The BBC has revealed it may allow the BNP to participate in future broadcasts of Question Time.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. These defiant words first uttered by the 18th century French philosopher and polemic Voltaire, have long served as a moral buttress to the exponents of liberal democracy. The maxim has long helped square the unfortunate circle faced by left-leaning liberals and enlightened intelligentsia regarding the views of political and religious extremists, put simply: tolerating the intolerant. With Britain long priding itself on being a free and democratic nation, one could argue that the BBC’s recent decision to potentially allow the BNP to feature on future panels of Question Time, is merely the logical conclusion of this philosophy. It is a decision however that will undoubtedly be interpreted by many as foolhardy rather than brave, reprehensible as opposed to just. In a previous post I highlighted the Daily Telegraph’s decision to allow BNP councillor Richard Barnbrook to register and host a blog on its website, and examined the moral conundrum this provoked. The possibility of Nick Griffin appearing on BBC One prime time to discuss such topics as immigration, foreign policy, equality and civil rights will most definitely up the freedom of expression ante. For their part the BBC have defended the decision on the grounds that (quite rightly) they favour no particular political party, and show “due impartiality” to all. What will be most interesting however are how other members of the panel and the audience will respond to the move. One school of thought suggests that the best way to deal with extremists is to provide them a platform upon which their values and beliefs will be duly eviscerated by audience scorn. The other side of the coin however insists that such exposure often does little to undermine such views. Indeed invitation on to a nationally broadcast political debate lends an unavoidable “legitimacy” to all those taking part. As an advocate of freedom of expression I myself am divided as to how best to respond to such fringe parties. Will the oxygen of publicity extinguish or inflame the BNP’s standing? Will Nick Griffin simply elect to repeat the decision he took over his invitation to a garden party at Buckingham Palace? Time will tell. Until then my view remains the same: those who adhere to and support the tenets of a free and equal society, and who do not seek to incite fear or hatred, have every right to contribute to reasoned debate. Whether or not the BNP falls into this category (and should thus be able to engage in a televised debate) will ultimately depend on ones own moral and political values.
