Forget, for a second, the arguments about the 'no platform' policy.  We can return to those.  This is not an argument about 'no platform'.  Nor is this an argument about that much misunderstood idea, 'free speech'.  On Monday's BBC Newsnight, the programme hosted the EDL leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a former BNP member and convicted violent offender.  This was shortly after the EDL's major funder had described the attack as 'chickens coming home to roost', and just as there were serious allegations of major organisational connections between the EDL and Anders Behring Breivik.

The official brief, as announced on Twitter, was to investigate those alleged connections between Breivik and the EDL.  In fact, what took place was that Yaxley-Lennon was given ample space in which to represent and misrepresent his position.  I won't pretend that Yaxley-Lennon was made to look good: he couldn't possibly look good in this context.  He looked shifty, sweaty, determined to avoid answering important questions, talking over his interlocutor as much as possible, etc.  Yet, this was entirely out of proportion to the intensity of Paxman's questioning, and the EDL leader was permitted to utter, without being seriously challenged, a number of outright falsehoods and misrepresentations.  For example, he was permitted to claim that he had no knowledge of Daryl Hobson, the EDL member who apparently liaised with Anders Behring Breivik.  This was a lie.  Since the television programme was supposedly investigating these connections, the least it could have been expected to do was the bare minimum of research before the programme began.  But in fact little research was evident, and Yaxley-Lennon's claims were typically taken at face value.  He was permitted to claim that Breivik was hostile to the EDL on the grounds that they are an 'anti-racist' organisation, which is also untrue.  He quoted from page 1438 of the manifesto written by Breivik to the following effect:

Paxman allowed him to do this, and did not challenge his account.  However, if you read the manifesto, and I have (and you would expect Jeremy Paxman to have read it), you will know this quote (which does appear in some versions of the document) does not exhaust the references to the EDL, and is inconsistent with other segments.  In other references, it is clear that Breivik is deeply sympathetic to the EDL and admires their tactics.  He is concerned that, in his terms, "conservative intellectuals contribute to help them on the right ideological path. And to ensure that they continue to reject criminal, racist and totalitarian doctrines".  In other words, this mass murderer and racial supremacist is worried that the EDL might become a bit too racist and thuggish for his tastes.  The thrust of Yaxley-Lennon's lies and misrepresentations was to exonerate the EDL, and Paxman let him do it.

Lastly, he was permitted repeatedly to attack Islam, describe Islam as a "threat" and claim that Muslim leaders shared the ideology of terrorists.  And he suggested that within five years there would be similar violence in the UK if nothing was done about the Muslim problem.  (This is not the first time he has made this threat.  It is the first time has made it after a major European fascist psychopath has gone on the rampage, killing dozens of 'traitor' children).  Having thus deflected the blame from the EDL, and planted it squarely on Muslims and Islam, he issued a threat of violence that he denied was a threat of violence.  And Paxman accepted his explanation of that threat as a non-threat, and treated this lunatic as if he was a normal human being.  Given the circumstances, the EDL was given the easiest possible ride, and came out having put the best possible face on it.  This was facilitated by the BBC and by Jeremy Paxman.  In fact, there's a history of Paxman being singularly unable to deal with EDL or fascist leaders, despite him having such a mountainous reputation as an intimidating interviewer.

Part of the problem here is context.  The media feeds from the media.  Interviewers, even braying, horse-faced, upper class pitbulls, essentially work within a consensus defined by the media.  They ask questions based on what they think the average pundit would want to see asked.  But that in turn is limited by what the average pundit is likely to know.  And one would not know from the media's coverage that the vast majority of 'terrorist' attacks in Europe are the fruit of various nationalist struggles, nor that the preponderance of recent preparations for terror in the UK have been coming from the far right.  So, Paxman works within a media consensus that has reserved the 'terrorism' label for Muslims, defined Muslims as a major security threat, and repeatedly construed Islam as containing something essentially at variance with 'Western civilization'.  Meanwhile, it has depicted multiculturalism as a failure, a source of 'legitimate grievances', and the 'white working class' as an ethnic-cultural entity that ostentatiously inarticulate spokespersons like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon can claim to represent.  This at least partially explains Paxman's extraordinary timidity in dealing with racists and thugs.

