18 / FEATURE
FOR
DEBATE
The Journal Wednesday 7 November 2012
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: NO PLATFORM FOR OLD MEN?
BNP’s exceptionalism warrants No Platform Fascism’s faults do not shine undistorted through the media prism, and our culture of overreaction obscures its unique threat
Sean Gibson Editor-in-chief, Edinburgh
People are easily offended these
days. Given the effects of mass media, where at once we are presented with all of life’s extremities as well as the means by which to cast in our tuppence-worth, this is hardly a surprise. A person has the right to be offended, of course, but that right is static – it does not legitimise anything further. There are greater bones of contention that warrant attention and discussion, yet the sanctimony which greets major and minor issues alike serves only to hinder the identification of genuine threats to the structures of society. The recent appearances of Messers Galloway, Griffin and Taub in the local and national press demonstrate clearly the validity of this assertion. In the case of the Leeds Student interview with Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP), there has been a far too extensive deployment of emotive language in the critics’ condemnations and demands for retraction. Proclamations of disgust are constructive of nothing – they are the fruits of self-indulgence. More than that, they steer us in the direction of that same superficial level of attention-seeking which Nick Griffin and the Leeds Student’s editorial team occupy. These emotional projections personalise the issue and obscure the grave truth; the advocacy of fascism is fundamentally wrong. Leeds Student and its defenders have countered criticism by stressing, quite rightly, that the right to freedom of speech supersedes people’s sensibilities. However, it is
AGAINST
@GlasgowJournal / journal-online.co.uk
the dimension of hateful dogma which carries fascism (here embodied by the BNP) beyond the plane on which such an ideal can be applied. The medium of conversation and the relationship between interviewer and subject can nullify the broader context of the situation. It is all very well espousing freedom of speech, but in those moments of interview there are myriad distortions which can contaminate the purity which Leeds Student evidently expect will shine through. Notions of challenging racist opinions with ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ within the democratic framework can thus be seen as laughably distant from the constructed world of the interview, in which the skills of each protagonist dictate play. Specifically, to take but one example, how can anyone be sure of the number of people that will see in Nick Griffin’s answers the clear sidestepping of awkward questions – the deflection of all his own faults through parallels with those currently in government? Lucy Snow, editor of Leeds Student, has said that sheltering students from extreme views would be an insult to their intelligence. This implies, though, that students’ intelligence should lead inevitably to the dismissal of such views as objectionable – an assumption which underestimates both students’ dynamism and their capacity for broad interpretation. There is also an inherent underestimation of fascism and its adherents within Snow’s statement. We may well presumptuously and arrogantly dismiss these ‘unenlightened’ promoters of racist dogma from up on our glorious democratic pedestal, but in so
doing we leave ourselves vulnerable to their manipulation. This is politics for goodness’ sake – what depths of demagoguery cannot be plumbed? Yes, it is important not to drive these forces underground; to keep them in check, everyone must be vigilant to their movements. Such personal public platforms are non-essential to this, however, and indeed represent an unwarranted luxury. By law, quite rightly, all opinions are equal and permissible for expression. But that puts the burden of responsibility upon society to identify and remove those views which threaten its own foundations. This is why George Galloway, Member of Parliament for the Respect Party, should not be no-platformed; as contemptible an individual as he may be, he is little more than a roving antagonistic bungler – an oddity whose views lack the magnitude of threat carried by those of the BNP. A no-platform stance should be an extreme measure, employed sparingly and as the reserve of such threatening forces. Inclusion of this-or-that objectionable figure in such a bracket risks a dangerous dilution of the alarm with which we should all perceive fascism. The BNP and fascism within our country are issues which we have the power to affect and control. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though, is outwith our sphere of influence. Clearly the conflict cannot be done justice in such a short aside; however, from the perspective of the pro-Palestinian lobby, crushing the Israeli presence in this country will not greatly aid the Palestinians at ground zero; merely it will deprive us of a conduit through
Malgosia Stelmaszyk
which we can engage and learn. A noplatform stance in this case will not help quash the problem, rather it will remove us from a position where we might contribute to a solution. On the one hand, we must end the interminable bleating that renders each new moot point indistinguishable from the last. Too many seek to shut down an issue without sufficiently challenging themselves to rise and defeat it. That is undoubtedly a dangerous road, narrowing of our perspective and diminishing of our poten-
tial for growth. On the other hand, a great number of naïve people need to wake up, realise the vulnerability of the warm, cosy democratic bubble which they so revere, and appreciate that fascists are not so beneath them, intellectually, as they might like to think. Fascism is not some quaint concept consigned to a high-school history course, it is a real and present threat. Society cannot give platforms to such acidic forces – there is nothing to be gained but misguided self-congratulation.
