Despite the hype, we won’t ever know the real impact of Nick Griffin’s appearance on BBC’s Question Time. Like any other small party, the BNP’s vote is contingent on how people feel about the major parties. We know very little more about the British National Party, or its future, than we did before. We may, however, have learned some valuable lessons about how to argue with them—or more precisely, how not to.
Back in 2007, when I was interning on a national broadsheet, I went to the party’s local election press launch at a pub in Dagenham. It turned out I was the only journalist to attend. The experience bordered somewhere between the terrifying and the absurd. At Dagenham East tube, I was ceremoniously greeted by seven or eight big men in black suits, shaved heads and black sunglasses and taken to a pub swathed in the flags of St George. The function room inside had been transformed into something resembling a medieval court; when Nick Griffin was led in by a procession of flag bearers to a robust fanfare, we all rose. At one point during the proceedings Griffin asked me to stand up and take a bow for being the only journalist “brave enough” to show up.
Now that the BBC has been “brave enough” to entertain Griffin too, he has finally found a national platform to say—almost verbatim—the farcical things he said in that pub back in 2007, that “Islam is a wicked and vicious faith,” that the sight of “two men kissing is creepy,” that Britain should be home only to its own “indigenous peoples” (something he utterly failed to define). No surprises there, then: Nick Griffin is still not a mainstream politician, and his policies don’t make sense.
What was striking, however, were the similarities between the BBC studio audience and that pub audience back in 2007: the liberal outrage voiced by the panel and audience was so homogeneous that it quite chillingly reminded me of the same, unquestioning accord held by those who turned up to see Griffin in Dagenham. The only difference is that I happen to side with the liberals. To someone who doesn’t, the show must have looked like a stitch-up.
After the launch in 2007, I interviewed Griffin on a picnic bench in the pub’s garden. He was very much like how he appeared on television last night; a man, seemingly a little uncomfortable with his weight and diminutive stature, prone to nervous laughter and fond of splitting semantic hairs. (The only big change was the backdrop; instead of black-suited minders hovering nearby, there was Bonnie Greer, leaning disdainfully into her chair with her back to him, dropping in the occasional history lesson.) As we sat in the garden, Griffin told me how the launch the previous year had been packed full of cameras, microphones and journalists taking notes. “Why has no one apart from you showed up this time?” he asked. “It’s a conspiracy.”
It may have been a conspiracy, of sorts. In the days preceding my date with Griffin there had been a feeling across the media, and certainly in the newsroom where I was interning, that the BNP should not be given “oxygen”: that the publicity they had had the previous year had helped them win seats, and that they should not get the same assistance again. Which is why, presumably, the paper only sent an intern, hedging their bets that they weren’t going to cover it. And this theory seemed to bear out: my interview with Griffin was never published, relatively little coverage of the BNP appeared elsewhere and in that election, despite high expectations, the party made no significant gains.
Given this precedent, did allowing Griffin onto a platform as large as Question Time risk boosting the BNP’s support? Yes, undoubtedly. The reason, however, may not be the fact of his appearance, but rather the manner in which it was handled. No matter how repellent one finds Griffin and everything he stands for, the show did degenerate, as one BNP spokesperson put it, into “have a go at Nick Griffin time”—and this is both lazy and dangerous. Instead of being pressed on issues, a series of questions were shouted at him in a manner less resembling political debate, and more, as Andrew Neill later put it, karaoke. What made it worse was that other members of the panel dodged and evaded questions when it suited them as much as Griffin did; when asked if the rise of the BNP was due in part to new Labour’s misguided immigration policies, Jack Straw fudged his response almost as shamelessly as Griffin did when challenged about his Holocaust denial.
Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi claimed that the event had been a success because Griffin had not been able to put forward “the PR version of what he says.” Sadly, having seen him roll out exactly the same argument to his party faithful in Dagenham, I’d have to disagree. He kept to the routine he has practised for many years and, in the process, managed to look like a victim. Of sorts.