Which brings me to this: even setting aside the arguments about 'no platform', there is a perfectly excellent reason why the BBC should not host racists and fascists.  They're no bloody good at it.  They always claim that they're 'exposing' the fascists, showing them up, letting people know what they're really all about.  And they never deliver on that promise.  Time after time, BNP and EDL members have been brought on television in what are often the most cosy circumstances and permitted to ventilate lies, misrepresentations, slanders and threats without serious challenge.  And now, after Yaxley-Lennon's appearance on Newsnight, it turns out he's been doing the daytime television circuit.  This thug, this violent racist at the head of a gang of violent racists and Nazis, is being normalised.  His ideas are being communicated to mass audiences without serious rebuttal or challenge, and are thus being normalised - and this is happening in a situation where the EDL and the BNP and all the thugs in their periphery should be languishing in utter disgrace.

ps: There's a petition being circulated over this issue, please sign.

So, the BBC has responded to the furore over its ludicrous interview with Jody Mcintyre, thus: "I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances." That's exactly the problem. The BBC's absurd willingness to abase itself before the powerful, to bully and browbeat people on behalf of power, to instinctively side with authority wherever it is contested, does not vary. What has happened here is that the interviewer, Ben Brown, was so committed to this role that he failed to notice how utterly absurd and obscene it is to imply that a wheelchair bound man with cerebral palsy is any physical threat to armed policemen. Brown regurgitated, without a moment's reflection as to its credibility, the "suggestion" that Mcintyre was wheeling his wheelchair toward the police, as if that was relevant, as if it would pose a threat that could possibly justify assaulting Mcintyre in his wheelchair, throwing him onto the road and dragging him across its surface. He did this because that's what people like him always instinctively do, and it simply didn't occur to him that there was any other way to behave. And that's the whole problem.

A friend drew my attention to this story at the BBC. [Note: since this post was first published, the story has been substantially edited. See below.] It alleges that one Jonathan Hoffman appeared at a SOAS debate on Palestine and, when he mentioned his name (they helpfully point out that it is of German-Jewish extraction) he was booed and called 'Jewish' as if it were an insult. This is the video:



The BBC doesn't mention that there are Jewish people on the panel and in the audience. Steven Rose is Jewish, and Ronnie Kasrils is also of Jewish descent. Several members of the audience identify themselves as Jewish, and are subject to no racist opprobrium. The BBC doesn't mention that Jonathan Hoffman is a member of the Zionist Federation, and is responsible for some of the most disgustingly racist apologias for Israel's attack on Gaza last winter. That is why he was booed. Readers of Jews Sans Frontieres will be familiar with some of his work. They also cite an 'anti-racist' campaigner as a source for the claim that the hostility to Hoffman was racist, and that he was attacked for being 'Jewish'. The BBC doesn't mention that the campaigner, Raheem Kassam, is an executive member of Conservative Future, the 'youth wing' of the Conservative Party. They incorrectly identify his organisation, Students Rights, as a group of 'anti-racism' campaigners. In fact, their explicit remit is to "counter political extremism", and threats to "free speech". The latter includes the attempts by some students to prevent military recruitment on campus.

Update: Raheem Kassam has asked me to clarify that while he was a member of Conservative Party, he no longer is, having allowed the membership to lapse a year ago. As such, he is no longer on the executive of Conservative Future.

Update II: The original BBC story has been substantially edited. The headline has been altered, and 'balancing' quotations from those present at the meeting have been introduced. The head of Student Rights, who I can confirm was not present at the meeting and only viewed the online footage, was initially the only source cited in the story. Student Rights is no longer referred to, falsely, as a group of 'anti-racist' campaigners. A success for those complaining, I think.

