s the problem? The paper has made some money for an advert that should for all intents and purposes be ignored. Some would call that shrewd business!

“you therefore seem to think that as long as profit is involved, private companies should form no moral judgement about clients who, by their financial agreement, they support in achieving their aims.”

I think they are free to make whatever choice they make, if they choose to be moral then great…depending on who’s morals you’re talking about. From what I’ve read they were extremely sensitive over the issue, but even if they did so without any moral inclination then I still fail to see the problem. If people don’t like it they will complain, or more effectively be disgusted and vote with their feet (or wallets). If they DO like it then I return to my point about a local newspaper needing to service the views and needs of the local community it contributes to.

“Presumably Barclay’s financial underwriting of Zimbabwe’s violent land reforms recently is perfectly moral then?”

That’s a little different, being an international issue upon which no-one else has any real sway over outcomes of. But if you want a definition from me, a company taking profit from anything that infringes on peoples human rights is where I’d draw the line.

An advert for a political party doesn’t really fall in to that category for me, directly or otherwise, because if the actions of “profiteering” by private companies through advert sales are the most major influence, directly or otherwise, of policy in the country then we’re already too far gone to be helped as a nation.

screw that Thomas

how about I just take an arogant stance based on a general perception built by media attention and then criticise individuals who suggest with no insult that the story is more diverse than that?

Likewise how about I dismiss an example of that more diverse story as a mere exception rather than conider that my view is based on a fundemental lack of knowledge about the local campaign activities of all parties across the many communities of the UK?

In fact how about I ignore any questioning of my world form and instead get all insulted and arrogant in tone as though attempting to inform the inadequate sod who had the cheek to question me of the absolute Thomas-given truth?

you really are an insulting prick.

ps

whats really annoying is that I didn’t explode in my previous comment – I just responded to a couple of points with an alternative outlook based on different knowledge and understanding.

I did however explode this time at your disgraceful attituden towards others.

ps Thomas

Given that Lee and I were managing to have a perfectly civil conversation about this very issue on this very board despite holding different views – does it not concern you that you are incapable of doing the same?

Lee

I never found it funny when those same idiot campaigners trying to ban people from uni courses sought personal rebuke to individuals on the basis of their views. It is one thing to do everything you can to oppose fascist views, it is quite another to punish individuals for holding any specific views.

more importantly though, the Zimbabwe example with Barclays is a case of Reductio ad Absurdum – but to an extent some people feel land reform was moral, and so it is somewhat subject to the same commercial judgement. (A judgement I think companies should make more often than most tend to – as they are fundementally made up of human beings.)

however

Given that you agree people can express their disgust with their wallets, their letters, and their complaints – I’m not sure why you crticised “whinning” on this issue. After all, surely that is just what is happening.

And pointing out some things can only help to inform customers about something they may wish to protest against with their wallets, letters and complaints.

What JG said.

M4E,

Thanks for that, so you were taking notes then?

“More generally, Labour’s recent policies include allowing the biggest migration of people to Britain ever”

This really annoys me.

Labour has actually incrementally tightened immigration controls. You may have noticed that its immigration controls are now so draconian that it isn’t granting Iraqi nationals who worked for the army and are thus in danger of being killed. You may be aware of the campaign against this absurd policy (perhaps you’re in favour of denying visas to the Iraqi nationals who worked for us). Elsehwere asylum seekers are prevented from getting jobs and go through a cruel process before in most cases being deported unless they dissappear into the black economy. The home office even considers being raped by militias as merely an ‘unpleasant experience’ and not grounds for asylum. Hardly a liberal immigration system.

What has occured has been migration from countries joining the EU. Preventing this migration would essentially involve leaving the EU – political suicide (in terms of retaining the support of big business rather than public opinion at any rate). In any case the scale is unlikely to have been on the same scale as post WW2 immigration.

The idea that new labour actually wants immigrants is a myth, it merely turns a blind eye to big business using agencies based abroad for seasonal labour and lacks the competence or will to secure the borders (arguably doing so would require a massive extension of state power and a big increase in spending on border security). So instead it relies on token leigislative gestures and brutal state action against vulnerable people in an attempt to appease the daily mail. It really is disgusting.

Whoops, sorry I didn’t reply earlier:

donpaskini:
If higher profile doesn’t translate to support, why do political parties try to raise their profile? Indeed, why do companies advertise?

I don’t think they aim to raise their profile, much as they like to position themselves effectively. There is a difference in that the Tories aren’t looking for coverage as much as the right coverage that will make people think they will solve their problems.

People know the BNP exists, though they might not be aware what they stand for. The point though is, if the BNP start getting votes for positioning themselves with particular values – I would rather that Labour and the Tories aim to counter that message and figure out why the BNP are abandoning the big parties, than silence the BNP. The latter is a bad solution for a healthy democracy.

And I’d like to echo what Lee Griffin and planeshift have said above.

Hi Planeshift,

I wasn’t intending to imply support for the immigration laws (e.g. I’ve worked for several years with migrants groups to campaign for the right to work and against deportations and wrote to my MP about letting iraqi nationals who worked with us come to britain).