To be fair, it’s not easy interviewing Nick Griffin. I found it difficult to get him to say anything that was explicitly racist, though most of it was casually vile. At the end of our chat, I asked him if he ever became prime minister, he would let me stay in the country. “But you’re British,” he said. “Of course you could.” When I told him I was American and probably of mixed racial ancestry, he seemed flustered and replied that it was obvious that I had “culturally assimilated,” so my staying wouldn’t be a problem. I had to laugh. And when I laughed, that was the only minute that he seemed genuinely thrown.
So, should he have been asked on to appear on TV? Yes; his party has enough votes to justify it. But what was needed was an audience and interviewers willing to do more than throw abuse at him, who would come up with things that he didn’t expect and, above all, would make him look ridiculous. Which is why the star of the show should have been the young British Asian man who offered to start a whip-round for a plane ticket—to send Nick Griffin to the South Pole, a “colourless landscape” that he’d presumably enjoy.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
Comments (20):
I completely agree: to someone who wasn’t a liberal it would have looked like a stich-up. Which it was.
One of the key errors was in the choice of panellists. Why was it not possible to find a non-racist white working class male? John Cruddas would have been so much better than Jack Straw. Why no comedians? That’s the best way to undermine someone like Griffin.
Think how much better Frank Skinner or David Mitchell or Stephen Fry would have been than tedious old Bonnie Greer. Body language aside, she spoke least sense of anyone there. That’s not something to be proud of.
Good points all. 2 more things: the location of the filming played into the hands of Griffin-supporters, as has been borne out by Griffin’s comments about London.
Secondly in some senses it’s a good thing that Griffin comes over as oddly uncomfortable, with a strange nervous laugh. Anyone more articulate could make a lot of running around the lack of political thinking around Englishness (at least since Blunkett gave up) – Griffin’s point about the census form was lost in the general shoutiness.
The BNP are a symptom not a cause. Jack Straw is that party’s witless unwitting progenitor and vote gatherer. Disaffected voters who did not and do not share his arrogant equinimity about the possibility of the population of the UK rising from 60 to 70 million, are ready to be swept up by the BNP’s dustpan and brush. What and who is doing most to discourage such voters to join the BNP? Nick Griffin himself – unsavoury in history, manner and appearance he does most to put off potential voters. As the never to boom and bust economy busts and recession deepens and competition for jobs will intensity. The economic hubris which led to the door being not just left open but removed is Brown’s legacy. Nick Griffin should be grateful to Straw and Brown – nobody has done more for his party.
Mary Fitzgerald says that Griffin utterly failed to define to define Britain’s indigenous peoples that he loves to refer to so much. Actually, he doesn’t have to the definition is in the BNP constitution:
************************
2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consists of members of: i) the Anglo-Saxon folk community; ii) the Celtic Scottish folk community; iii) the Scots-Northern Irish folk community; iv) the Celtic Welsh folk community; v) the Celtic Irish folk community; vi) the Celtic Cornish folk community; vii) the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic folk community; viii) the Celtic-Norse folk community; ix) the Anglo-Saxon-Norse folk community; x) the Anglo-Saxon Indigenous European folk community; xi) members of these ethnic groups which reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.
3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within sub-section 2.
************************
It would be good if all journalists and politicians dealing with the BNP informed themselves about its published policies and positions. Then it could be exposed as the sick excuse for a political party that it is – even, if the job is done properly, in the eyes of many who might at first be attracted by its propaganda.
P.S. Has anyone suggested that Griffen and his henchmen undergo DNA tests to see how many of them are indigenous in the BNP’s own terms?
Typical Questontime pantomime. It looked shocking, the panel was a really poor selection.
Griffin falls at the first hurdle, which is to rigorously define the Englishness, which most of his policies are based upon and then test the policies to see who would qualify and how much it would cost. It strikes me that that would be so complicated that nothing else could progress. However, no one seems brave enough to question him at length on this and see where it goes.