Well, that was an interesting evening. It seems that BBC headquarters across the country had protests and occupations - in Plymouth, Glasgow, and some other cities that I don't remember. A number of protesters managed to scale the gates to the BBC headquarters in White City (one placard read: "It's not THAT kind of White City, Nick") before the main protest actually began, thus panicking the police briefly. I believe the actual filming of the Question Time programme was delayed by a couple of hours because of the protest, and that a number of antifascists did get into the studio. (In fact, I see from the clips being shown on the BBC that the studio audience detested Griffin, as they should have done, and were far more effective at challenging Griffin than any of the creepy politicians they had on the show - especially the pathetic Jack Straw). And I also hear that Jonathan Ross was inconvenienced in some way.

By the time I arrived, the protest had swelled to several thousand people congregated on the road outside Wood Lane tube station. It was quite noisy and rebellious, and there was an inordinate number of young people there. I hear there was some rumours of violence outside the gates or something. I didn't see any violence on the part of protesters whatsoever, but the police did pepper spray a couple of kids, a few people were assaulted by coppers not wearing their numbers on their shoulders, one guy was throttled and another fellow did get his head cracked open by a truncheon. Aside from the usual police brutality, it was a straightforwardly militant, multiracial protest in the mainstream antifascist tradition. The audience passed through security gates behind plexiglass where they could see us outside protesting, and were clearly rather excited and intrigued by the whole thing. When filming ended, the protesters then marched to where Griffin's car was supposed to be exiting, and blockaded it for a while, before a number of ominous looking police vans turned up and despatched a platoon of riot cops. There were some fascists around, and a number of few Nazis wandered over from the nearby pub to taunt the protest before being chased away.

I consider this a litmus test. It is not a test of anything about the BBC, mind you. I just like to know exactly how pissed off I can still get without beheading someone. Everything about it is stupid and insulting. The headline says: "BNP members challenged on beliefs". What actually follows is an inane confab of daft questions and non-sequiturs by way of reply between said BNP members, including the explicitly pro-Nazi Mark Collett, and a BBC interviewer. Possibly, the BNP members in question found the experience "challenging", in much the same way that Paul Daniels finds it a "challenge" not to be a self-satisfied, greasy little shit with far too much money which should be taxed, taxed, taxed until he drops dead from a heart attack at the injustice of it all. But not a single false or ridiculous claim is actually rebutted, questioned, or put to the test. So, they're asked about British football player Ashley Cole, and they're all like "If he wants to come to this country and he wants to live by our laws, pay into society, that's fine." And the interviewer, who gives the impression that she would rather be talking to a couple of labradors on Blue Peter, doesn't challenge this. There is not even the usual token gesture toward the specious gospel of 'balance' that the BBC usually evulugates. Even Roy Greenslade, who believes that the BNP should be allowed on to Question Time, is furious about the whole incident.

When the BBC was questioned about this by writer Mark Charan Newton, the editor of Newsbeat replied with what l33t-speakers refer to as copypasta. He said that the BNP had been given airtime because "we’re an impartial newsgathering organisation". In fact, as Love Music Hate Racism supporters have pointed out, the BBC have often refused to broadcast LMHR carnivals because they're 'too political'. This is the BBC's instinctive hostility to the left showing: giving air time to anti-racists is political; air time for fascists is 'free speech'. In effect, the BBC's spiel repeated the Fox News slogan: "we report, you decide". But someone has to choose what to report on, and what the issues are that 'we' must decide on. There are so many things to talk about that the decision to canvas the opinion of BNP 'youth' can only be an editorial decision that says that the BNP are interesting, and worthy of attention.

