Why 'no platform' is incompatible with freedom of speech

Wednesday April 28, 2010

The refusal by mainstream parties to debate with the BNP is illiberal and reactionary, argues Suzy Dean. It demeans us, the public, and the democratic election process.

So far freedom has failed to become a hot issue in the general election despite numerous curtailments to individual and collective liberties over the past five years from anti-terror laws to the ban on smoking in pubs. In fact, the election itself is appearing to damage another one of our most fundamental freedoms, our freedom of speech. As the election draws closer and debate heats up, both Conservative and Labour candidates have started to refuse to debate the BNP. This is something that we should all challenge as it demeans us – the public – and our democratic election process.

In Chippenham last week both Labour and Conservative candidates refused to take part in a debate if Michael Simpkins, the BNP candidate for the local area, was present. On Sunday, the Archbishop of Canterbury backed a decision to ban the BNP from election hustings in a Lancashire church. The assumption seems to be that if we are allowed to see and hear the BNP, we will listen and agree. But in fact, the majority of us do not, and will not, constitute a racist mob. Anybody should be able to run with their views in an election, whatever they are, in a bid to canvass some support. It is then down to us to decide if we want to give them our vote.

Not allowing the BNP to debate shows serious contempt for the public’s political judgement. Chippenham Tory opposition, Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, called the BNP ‘disgusting’ and ‘racist’. The local Labour candidate Greg Lovell admitted that the BNP ‘don’t have an enormous presence’. Both of these comments are true which is why the BNP have never had more than a handful of supporters. So why don’t we let them hang themselves in the court of public debate? Why has refusing to debate the BNP become the thing to do?

Superiority

No platform for the BNP is a crude attempt to show moral and political superiority of the mainstream parties over the BNP. But the BNP do not just represent themselves, they represent a section of the public. Refusing to debate the BNP is refusing to acknowledge ideas that a part, albeit a minority, of our society holds to be the right ones. The reality is that the BNP’s arguments are legitimate if they have enough support to run for election. Griffin’s support cannot just be filtered out, it needs to be taken up, picked apart and contested through public debate. For politicians to simply censor the BNP is to say that they don’t believe in democracy and their own powers of persuasion – they don’t believe they need to win the argument.

The foundation of our democracy is the idea that individuals are capable of moral and political reasoning. It is sad that Simpkin had to be the one to argue that if the public don’t like what the BNP have to say ‘they can show their disgust for me at the ballot box by voting for somebody else’. It is uncomfortable to think that mainstream parties are being illiberal and reactionary when they challenges the idea of civic rationality and the BNP aren’t.

The implication of banning the BNP is that they remain part of political discourse when they should be politically mauled and tossed to one side. Mainstream politicians should move beyond the hype and have confidence that they can win a debate against Griffin and Co. If anything, mainstream politicians and activists should be encouraging the BNP to have more public debates in an attempt to diminish their already measly support base even further.

Suzy Dean is a writer and journalist and co-founder of To The Point Manifesto