No Platform policy is flawed beyond belief Trust is the key to fighting facism, trust in future generations and the tools they have to engage in competent debate
Jamie Timson Deputy editor, Edinburgh
Griffin and Israeli ambassador
Daniel Taub. An interesting, if slightly egocentric, dream dinner party. However, not one you could have on a NUS affiliated University campus. The National Union of Students’ (NUS) “No Platform” policy is flawed. It treats students as vulnerable naïve children and allows the NUS to become the moral arbiter of all the Universities affiliated with it. By deciding which views students can and can’t listen to, the NUS is in danger of treading the same lines of free speech oppression that those it so clearly denounces espouse. In a hypothetical but not too estranged world, imagine a fascist state that believes in all the views the BNP and other extremist organisations advocate. A fascist state where the majority believes that homosexuality should be outlawed and that immigration should be forbidden, the
borders closed. Now imagine if within that state anyone who disagreed with these views, who perhaps preached tolerance and multiculturalism, were refused the opportunity to debate them. That’s oppression and one in which, many claim would be the case were the BNP in power. Just because we - the “educated and enlightened” believe ourselves right, doesn’t mean other opinions shouldn’t be heard or indeed forcibly repressed. It is in John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” that the greatest argument for the dispensing of the ‘No Platform’ policy occurs. It is only in conflict with opposing views, Mill argued, that we fully understand and refine what we ourselves believe. After all it is only through argument and debate that we keep our principles - those ideas and concepts we hold dearest - dynamic and evolving. It is not the job of those arguing with Nick Griffin and others on the ‘No Platform’ list, to change their views; Griffin will forever be entrenched in his right wing ideology. However, it does have a purpose
in educating those who are unsure, or those who are feeling disenchanted with ‘traditional’ politics and political figures. Society can never ensure that everyone who listens to a debate involving Nick Griffin will come out seeing him for the repugnant individual he is. However, he is an elected member of the European Parliament and as such should be challenged on his views, not ignored. After all the ‘No Platform’ policy hasn’t stopped people voting for him. We have to trust our society, we cannot have democracy by half, yes Nick Griffin isn’t as stupid as he looks but that doesn’t mean we’ll all suddenly fall under his spell of fascism. We need to learn from the past, society in 21st century Britain should be fully aware of the dangers posed by economic depression and the rise of European far-right parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece. Trust is the key, trust that teachers and educators and those in power, will show 1930’s Germany for what it was, and the Nazi’s for what they were.
Trust that parents will bring up their children to observe tolerance - there is no valid argument to suggest that Britain as a nation has become less tolerant since the 1930’s – and trust ultimately in future generations starting with university students. Trust that they will listen to Nick Griffin’s argument that “the sight of two men kissing (is) creepy” and immediately list the range of arguments that show this viewpoint as part of the odious homophobic ideology that it is. It is disingenuous to claim that support for fascism comes without reason, the people who join the English Defence League have their reason for doing so. They have opinions as members of society, which may be based on falsehoods or direct fallacies, but these should be exposed as exactly that, lies and untruths. As Britain moves through the 21st century, as every aspect of society evolves, so too must future generations be allowed to evolve to make their own decisions about every facet of society. Giving a platform to someone does not imply
any sense of agreement or endorsement of his or her views. The law still remains on incitement of racial hatred as well as intimidation and physical violence, and these platforms do not make them immune or unaccountable for their words in the eyes of the law. Those deemed to have ‘unacceptable’ opinions need to have those opinions heard so they can be discredited if we see fit. In the day and age of the Internet and instant worldwide communication, we cannot pretend the arguments of the extremists will not exist in the consciousness of university students even if they never come into direct contact with them on campus. If we see universities as the place to educate students about the world ahead of them, censorship is not the answer. It is time the adults of tomorrow were treated like adults, today. Give them the tools to challenge and engage with opinions of all agendas, be it the BNP, the EDL or even the Monster Raving Looney Party.