Predictably, therefore, the editor of Newsbeat goes on to say: "Over time it’s evident from following our listeners that the party touches a nerve of support or interest. The large pile of texts on my desk raise issues around immigration, political correctness and an apparent frustration with mainstream politics that means the BNP, or at least some of their policies, appeals to some people." What he means to say is that he suddenly got all this attention from a fervid minority of viewers about the BNP and he - if I may be so coy about it - shot his wad. He spraypainted his lower deck. He disburdened himself of a surplus of wank gravy. I'm sure you get my meaning (write to me if I remain too obtuse on this point). The BNP is, apparently, ratings fodder because there are probably a few million sad little bigots who think they've got the right idea about immigrants and gays. The editor is dutifully pointing this out while indicating that he doesn't really care about obligations to the BNP's likely victims, to the imperative of 'public trust' that the BBC often goes on about when justifying broadcasting decisions, or indeed anything else that might throw a politically-correct wrench in their works.

Just to be clear: there is no prospect, whatsoever, of a 'debate' of any meaningful kind taking place if Nick Griffin is allowed to be a guest on Question Time. That show is not about debate. It consists of soundbite answers to soundbite questions. Serious matters are discussed, but not in a serious way. In such a context, all that is likely to happen is that the fascist leader will take the opportunity to issue his usual string of coded racist provocations and lies, and hope for enough of them to stick. His opponents may be able to refute some of his claims, but a more likely prospect is that they will begin by pandering: they will say that there are 'legitimate grievances' behind the BNP's support, in an attempt to occupy their racist territory. This is just what New Labour and Tory politicians have done, to disastrous effect, for years. That will have the result that it always does - the BNP will say "even the mainstream parties say we are right, but we are the only ones doing anything about it". Repeat and underline, this will not be a debate but a public relations exercise.

There is also no prospect of such a programme resulting in the BNP's being 'exposed'. It is said that since most BNP members can't put together a coherent argument, they will easily be shown up and ridiculed. But they do not need coherent arguments. Most guests on Question Time do not have coherent arguments. It is a programme, like Have I Got News For You, or Mock the Week, in which the key is to have a good line at the right time. It is carefully choreographed and practised. What the BNP need, therefore, is carefully phrased incitements, presented in a plausible manner. The fascists have demonstrated on the streets and in previous media appearances that they are capable of this much. Even if they were as dumb as an American Idol contestant, there would still be no chance of their being 'exposed'. The important things that would require exposure - the matter of the BNP's record, its ideological lineage, the violence and criminality of its members, etc. - are points that require time, patience and evidence to explain. None of those assets are available on a panel quiz show. The only context in which a debate could really 'expose' anything about the BNP would be in court. There, they could have all the time they wanted to explain their views, but they'd also have to justify their claims, and all the evidence would have to be examined. So, if you are one of those people who thinks the BNP must have lavish 'free speech', and yet must also be meaingfully 'exposed', your objective position is clear: what you should really be demanding is show trials.

I don't think we should accept the BBC's criteria either on its own terms, or as actually indicative of how the BBC works. The corporation has already given the BNP coverage way beyond any arguable obligations, and it started doing so long before the BNP had demonstrated 'national support'. There is absolutely no obligation on them to host Griffin on Question Time. This is not about the law, representative coverage, free speech or anything of that kind - although if the BBC wants to cite those points, I think we are more than able to make the case that the BNP is lawless, opposed to free speech and doesn't believe in representation for any group its Nazi ideology deems fit for persecution. I should think it's possibly even legally problematic for the BBC to host Griffin. The BNP is in a crisis at the moment because it is facing prosecution, because its constitution breaks the law. It does not permit non-white people to join the party and therefore it practises racial discrimination. Griffin, in a carefully coded statement evoking the famous 'fourteen words' of white supremacist ideology, has suggested that the BNP may have to adapt to the law but will still seeks "to secure a future for the true children of our islands". Now, the party's hardcore, represented in both the leadership and middling layers, will probably resist this, leading to further schisms - which antifascists should fully take advantage of. But the point is that if the BNP is constitutionally in breach of the law and if, as I think is at least arguable, its various public statements regularly leave it susceptible to prosecution for incitement to violence, or racial or religious hatred (just off the top of my head, consider Cllr. Pat Richardson's statement that "a brick through the window is a British method" of expressing disagreement, 'British' being the highest commendation that such a person can utter), it is quite possibly a risk for the BBC to host Griffin. At any rate, there is no basis whatsoever in the corporation's claim that it is simply following guidelines or election laws.

