Why I still think the BBC was right to invite Nick Griffin onto Question Time

By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato

Paul Richards’ excellent Friday column is very persuasive in its case against inviting Nick Griffin onto its flagship political programme. I have to admit feeling building panic as, after watching QT, I read comment after comment on the BBC’s Have Your Say page saluting Griffin’s bravery and railing against immigration. No doubt the BNP’s support will have risen as a result of the broadcast and attendant publicity. No doubt that racists across the country will feel emboldened that their views have been ‘mainstreamed’. No liberal or social democrat will feel that last night was a victory. It will have made the task of every anti-racism campaigner (and pro-gay rights campaigner) much, much harder.

So why do I, on balance, still think that the BBC’s invitation was the right thing to do? The first reason is to do with the BBC’s role as a national broadcaster and its principles of political impartiality which are as follows:

* We must treat matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other output.

* We must not express an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.

* We must not campaign, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign.

I believe these values are the right ones. They ensure that no political party is given preference over another, but that each is given equal opportunity to put its case. If a political party feels as though it’s been unfairly treated, it can make representations. Say that the BBC had decided to not invite the BNP on to QT last night. I expect that after a while, the BNP would have complained, and – given their performance in the European elections – I expect their complaint would have been upheld and the BBC would have been forced to accept them in any case, except with the BNP having won a victory over a supposedly impartial broadcaster. If the BBC allows Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas, the only two MEPs from the Green Party, to appear on political programmes, it is difficult to see how they can’t allow the BNP representation.

Yes, the BNP are racists. But then UKIP has members with some pretty horrendous anti-immigrant views, too – yet Nigel Farage is allowed on BBC QT. Once the BBC is put in the position of deciding what is, or what is not, offensive rather than illegal, it has lost its role as an impartial broadcaster. As point 2 above states – the BBC must not express an opinion on matter of policy. If its editors decide that political parties cannot be invited to debate on air because their views are unconscionable, what happens to politicians who believe that abortion should be made available in Northern Ireland – which for some people amounts to encouraging murder? In their minds this may amount to a much greater crime than being anti-immigrant or suggesting people should “go home.”

The second reason for going ahead last night is that the rise of the BNP had nothing to do with giving them the oxygen of publicity. It is much more deep-seated than that, and has more to do with a failure of the political class in an age of globalisation and rapidly changing communities, as Margaret Hodge wrote yesterday. Those who are against giving the BNP time on the BBC suggest that liberals who believe they can fight racism through rational argument are mistaken. They argue that there’s nothing rational about racism, and the only way you close down debate is by making it so socially unacceptable that no one feels able to hold those views. There is some merit to this – by forcing people to accept change through simple peer pressure, people alter their habits.

But the growth of the BNP has occurred at a time when we have had a Labour government in power, a new, strong equality and human rights body, and no end of discussion about racism and homophobia in our society. So how could the BNP gain traction in such a favourable discursive environment? The answer lies in the fact that it’s formerly Labour-voting, white working class communities which show the most support for the BNP. This suggests that it is a lack of representation by mainstream political parties which is an issue here, not a lack of anti-racism campaigns or a failure of the norms of society in general. Simply ignoring these communities and hoping that they will chance upon an editorial in the Guardian, which will show them the error of their ways, is not a solution.

Instead, liberals and social democrats must go back to the roots of the disaffection: poor social housing, bad jobs, alcohol, drug abuse, domestic violence, and an all-pervading sense that nothing matters, no one cares, no one hears.

As politicians, or people interested in politics, we have a duty to tramp through the stairwells, asking what residents want, and challenging their assumptions about their Asian and black neighbours, but showing that we can help with finding jobs in the area, and supporting young people to make more of their lives.

At a national level we need to link our messages on migration directly with a pledge to help those people who feel threatened by immigration in every way we can. In some cases this will require bringing together communities in a spirit of reconciliation – mini truth commissions where citizens can explore why they are so angry about other people. It is politics which will solve the problem of the BNP’s popularity, not the decisions of the BBC.

Our society will always be in a position to slip backwards to its more illiberal past. But just because it looks like it might be doing so, doesn’t mean liberals should abandon the fundamental values of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and a belief that rational debate and education will win in the long-term.

<!–

RT @LabourList = ‘labourlist’;
// –>