Nick Griffin: should he be allowed to speak at our Students' Union?

NO

Give them the gift of democracy and they’ll take it away from the rest of us. UMSU Anti-racism Secretary Oliver Worth says the BNP don’t deserve a right to free speech.

The proven link between allowing the British National Party a platform and the incidence of racist attacks is perhaps reason enough to deny the BNP a platform in our union. Fortunately our union currently does have a policy of banning any student who is an active member of the BNP, something we must continue to support.

Free speech is a cornerstone of our society and our union is rightly a place where students are exposed to new views and ideas, even if many of us passionately disagree with some of them. A students’ union should actively work to stimulate debate, broaden horizons and help form opinions, and I would support groups from any background, representing just about any cause, being given a platform to speak in our union.

But the BNP is different. The BNP, a fascist and racist organisation is an exceptional case. A concern of such a despicable and often violent nature cannot be allowed a platform. It is a party waiting to pounce on any opportunity to deny us our right to free speech and democracy.

Opponents of a no platform policy will suggest that such policy is anti-democratic. In reality, in the case of the BNP, such a policy is not a restriction on democracy, but rather it serves to protect it. The BNP discriminates against whole communities and their mere presence on campus restricts democratic participation through the spread of fear and intimidation. Any group has the right to participate in democracy, with the exception of those wishing to use such democracy to deprive us of our own democratic rights.

In the same vein, such opponents would have us believe that the best way to beat the BNP is through intelligent debate, with the aim of exposing their racism. History has shown this argument to be totally redundant. The presence of the BNP in any form only leads to an escalation of violent racism. Debate requires at least a degree of rationality and common sense, something the BNP do not deal in. Numerous eyewitnesses reported Hitler salutes at the BNP’s Red, White and Blue Conference in Derbyshire; these are clearly not the actions of people capable of participating in reasonable, intellectual debate. The sad truth is that the BNP operates on a different level to non-fascist groups, and the concepts of democracy and debate contradict its very nature.

Despite misguided opinions, this is not about denying the BNP their right to free speech. The right to free speech and the right to a platform are not one and the same. The BNP in this country do hold the right to free speech, regardless of how we feel about it. Whether or not we continue to support a no platform policy for the BNP, they will continue to campaign on our streets, spreading their vicious views and inciting racial hatred. Our no platform policy in no way impedes on the free speech of the BNP, as sadly they will continue to exercise their message every day through our media and on our city councils. Our no platform policy is in fact simply common sense. I want to keep my home free from racism, anti-Semitism, violence, hatred and LGBT discrimination, and would therefore not let a fascist hate group pass my front door, even though I know they are spreading their hatred outside. As a Jewish student and our union’s anti-racism secretary, I also want to keep our union free from these atrocities, so why would I invite such a group inside? As well as being a centre for political discussion, our union should act as a safe, comfortable place for any student. I find it hard to envisage a building hosting the preaching of violence and holocaust denial a safe place.

Despite a new image, the BNP is full of the same racists who only a few years ago proudly advocated violence against their opponents and had a convicted criminal as director of group development calling for a “racially purer” Britain. The BNP contradicts everything our union is about. Where we seek to enhance democracy, they seek to suppress it. While we embrace racial diversity, they want to rid us of it. We must maintain the clear message that the BNP has no business anywhere near our union, and our biggest mistake would be facilitating their racism and legitimising their views. This is a rare issue that unites students across campus, and we must continue to support minority students. The most positive action we can take to protect such students on campus is to make a stand and continue our policy of no platform for the BNP.

YES

Curtailing their freedom of speech only turns them into martyrs. News sub-editor Girish Gupta thinks we should let them preach their race hate.

VOLTAIRE NEVER actually jotted down or uttered the famous, “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it”. However, the quote is said to sum up the attitude of the Frenchman.

Most in the Western world that champion democracy and its subtext of free speech will claim that the statement sums up their attitude too.

Yet, many of these people believe also that the British National Party (BNP) should not be allowed to preach its own views at the University of Manchester. Despite freedom of expression being the cornerstone of many liberals’ ideology, it turns out that if exercising it changes the status quo or –God forbid, offends somebody – then they recoil in horror and explain that the romantic ideal is not always to be adhered to.

The BNP falls into this category as many regard its views as racist. Only allowing white members and not a being huge fan of Islam, the BNP wants to preach its hatred for all things not British at the University’s Students’ Union.

The Party has, however, come under criticism from certain members of a Union that – after choosing to remodel its toilet signs to be gender neutral so as to cater to trans students – cannot claim to be anything but liberal.

So where’s the catch? What makes a liberal Union, which has the plank of free speech propping up its entire way of thinking, stop as soon as “hate speech” comes along?

Harm. British philosopher John Stuart Mill suggested that the buck stops when someone might come to “harm” as a result of the ideal of free speech. What’s harm?

Inciting racism is surely harmful to society? Or is it? Is the act of incitement itself worthy of being described as harmful? Surely, if you disagree with BNP leader Nick Griffin, the best punishment you can dish out to him and his band of merry white men is to argue your point, pushing the bounds of logic and reason and thus humiliating the Cambridge graduate into coming across as the vile racist that he is.

Richard Dawkins is an advocate of pushing those boundaries to their limits. In his ‘God Delusion’ he sought to do just that knowing full well that he would fall within the same category as Nick Griffin and come under attack for blasphemy (still a crime!) as well as causing offence, which could be taken to mean causing harm.

Dawkins believes that the world would be a better place if logic were followed to its natural conclusion rather than being curtailed by religion and lack of reason. And I believe that, given a few decades, the majority of the world will agree with him.

Whether I agree with Dawkins or not, he has a point to make. His ideas have the potential to change the world – for better or worse. It is people like him that have changed the course of history.

In the same way, the BNP’s views have the potential to change the country – again, for better or worse. Who are we to curtail their right to spout logic and reason, especially if they make it so easy for us to see the holes in their argument?

Rather than silencing them and pushing their views towards an underground and ill-educated class, let them speak to us all and let us protest in the best way possible: by listening and arguing our case. Only then will they and their potential audience realise what a mess the Party really is.

As a footnote, bearing in mind the era in which he lived, Voltaire was not as enlightened as some choose to think. He believed that Africans were a separate and inferior species. It appears that he may have been a member of the BNP of his day and imagine if the world had not let him speak his mind.

 Loading ...