On the other hand, part of the BBC's normative rationale for hosting fascist propaganda is that it must be fair and impartial, and must faithfully represent all points of view. Few readers of this blog will believe for a second that the BBC is non-biased, or that it represents all points of view fairly. The BBC has an institutional bias toward power, as we have seen demonstrated in surveys concerning its coverage of Iraq and Israel-Palestine. It has a similar bias over class issues, and is instinctively hostile to strikers, protesters, environmentalists, anticapitalists, the Left, etc. That hostility also extends to antifascists. Those who remember the coverage of the massive Welling protest in 1993, which was brutally attacked by police, will recall just how much the BBC sought to vilify the protesters and to imply that they were violent and disruptive. We shouldn't believe them when they tell us they only want to be fair and even-handed.

So, this brings us to the issue of 'No Platform'. There are many arguments circulating about this policy, concerning 'free speech' and the far right, which are confused and misleading. One point on which it pays to be absolutely clear, therefore, is that the appeal to 'No Platform' is not identical to demanding that the state ban the BNP. There might be an argument for banning the BNP, but this is a separate argument. The policy of 'No Platform' is one that trade unions, student unions, campaigning groups and other civil society organisations are asked to support and implement. It means that they will refuse to assist in promoting the BNP's message, in solidarity with the BNP's victims. It means that they will not share a platform with a fascist, or extend a platform to one.

There are some unrealistic assumptions that hamper this discussion. The first is that to 'expose' the BNP, it is necessary to 'debate' them in some context. In fact, it is quite possible to convey a realistic and persuasive description of the BNP's politics without giving them a platform. In fact, it is easier to do so for reasons that will shortly become apparent. The second is that it is actually possible to have a meaningful debate with the BNP. Their commitment to organised dissimulation suggests that it is not. This isn't incidental, nor is it just spin. Fascists have always been hostile to rationalism and to the democratic principles that underpin debate. They ardently hold that truth is established through superior force. Remember how Nick Griffin once put it to the party faithful. He argued that the BNP's voters supported "what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan ‘Defend Rights for Whites’ with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate." A 'debate' for them is just an opportunity to say whatever will enhance their power. To take their pseudo-questions and provocations as literal propositions for 'debate' is to already concede the territory.

The third indefensible assumption is that, however unpleasant they are, it is actually a good thing to attempt to engage the BNP in 'debate'. Being basically democratic, some people want to believe that disagreements can be resolved, and hidden agendas exposed, through rigorous discussion. But, aside from the fact that such discussion as has taken place has rarely been particularly rigorous or exacting, the BNP's history and behaviour shows that it is not interested in resolving anything through discussion. In fact, it shows that the BNP is a threat to public safety more than any other political party in the UK, barring perhaps a few of the lunatic neo-Nazi sects. The more coverage and exposure they receive, the more of a threat they are.

