Outboard memory possible article #2
After being refused by yet another student body (this time that of the University of Bath), Nick Griffin, National Chairman of the British National Party, has predictably blamed the "undemocratic left" for infringing on his rights to free speech. You couldn't make it up. However, for a minute, let's pretend that Griffin is something more than a mindless thug who's
realised wearing a suit and not going on about Hitler all the time is a good PR move for the British Far Right. Let's pretend he's actually worth discussing, because at some point we're
going to have to talk about no-platform policies, because otherwise it's going to be a stick with which to beat Leftist organisations forever. "Leftist" used here in comparison to the BNP, of course.
The BBC has a legal commitment to "due accuracy and impartiality" (From the Royal Charter copy.). Nowadays, at least, the BBC is run by professionals with a duty to the people rather than the State, and has increasing levels of diversity (although not
by enough and not fast enough, needless to say). It is not only necessary but desirable that political groups, however horrible, are addressed equally and fairly on services provided by the
BBC, because it's the only mainstream media organisation with anything approaching a claim to true impartiality. Part of this duty is to employ mean people like Jeremy Paxman who ask
political figures questions that make them feel bad.
This is especially important when dealing with Griffin and his ilk.
In a recent Cherwell
interview by the frankly anaemic Rebecca
Fry*, Griffin states that
"I’ve never denied the Holocaust."
Griffin has denied the Holocaust quite a lot, actually:
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades.
Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat." [ Source]
When one encounters this phenomenon, which is more generally known as "lying", turns up, there's only one real response. Which is to continue to question. It is a matter of public record that
Griffin has denied the Holocaust. When questioned, he denies having denied anything. This simply will not do. He has been caught Lying and must be Held To Account. This is the only way to
interview anyone of any importance, and is by no way an easy job. This is why it should be a job left to grown-up reporters rather than their student ersatz.
An inexperienced interviewer such as Ms. Fry can often not help but give a forceful politician a platform in an interview. (This is by no means to be construed as an attack on the writer in question, since many far more established journalists have also totally failed to understand that people lying to you all the time and getting away with it is Not All Right. Good luck to her, I say.).
This is why student journalists should not, in general, interview forceful political figures who condone and encourage hatecrime: it tends to end badly.
But what of free speech?! ask the ranks of racist semipeople on the Stormfront.org messageboards. "Nick's got a right to speak his mind i am a sordid waste of flesh o god I'm so alone"
This is where all that stuff about the BBC comes in. If the BBC were refusing a platform, this would be a different matter. A student paper or radio station is not the BBC. A student paper
or radio station is at best an outward looking private members' club with fucking astronomical fees. It is not a tax-sponsored neutral national broadcasting entity, and as such has no more obligation to let Griffin et al speak than I have to invite him
into my house to watch him prance up and down dressed as a member of the SS. (Which he does, without doubt. I love libel.)
Actually, what I really want to know is where he gets his self-esteem from - what
he would probably call his "White Pride"? Does he actually think "Cor, yeah, I'm a superior race" while spending the requisite two hours on the shitter, as prescribed by an all-British diet
of fried breakfasts, toad-in-the-hole and, um, fish and chips?
Does his chest swell with pride when he realises that even people who are stupid enough to actually agree with him will STILL go out of their way not to endorse the BNP?
Does he really enjoy spending of his time actively lying ("I've never denied the Holocaust/I'm not a racist") about what his party really stand for?
For fuck's sake, even Hitler had one ball.
I'm not one to judge on personal appearance, but it does just make me wonder how a man whose physical presence can be basically be represented as a really racist oblong becomes attracted to doctrines of racial superiority, other than through (entirely accurate) feelings of crushing inferiority and worthlessness.
Returning, briefly, to the childish jibe at the "undemocratic Left", it's important to note that this comes from the all-powerful Chairman of a party who advocate witholding the vote from those who fail to participate in a revived military National Service.
From the head of a party whose founder proudly proclaimed Mein Kampf his "Bible" [ Source]
In other words, this is a meaningless statement from a moral and intellectual midget whose only real policies are hate and lies. Rarely in politics does such a completely irredeemable figure turn up - even the reliably-Fascist and notoriously exploitative Daily Mail balked at the BNP's leafletting at the sites of the 2005 London bombings.
The BBC's Royal Charter means that as long as there are a certain number of BNP candidates and people occasionally vote for them, they are required to treat Griffin and his successors like human politicians rather than the jackbooted human turds they actually are.
Other, less accredited organisations, such as student newspapers, radio stations and The Rhexis are not. Griffin's only talent, other than stirring up hatred and looking a bit like he's melted, is to appear almost like a reasonable human adult when given the "balanced political reporting" approach and not pressed too hard when he says things that aren't true.
There is no reason to employ this approach.
So why bother?
This man and those like him are horrible travesties of humanity, and for an interviewer to treat this as normal is to accept their existence as a commonplace, rather than an indication of the failure of far too many people not to be xenophobic, hate-filled morons.
In short, and to quote St. Hunter, it's not only satisfying, but also absolutely necessary to piss down the throats of these Nazis.