I don’t agree with your analysis about the migration within the EU, though. Other countries, such as Germany, put barriers on opportunities for people from Poland to come and work, just as Britain has done for Bulgarians and Romanians. There was a fierce debate within the government, and they decided not to do what Germany did and instead allow people from Poland to come and work here freely.

http://www.cesc.net/radicalweb/radicalconsultation/rankin/ar2.html

Sunny,

it gives the BNP credibility that comes with credence to suggest they stand for anything, other than for themselves.

Nobody is fascist, because fascism is a non-philosophy.

They don’t stand for anything, they stand against everything except their own limited interests.

The point is that it is impossible to defeat incoherent ideas by trying to conquer them – that sort of fighting is opposition for opposition’s sake and it derrogates and alienates any audience (which is submitting to their aim, by accepting their methods). The only way to eradicate stupid notions such as they present is to neutralise their message by demonstrating the inadequacies of it and to make converts to a positive cause.

When facing opponents like the BNP, we face a stark choice, by our own actions we will either legitimise them or we will legitimise their message: we will never hear the silence.

I say: give ‘em rope, but give ‘em enough rope so they are free to hang themselves, but make sure you keep hold of the other end so you can save the victims.

“I’m not sure why you crticised “whinning” on this issue. After all, surely that is just what is happening.

And pointing out some things can only help to inform customers about something they may wish to protest against with their wallets, letters and complaints.”

It’s a fine line I’m treading here on my definitions so I want to be clear. I have no problem with people stating a distaste for what is published, I do it enough myself. What I do have a problem with is the view that because there is a perception of “majority” and perhaps underlying social ethical/moral disgust at something published that a big hoo-hah should be made to somehow stop it ever happening again.

The latter, to me, is what many of the outbursts I’ve read around the net/media regarding this issue falls in to…it’s some kind of feeling of outrage that anyone would dare do what the Ham & High have done and that they should be burned at the stake for financing baby killers. Ok, so I exaggerate but the mood is not dissimilar.

“more importantly though, the Zimbabwe example with Barclays is a case of Reductio ad Absurdum – but to an extent some people feel land reform was moral, and so it is somewhat subject to the same commercial judgement. (A judgement I think companies should make more often than most tend to – as they are fundementally made up of human beings.)”

Well that’s my point as well, and if the legal system finds one day that the land reform wasn’t just then I’d hope that Barclays understands the risk that comes with funding/supporting questionable projects. But ultimately we have to realise the law is as it is, and to ask companies to abide to anything but the law is not our place to do so, it is their business decision to potentially turn away customers through their moral stances just as it is our decision to highlight when we’re disgusted.

To put it in to context I would feel a BNP member or supporter should never be forced by the majority moral mood of the moment (woo alliteration) to abandon their views, but I do think their views should be constantly highlighted where false and broken down as such. This is how I think we all (when not in cloud cuckoo land of left-extremism) believe it is right to act in civilised society, yet some don’t transfer those theories of interpersonal conducts over to relationships with business entities, and that confuses me.

As I said, no problem with people complaining or making clear their disgust…but when those same people spend more effort on trying to silence those they find morally questionable I feel they themselves should look in the mirror and ask just how holy they are themselves.

“Labour has actually incrementally tightened immigration controls.”

Indeed, this is slightly off thread but wanted to share my thoughts on this.

I love going on holiday, I very much non-guiltily love to fly and burn up my fair share of carbon. When I arrive at these other countries I am glad to be standing again after usually being squashed in to leg space too small for me and I’m greeted by airports with a simple and easy passport check, adverts and signs that say welcome to “insert country here” and the like.

What I hate about holidays is coming home, or more specifically queuing to get past the passport check. I absolutely get incensed every time that I arrive back in the UK and have to stand in a line looking at stupid blue barriers that say “UK BORDER” plastered all over them.

How can we as a country ever be called welcoming of immigrants when in the first instance of arriving into this country we remind people very clearly that they are not quite welcome yet. Who are these obscene structures for? For immigrants? I don’t understand why as only a pitiful amount of people flying must be stupid enough to try and get in the country this way. No, it’s got to be for the rest of the dull brained daily mail membership that upon arriving back in their own country after reluctantly coming in to contact with some foreigners can now feel safe that a few bloody blue screens are stopping any of them stowing away in their hand luggage surreptitiously to gain access to our country, start a crime ring and their rape out mothers.

This government knows how much the uneducated hate immigration and they do everything, as planeshift says, to ensure that it is as tight as it can be…usually to the detriment of the truly needy.

IMO efforts to fight the BNP are doomed to failiure as long as a double standard on racism continues to prevail in the UK.

Over the next couple of weeks we will be treated to a new presentation of Rock Against Racism aka Love Music Hate Racism. For starters this event is a thinly disguised propaganda vehicle for the far left (see the ‘red star’ RAR logo) which may alienate anti-racists whose politics are not left wing.

Secondly, in thirty years of campaigns supposedly against racism, there has never been any mention of the racism that exists within the Asian and black communities.

Until that is addressed, why should anyone believe that these ‘anti racist’ campaigns are truly against all forms of racism?