It all comes down to bravery. Unfortunately the likes of Peter Hain can only bleat on about censorship rather than fighting them on policy. If the main parties had got this right in the first place, they wouldn’t find themselves in this situation now.
I really like this article because i have been trying to make this case but not able to put it this well, to my classmates (i study politics).
Unfortunately, most liberals seemed to love Griffins berating but i was concerned that one thing we do not need to do is give BNP supporters any more opporunity to claim they are being picked on.
I consider myself to be fairly liberal and left wing, but i thought QT and the hype surrounding it were too far in the way of upholding the norm and this can only play into the handsof the BNP. The BBC were also really biased
As many a soldier or suicide bomber’s lonely child might testify, there is not much empirical evidence to suggest that hearts and minds are won over by laughing at
( or ignoring ) the deeply held convictions of their owners
Perhaps we should not only defend the BBC’s right to screen ( albeit, without the wearily patronising politically motivated interference ) but demand future editions of the programme be broadcast earlier on in the schedule , in order that we encourage a better class of politician ?
Say, at 7pm on BBC1, instead of the current magazine show where two perma-grin
presenters ” telecopter ” around the country, needlessly changing the climate at license-fee payers expense
Since it appears we cannot rely on our sensationalist press, for whom any conflict resolution would be self-defeating, internet participants will need to be more vigilant about challenging the myriad misinformation spread by journalists and politicians
( Such as the QT panellist who implied only the right wing support hunting ; in fact, the hunt coat is of many colours , as demonstrated by the Channel 4 Political Award won by the Countryside Alliance being collected by it’s founding President, Baroness Mallalieu QC , & Kate Hoey MP , both Labour )
Oops – omission ( Blog ed , please feel free to amend ) in the second para above re. BBC1 broadcasting political debate during peak viewing hours :
[ in order that we encourage ] more voter participation , and thereby [ a better class of politician ? ]
I would not vote for the BNP: but I dislike how the so called liberals display a complete lack of librality when it comes to hearing what he said. Instead of the panelists, and come to that almost all journalists, engaging, they have wanted to undermine his credibility, or assume his views are \laughable\, as oposed to recognising they are different to theirs. He is intelligent and learns, and should not be written off as incompetent or a joke. He has progressively learnt and has changed his style to become electable. He is a Cambridge graduate remember. Unless other politicians engage and think, they will find themselves with a much more powerful oponent in years to come.
Simply saying \his beleifs are laughable as they are not mine\ misses the point of the power of a democratic system to give him power through the action of others when they vote for his party.
Also: I find it deeply irritating that his comments about Islam are taken as immediately derisable, and the unquestioned notion that having \faith\ is desirable. I think he is soft in this regard, as I find all religion is odious, as many intellectuals do. Look at the groundswell behind Dawkins, and Hitchens. The self evidence that Islam or come to that any religion is \cuddly\ is bunk. Christianity, Islam are as bad as each other: but clearly that is not a BNP notion!
Racism begins with our families, parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, people we admire, respect and love.
However, as we grow and mature we come to the realization that what we were told by our family when we were children were slanted lies base on their prejudices. We realize that most people are like ourselves and not so different and want the same things, like a home, steady work, a Medicare plan and schools for our children (if you travel you will see this). We realize that most people are of good hearts and goodwill.
This reminds me of a parable from the good book where a Levite and Priest come upon a man who fell among thieves and they both individually passed by and didn’t stop to help him.
Finally a man of another race came by, he got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy and got down with the injured man, administered first aid, and helped the man in need.
Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the “I” into the “thou,” and to be concerned about his fellow man.
You see, the Levite and the Priest were afraid, they asked themselves, “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?”
But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”
That’s the question before us. The question is not, “If I stop to help our fellow man (immigrant) in need, what will happen to me?” The question is, “If I do not stop to help our fellow man, what will happen to him or her?” That’s the question.