* Also writer of the distressingly middle-of-the-road"Charles Clarke: Politician with Principles?". Sadly, the answer is "yes".
realised wearing a suit and not going on about Hitler all the time is a good PR move for the British Far Right. Let's pretend he's actually worth discussing, because at some point we're
going to have to talk about no-platform policies, because otherwise it's going to be a stick with which to beat Leftist organisations forever. "Leftist" used here in comparison to the BNP, of course.
The BBC has a legal commitment to "due accuracy and impartiality" (From the Royal Charter copy.). Nowadays, at least, the BBC is run by professionals with a duty to the people rather than the State, and has increasing levels of diversity (although not
by enough and not fast enough, needless to say). It is not only necessary but desirable that political groups, however horrible, are addressed equally and fairly on services provided by the
BBC, because it's the only mainstream media organisation with anything approaching a claim to true impartiality. Part of this duty is to employ mean people like Jeremy Paxman who ask
political figures questions that make them feel bad.
This is especially important when dealing with Griffin and his ilk.
In a recent Cherwell
interview by the frankly anaemic Rebecca
Fry*, Griffin states that
"I’ve never denied the Holocaust."
Griffin has denied the Holocaust quite a lot, actually:
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades.
Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat." [ Source]
When one encounters this phenomenon, which is more generally known as "lying", turns up, there's only one real response. Which is to continue to question. It is a matter of public record that
Griffin has denied the Holocaust. When questioned, he denies having denied anything. This simply will not do. He has been caught Lying and must be Held To Account. This is the only way to
interview anyone of any importance, and is by no way an easy job. This is why it should be a job left to grown-up reporters rather than their student ersatz.
An inexperienced interviewer such as Ms. Fry can often not help but give a forceful politician a platform in an interview. (This is by no means to be construed as an attack on the writer in question, since many far more established journalists have also totally failed to understand that people lying to you all the time and getting away with it is Not All Right. Good luck to her, I say.).
This is why student journalists should not, in general, interview forceful political figures who condone and encourage hatecrime: it tends to end badly.
But what of free speech?! ask the ranks of racist semipeople on the Stormfront.org messageboards. "Nick's got a right to speak his mind i am a sordid waste of flesh o god I'm so alone"
This is where all that stuff about the BBC comes in. If the BBC were refusing a platform, this would be a different matter. A student paper or radio station is not the BBC. A student paper
or radio station is at best an outward looking private members' club with fucking astronomical fees. It is not a tax-sponsored neutral national broadcasting entity, and as such has no more obligation to let Griffin et al speak than I have to invite him
into my house to watch him prance up and down dressed as a member of the SS. (Which he does, without doubt. I love libel.)
Actually, what I really want to know is where he gets his self-esteem from - what
he would probably call his "White Pride"? Does he actually think "Cor, yeah, I'm a superior race" while spending the requisite two hours on the shitter, as prescribed by an all-British diet
of fried breakfasts, toad-in-the-hole and, um, fish and chips?
Does his chest swell with pride when he realises that even people who are stupid enough to actually agree with him will STILL go out of their way not to endorse the BNP?
Does he really enjoy spending of his time actively lying ("I've never denied the Holocaust/I'm not a racist") about what his party really stand for?
For fuck's sake, even Hitler had one ball.
I'm not one to judge on personal appearance, but it does just make me wonder how a man whose physical presence can be basically be represented as a really racist oblong becomes attracted to doctrines of racial superiority, other than through (entirely accurate) feelings of crushing inferiority and worthlessness.
Returning, briefly, to the childish jibe at the "undemocratic Left", it's important to note that this comes from the all-powerful Chairman of a party who advocate witholding the vote from those who fail to participate in a revived military National Service.
From the head of a party whose founder proudly proclaimed Mein Kampf his "Bible" [ Source]
In other words, this is a meaningless statement from a moral and intellectual midget whose only real policies are hate and lies. Rarely in politics does such a completely irredeemable figure turn up - even the reliably-Fascist and notoriously exploitative Daily Mail balked at the BNP's leafletting at the sites of the 2005 London bombings.
The BBC's Royal Charter means that as long as there are a certain number of BNP candidates and people occasionally vote for them, they are required to treat Griffin and his successors like human politicians rather than the jackbooted human turds they actually are.
Other, less accredited organisations, such as student newspapers, radio stations and The Rhexis are not. Griffin's only talent, other than stirring up hatred and looking a bit like he's melted, is to appear almost like a reasonable human adult when given the "balanced political reporting" approach and not pressed too hard when he says things that aren't true.
There is no reason to employ this approach.
So why bother?
This man and those like him are horrible travesties of humanity, and for an interviewer to treat this as normal is to accept their existence as a commonplace, rather than an indication of the failure of far too many people not to be xenophobic, hate-filled morons.
In short, and to quote St. Hunter, it's not only satisfying, but also absolutely necessary to piss down the throats of these Nazis.
* Also writer of the distressingly middle-of-the-road"Charles Clarke: Politician with Principles?". Sadly, the answer is "yes".