The spate of anti-Muslim violence after the BNP's electoral successes, and the recent chaos being orchestrated by the 'English Defence League' whose founder is a BNP member, merely offer a glimpse of this. The long-term aim of the BNP is to replicate the FN's route to the mainstream. They want to gain control of state bodies, acquire representation in major public institutions, build up a membership base, and then use that power to construct a conventional fascist street-fighting machine. If you want a sense of what it would be like to have to deal with that, try asking the Roma in Italy. And it isn't too hard to figure out the logistics of how such a cadre might be built. While most BNP voters are not outright Nazis, I thought it was very interesting that 9% of them agree with the idea that “there is a major international conspiracy led by Jews and Communists to undermine traditional Christian values in Britain”. That is a hardcore Nazi belief, and nine percent of the BNP vote in the European elections is close to 90,000 people. This represents a very plausible substrate for the Nazis to recruit from, indoctrinate, take on shooting weekends, go on combat training with, and so on. At the very least, they stand a chance - if not effectively opposed - of gaining a substantial number of people who are capable of putting bricks through windows, as Cllr. Richardson recommends. To give the BNP a platform is to help them with that task. Moreover, the legitimacy this gives their politics will tend to shift the political spectrum to the right, as opportunistic politicians attempt to occupy the space in which the BNP are gaining.

The final faulty assumption, the one that is least convincing in my view, is that depriving the BNP of a platform constitutes an abridgment of their 'free speech'. By no understanding of free speech that I am aware of is any person obliged to share a platform with a fascist organisation, or to offer one to its spokespersons. In fact, in recognition of the demonstrable threat that the far right poses to even minimal democratic norms of free expression, we actually have an obligation to frustrate the BNP, to obstruct their growth, prevent them from organising, and so on. But the 'No Platform' policy doesn't even go that far: it clearly just asks people not to assist the BNP. It is only good manners.

The Guardian's report on this Question Time fiasco indicates that Labour MPs, who as a rule accept the 'No Platform' policy, might now have to adapt to the BBC's interpretation of their guidelines. This is based on unattributed statements from "aides" and a "spokesman", but it may be an authoritative claim. My sense is that most Labour MPs, even right-wingers like Denis MacShane, wouldn't be seen dead near the BNP. But if 'No Platform' is being reviewed by the leadership, who fully understand the stakes involved, this can only underline their wretched cynicism. But then this is why it was and remains crucial that 'No Platform' be a grassroots campaign, pursued by activists and trade unionists, not a formal policy susceptible to veto by PR strategists.

Glasgow Stop the War Coalition

BBC Scotland headquarters occupied after refusal to show DEC Gaza aid appeal – Occupation victorious in highlighting the issue

GLASGOW – Over 100 people participated in an occupation of the BBC Scotland headquarters today, demanding that the broadcaster show the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza. Occupiers entered the building at 5pm, and despite the police threatening mass arrests to remove everyone within 15 minutes, the occupation remained for almost 4 hours.

The occupation was successful in applying additional pressure on the BBC through extensive national and international media coverage, including CNN, CBS and Al-Jazeera. Tony Benn also telephoned the occupation to offer his support, saying 'The decision to occupy the BBC in Glasgow must be understood as a plea for the people of Gaza, who are suffering so much and who need our help to help get the money through'.

A delegation from the occupation was elected to meet with Ian Small, Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs and member of the BBC's Executive Board, who was called in specially to meet with the occupiers. The occupation had three main demands:

* That the BBC reverse its decision and show the DEC Appeal for Gaza.
* That the BBC director responsible for the decision not to air the appeal should be asked to resign.
* That the BBC show coverage of the outrage of the British people against the stopping of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The BBC agreed that it will arrange a meeting with the delegation with Ken McQuarrie, the Controller of the BBC Scotland, and Atholl Duncan, the head of news for BBC Scotland on Wednesday the 28th of January. Glasgow Stop the War Coalition is asking its supporters and those who support humanitarian aid to Gaza to gather outside the BBC on Wednesday at 4.30pm.

Protestors also promised to return unless the DEC appeal is aired. Glasgow Stop the War also called for others to take similar actions around the UK.

All the occupiers decided to leave the building together, and no arrests were made.

'The life of every man, woman and child in Gaza is just as valuable as the lives of people anywhere else in the world. The people of Britain want to help the people of Gaza, and the BBC should give them the information to do so. Every day that the BBC waits to show this appeal, more people in Gaza will die,' said Penny Howard, of the Stop the War Coalition.