This current climate of blaming others for our woes is not new. We have had this before and we have conquered it.
Remember “Evil flourishes when good men (and women) do nothing”. Raise your voices with those of us who believe we are equal and we can win this battle again.
Why is it farcical to say as Nick Griffin has done that ‘Islam is a wicked and vicious faith’? Have you, Mary, forgotten the threats made by Islamists against Salman Rushdie in February of 1989? Have you forgotten what happened to poor Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in November of 2004 and Pym Fortuyn in May of 2002 and what happened following the publication of the Mahomet cartoons in Yllands-Posten in September of 2005 ? Have you forgotten the terrorist attacks in Jaipur in May of 2008 and in Ahmedabad in July of the same year and Mumbai that has been hit repatedly by
such people since March of 1993? Have you forgotten the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the attacks on the twin towers in New York in September of 2001. The above list could go on and on almost ad infinitum. The threats against Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the staff of Yllands-Posten as well as the attacks on each of the places listed above were perpetrated by practising Muslims who believed they were justified by the teachings of their prophet Mahomet in the Koran and Hadiths. Bearing in mind what I have said above, why exactly is Islam not a wicked faith’ even when ex-muslims such as Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan and possibly Ed Hussein seem to think so?
The whole thing (BBC putting him up on QT) was more about BBC asserting it’s independence without any consideration for the possible consequences, much in the fashion of a petulant teenager than their supposed adherence to the ethos of impartiality.
I feel it was a mistake. If putting Nick Griffin under the microscope was truly the intent behind it, I believe it was an aim that would have been more correctly served by thrusting him into an interview with John Humpreys in Radio 4’s Today or with Stephen Sackur on Hardtalk.
This is another one of BBC’s many amateurish blunders of recent years.
Yes, an excellent article. The programme was just a bear pit- not really about challenging Griffin but just broadcasting the kind of emotive vox-pop hate-fest that ticks all the right liberal boxes. And grabbing some good ratings without having to try too hard. It would have been interesting to challenge Griffin on his assertion that the Beeb is a kind of ultra-leftist caricature, not least because this programme gave some evidence for the reasons why he thinks so. Meanwhile Jack Straw was able to slither through unopposed on immigration, even though his government’s policies have fuelled the rise of the BNP.
I fear the current environment are fertile grounds for the BNP and the liberal media does nothing to further its cause by demonizing Griffin and his party, the way the media have sought to gag his party is only giving justification to his arguments, the issue of immigration is being ignored by mainstream politicians in their desire to remain politically correct but there is a groundswell of feeling for voters who will probably not vote for griffin but he is paving the way for a future more articulate and presentable face for the same policies.
The rise of Hitler was greatly facilitated by his accusations of bias that were observable in the Jewish controlled german media, the public are not stupid the best way forward is to have an open debate on immigration and not allow the issue to fester at the extremes
The BNP and other European parties of the Right are the future for Europe. Over the next few decades this will become increasingly true; as we continue to reap the harvest sown by the ultra-Left and their vile, traitorous social-Marxist agenda, which has led us to the end of the family, “positive-discrimination”, unfettered mass-immigration, homo-sexual male couples being allowed to adopt children, etc, etc, etc – so many crimes against the family, society, civilization and democracy. In the end, the democratic will of the people will prevail.
Has the rise of the BNP got nothing to do with the BBC and it’s ‘White Season’? Did the ‘Rivers of Blood’ programme have no affect? That programme – ‘Was Enoch Powell right?’ – was the best party political broadcast the BNP could ever have hoped for. Was Jack Straw’s opportunistic Muslim-baiting over the way Muslim women dress not another establishment endorsement of racism-lite? Gordon Brown and his ‘British jobs for British workers’ – remember that? And what about Blair’s lies about ‘45 minutes’ and ‘WMDs’ to get the UK involved in a disasterous war which was inevitably going to poison community relations in Britain? Oh yes, NuLab non-entities like Jack Straw become very heroic in bullying a little man like Griffin (especially when the mob is on their side), but there wasn’t one of them that had the backbone to tell George W Bush that he could forget about British support for his wars of choice. Cowards posing as heroes, that’s New Labour – and they are why the BNP is where it is
Dafydd Llewelun Jones says
“Why is it farcical to say as Nick Griffin has done that ‘Islam is a wicked and vicious faith’?”
