A Stranger to Bristol #8. Community Cohesion in Southmead and the ongoing Fight for Freedom

After a recent BBC expose of the endemic problems with community cohesion in Southmead and St. Annes, the nation, and Bristol, watches with bated breath as Nick Griffin gets all on the telly and everything...

 

 

Last night, the leader of a far-right organisation sat next to Jack Straw and various other political and social figures and was encouraged to take part in political debate. And last night, this country took a major step forward, after years of the slow erosion of democratic principles under Labour.

 

 

In my opinion, the new definitions of ‘incitement to racial /religious hatred' are dangerously vague, and although I'm sure they are used to good effect to make our communities safer now, the problem is that the vagaries of these laws could easily be hijacked to, for example, stifle freedom of speech in the future. Legislation cannot, and should not, ever rely on the good nature of Government.

 

 

It was right to afford the BNP an opportunity to speak on question time, and I am thankful that the audience and guests on the whole were restrained and polite. I do, however, think that the BBC has made a greater mistake in the way in which the session was managed than the mistake they would have made had they refused to allow the BNP to appear at all.

 

 

I do not agree with Mr. Griffin regarding his policies, and I view him with suspicion. However, the way in which he was the focus of the debate time and again was unfair, and bordered on collective bullying. Had any other leader of any other party been subjected to the incessant raised voices and polemic of fellow panel members, they would have objected and been backed up by the Chair. Mr. Griffin deserved the same treatment. He did not, in my opinion, receive it. For a party not to be treated the same way as any other during a political debate is fundamentally undemocratic.

 

 

Bertrand Russell once stated ‘When you meet with opposition endeavour to overcome it by argument and not authority, for a victory dependent on authority is unreal and illusory'. Although some argument was used against Mr. Griffin, too much authority was thrown at him.

 

 

This programme really ought to have been as stale as it usually is. There should have been long speeches about the very fine details and differences in policy between parties. Instead, we tossed up political airballs to the other panellists for them to knock out of the park. No politician ought to be applauded for stating that fascism is ‘not welcome here'- this is one of the basic principles of our democracy. It's like congratulating a work colleague for urinating in the toilet rather than the communal microwave. It gives politicians who are currently on the ropes because they have been caught with their (presumably gloved) hands in the till a chance to catch their breath.

 

 

The British public were duped last night, but it was not the fault of Nick Griffin.

 

 

Mr. Griffin has very misguided and racist views. However, a few of the points he made were very valid. Particularly regarding the need for regulation of banking systems, and regarding MP expenses scandals. He raised these points as leader of a political party, and was largely ignored and shouted down. A point should never be dismissed because of who makes it. Any point raised in honest, democratic debate should be considered on merit alone.

 

 

If the British public are intelligent enough to recognise that the BNP is abhorrent (which I believe it is), we ought to also be intelligent enough to realise when a gravy train is passing by our houses on the way to Westminster. Politicians today do not want to change the political or economic climate because it suits them fine the way it is. The economic downturn offered us a great opportunity to change the way we operate as a nation. Instead, we have ridden the storm and I believe fully intend to return to the consumptive, wasteful and greedy approach that got us into choppy waters in the first place.

 

 

If, as has been suggested, Nick Griffin is trying to moderate BNP policies in order to make the party more acceptable, then isn't this a good thing? Would it not be better for the 1 million people who voted BNP to be brought closer to the mainstream? As I understand it, democracy does not win arguments by force. Democracy wins arguments by inclusion of all views, and dilution to find a common good. To put it somewhat foppishly, we cannot ‘smash' the BNP. We have to weaken it by love, smiles and inclusion. The reason why people vote for racist thugs is because they think no one cares about them and their situation. And who can blame them? I doubt Gordon Brown cares much. I'm certain Cameron doesn't.

 

 

To end with a warning, again from Bertrand Russell:

 

‘Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious (evil, objectionable), for, if you do, the opinions will suppress you'.

 

 

All quotes - Bertrand Russell 1951.

 

Click here for more Bristol Blogs

 

 
Posted by: John Edward Strange on 23 October 2009