The Comment Factory

Emboldened, aggrieved and invariably in persecutory mood since the expenses debacle, Question Time’s audience promises to provide a baptism of fire for a delighted Nick Griffin. Booed, hissed and taunted at, Griffin will retort with his incendiary populism, content in the knowledge that this is an unprecedented opportunity to disseminate his party’s views and a further recognition and legitimisation of his party’s ascendancy. Those, myself included, who look forward to his appearance must nevertheless concede that such an opportunity to respond to questions outside the BNP’s staple of immigration and multiculturalism will provide undue credibility and respectability to his party. So why take the risk? Why not starve the party of the oxygen of publicity?

Firstly, it signifies a dubious commitment to free speech and democratic representation when elected politicians and political parties are denied the chance to canvass their views because there exists a consensus that they are odious and incendiary. It furthermore provides a troubling and unpredictable precedent for the representation of controversial politicians. The immediate question of importance is whom should decide whether a groups media representation is unjustified, especially in light of a recent Sunday Times/YouGov poll which indicated that 63 percent of Britons back the BBC’s decision to invite Griffin on to Question Time compared to just 23 percent who oppose it.

Paradoxically, a second reason to dismiss attempts to starve the BNP of publicity is that their often ridiculous and demonstrably falsified statements have thrived through their inoculation from critical scrutiny. In the past few months the parties overtly discriminatory constitution and recruitment policy, its mawkish glamorisation of Britain’s resistance to Fascism, and its doomed attempts to seriously engage with the issues surrounding further E.U integration have all been subject to unprecedented condemnation and derision.

In contrast, the conventional reaction of consternation, an unequivocal demonization of those who identify with the BNP’s policies, and a timely idealisation of the impeccably liberal credentials of Britain’s majority is not only misguided, it simply has not worked. We can no longer simply dismiss their supporters as racist philistines without acknowledging the wide ranging and socially specific factors which have facilitated and consolidated their support.

Far from suffocating from the lack of media attention, the BNP has thrived through the combination of a paucity of public scrutiny as well as an unflinching commitment within the popular press to vilifying immigrants and perpetuating the myth of the downtrodden “native”. This narrative has also been strengthened by a doomed attempt by components of the political mainstream to ritually dismiss increasingly prevalent concerns surrounding further E.U integration and mass immigration as parochial and prejudiced. The International Social Service Program indicates that after Russia and Germany, the British public is the most supportive of calls for “immigration to be reduced a lot” among EU nations, the US and Japan. Furthermore the National Citizenship Survey Commissioned by the Communities and Local Government Department indicate that although 21% believe mass immigration had either increased communal cohesion or at least had no negative effect upon it, 78% considered that it had either reduced cohesion slightly or significantly.

There have also been reports, some more substantiated than others, which have indicated the prevalence amongst some white working class communities to perceive themselves to be systematically discriminated against in terms of occupational opportunities and multiple areas of social service provision .Such considerations have been at the forefront of the announcement from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, that a £12m initiative will be launched to undermine racial resentment amongst the euphemistically termed “traditional communities”.

In sum a systematic acknowledgment of the social issues which facilitate their support allied with a rigorous and proactive engagement with their viewpoints will only highlight the BNP’s internal weaknesses. A frank and open challenge to the BNP is the only option left, and that by definition necessitates their involvement. Their appeal may often be rooted in a visceral hatred of difference and diversity, but it is also inseparable from a profound sense of grievance, a detachment from the political mainstream and a plethora of unsubstantiated and incoherent perspectives on modern Britain. Bring on the BNP; let them discredit themselves and wither in the face of reasoned and forceful debate. We decline this challenge at our peril.