Exactly, it all reminds me of the Uganda Peoples’ Democratic Christian Army (AKA the Lords Resistance Army), or of the heroic work carried out by Evangelicals in Nigeria in their fight against child witches (lovely bit of tape about that here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDu0-K9cPk ). Nor would Christians ever bomb abortion clinics … Was Tim McVeigh a Sunni or a Shi’a, I forget.
“why exactly is Islam not a wicked faith even when ex-muslims such as Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan and possibly Ed Hussein seem to think so?”
Yes, and just look at what the ex-Christian Richard Dawkins and thousands of other ex-Christians say about Christianity …
All religion is shite – a point demonstrated by Blair, Bush, Palin..
My dear, I can understand your natural dislike of someone with Nick Griffins views. You are a mixed race liberal. This is not your Motherland.I suppose the English should be greatful, after fifty years of mass immigration. After all, now we have kebab shops.We no longer have to travel the World to see other cultures, we are surrounded by them. On the other hand our own culture is the subject of vile and constant attack.Our children(especially if they are blond),are singled out for special treatment in schools if they do not except the indoctrination from the liberal left in favour of those, they are outnumbered by.In fact, unless you are one of the liberal left, you will not even get a job as a teacher.`You`, are part of the brainwashing establishment.You wish us all to be one happy brown family. You forget, that the differences in culture that we English have to endure, are only there because of differences in race. How dare you state how you feel about English matters.You are from foreign extraction.Stating your feelings on how the English view the invasion of their country, is much the same as any German stating their views on how the Poles felt in 1940.We English, are a race in our own right. This country `is` our motherland, and fight we must, as we have done for 1,500 years, for our very identity.During the 2nd world war. My family, as with a million other families were battered and bloodied by that conflict, as they had been in every war before, that England had fought.Your people would say, that we were fighting fascism. You place everything on political footing. To the average Briton, the enemies political preference was of no consequence.They were German,and no foreign power would be allowed a footing in our England.After the war, new towns were built. covering vast swathes of England in concrete. They were built to house, and provide work. To replace those homes destroyed by war.They( the establishment), told my father, there was no housing. That, in having a family he should apply to move to the new towns. This he did, and we grew up away from our East End home.The problem with this is, simply that the housing was there all along.It was put aside to house those coming from abroad.A thousend years of war to establish a peaceful,society.A society instantly recognisable, as our own, to be turned inside out within forty yeare by by liberal minded, self serving politicians. I look today, at the East End.We were moved to make way for foreigners. After all that, we might just as well have surrendered in 1939, or joined the Germans. We are conquered anyway. You say you don`t like Nick Griffin. I am sure he speaks highly of you.The fact is my dear, it is you and yours who are the enemy.
Dear Andrew Wiggins,
Incredible: how did you guess I’m blonde?
As it happens I also hold a British passport, as does my mother… in fact I can trace my ancestry in the British isles back over a thousand years. Really now, what more does it take to earn a place in this great ‘Motherland’?
My great-grandfather (who fought in the second world war) would surely have been sad to hear you say we should have given up in 1939. Cheer up. Things aren’t so bad.
Best,
Mary
“The experience bordered somewhere between the terrifying and the absurd. At Dagenham East tube, I was ceremoniously greeted by seven or eight big men….”.
Anyone who hasn’t worked out the reason for this is plain ignorant. The BNP has to take precautions against the UAF and others of a similar persuasion who employ violence as a matter of routine.