Thursday, 19 April 2007
Linking to the far right
A minor disagreement with DK in the comments section on Iain Dale’s blog has got me thinking about our old friends in the BNP, and specifically about the correct way to deal with right-wing extremism in public debate.
Iain highlighted an article on the BNP website which appeared to be urging voters to back UKIP candidates in certain English council wards where the BNP were not fielding a candidate. In doing so, he linked to the BNP’s site, and it was this that a couple of commenters, myself included, felt was a mistake; free publicity for a party which most of us, from left or right, would wish to see fail at the polls next month.
Well, DK posted this comment in reply to my own:
I'm sorry but for once I utterly disagree with you (and I expressed a similar idea on another post).
If the BNP are so odious, then people will realise that from their website writings. What you are effectively doing is to stifle free speech in the blogosphere.
If anyone quotes an article, I want to see the link so that I can verify context, etc. Otherwise, how can I judge whether the comment piece is fair?
A lot of the trouble is that people don't read the BNP manifesto and so utterly misunderstand their position. This is because people refuse to even countenance looking at the BNP site, let alone linking.
As we have constantly said, over the issue of free speech: let them say what they say and then demolish their arguments.
So, I say to Iain: thanks for heeding my comment and well done.
DK
I have some sympathy with this argument. Generally speaking, I tend towards the well-trodden path of arguing that the best way to defeat an odious idea is not to suppress it or ‘ban’ it (as if you could ban an idea) but to defeat it in open court. This strategy has worked in the past (in the case of Deborah Lipstadt vs David Irving, literally so). And as I have argued in the past, the upcoming ban on Holocaust denial in the EU (which will not apply to the Armenian genocide, naturally, for fear of upsetting the Turks any further) is an unjustifiable and unacceptable infringement of free speech, no matter how unpleasant those who seek to infringe this law may be. (The ban on Holocaust denial is worth a post in its own right: you can find the EU's Framework Document via this post at the Kitchen, and I urge you to do so.)
Nor am I entirely comfortable with the blanket insistence of many, particularly on the Left, of branding the BNP as “Nazis”; the BNP aren’t Nazis. They may be Nazi wannabes, but that is not the same thing; and, just as the loose application of the term “fascist” devalues that term (a sin of which I have been guilty in the past), so I think describing the low-level thuggery and intimidation practised by BNP members, and the racist ideology espoused by its leadership, as being akin to the situation in 1930's Germany that saw the rise of the Nazis, is inaccurate and unhelpful. There are not going to be death camps springing up in the Cotswolds any time soon, and to suggest that a few BNP councillors make that scenario more likely is, I think, to insult the intelligence.
To the victim of a racist attack, of course, the difference may well be academic: but, with polls suggesting that the far right may indeed make gains next month (hopefully, modest ones at most), simply demonising them does not work – or at least, it is not enough.
This feeds into a larger point about the far right generally (I shall refer to them as such for convenience’s sake, though as has been argued by DK among others, they share just as much in common with the far left).
The principle of allowing the maximum possible free speech, confident in the knowledge that liberal ideas will triumph over racism and prejudice, is a sound one, but experience suggests that it doesn’t always pan out that way in practice. Over the last decade or two, right-wing parties around Europe have capitalised on fears about immigration and dissatisfaction to make gains in countries like France, Belgium and Holland and, occasionally, get into coalition with more ‘respectable’ parties as in Austria and Italy. Some are suggesting that Le Pen may pull off a repeat of his 2002 shock this weekend by making it in to the second round ballot for the French presidency.
This is undoubtedly one reason why many people are uncomfortable with the idea of giving racists a platform, the better to undermine them – history shows that it’s not that simple. Faced with rioting Muslim youths in France, jihadist bombers and growing immigration, a lot of people feel that the main parties just aren’t listening to their concerns, instead parroting inclusive buzzwords like inclusivity and multiculturalism. And when the mainstream parties do address these concerns, as with the Tories in 2005 or Liam Byrne this week, their efforts are often clumsy, superficial, and tinged with the shadow of racism. It’s a hard circle to square, and no-one has yet found a satisfactory way to do so.
Be that as it may, defeating an ideology in open argument is one thing; diverting readers to their website is another. Since I had a go at Oliver Kamm last week, let me at least acknowledge that he puts this position better than I can in his blog today:
I am a near-absolutist on free speech - so including blasphemy and Holocaust denial, but excluding incitement to crime. My belief in free speech does not, however, require me to extend a platform of my own to anyone who wants it.
Exactly so. I have no problem, as such, with bloggers linking to the BNP website, any more than if they were linking to a jihadist website to illustrate a point about militant Islamists. Had Iain been linking in order to illustrate an article which he considered offensive, or to fisk a policy statement, or to demonstrate the kind of discussions that go on in BNP-related forums, I would not have queried his decision. And there are many bloggers out there who do good work exposing the deep, deep unpleasantness of the far right in both word and deed.
But it seems to me that if you are going to [potentially] send quite a bit of traffic their way, you should have a decent reason, and that doesn’t seem to me to apply in this case. Iain is an A-list blogger (although there are those who would like to see him demoted) and if even 1% of his 10,000 readers a day (or whatever it is) click on the link, that seems to me to be a hundred too many. And that is why I think Iain is wrong to link to the BNP website, and why I think DK is wrong to back that decision. Discussing the BNP but refusing to link to their site is in no way stifling free speech. It's their job to drum up publicity for their policies and get people interested in their website. It's not mine. Respecting free speech means letting the guy stand at Speakers' Corner and rant. It doesn't entail handing him a loudspeaker. (This is another reason why I'm against state funding of political parties.)
It will be clear from the preceding paragraphs that I’m not sure what the best way to deal with the BNP is. However,I do know that, even if you are peddling shit, you will always sell more shit with a big shop window than with a small one; because there are, sadly, always people out there who will buy it. That’s why I don’t link to the BNP website, and I don’t intend to.
Labels: Civil liberties
Comments:
<< Home
This just goes to show why we should have free speech for all issues.
Differences between people with essentially similar views exist as they think they know what is the best way of combatting the problem.
I'm with you in that I wouldn't want to link to the BNP but sometimes the context in which it is published needs to be seen to understand the whole message, and then also the subliminal (or not!) message that is being put to the reader.
Differences between people with essentially similar views exist as they think they know what is the best way of combatting the problem.
I'm with you in that I wouldn't want to link to the BNP but sometimes the context in which it is published needs to be seen to understand the whole message, and then also the subliminal (or not!) message that is being put to the reader.
..with polls suggesting that the far right may indeed make gains next month (hopefully, modest ones at most), simply demonising them does not work – or at least, it is not enough.
I've heard that they may be planning to field a lot of candidates this time around in places like Barking & Dagenham, precisely because of the way the debate is stifled by the main parties, i.e. it's causing a backlash, a 'they must be onto something!' effect that they feel they can exploit.
"..if even 1% of his 10,000 readers a day (or whatever it is) click on the link, that seems to me to be a hundred too many."
If they click on it, and 99 of them immediately think 'bunch of w*****s' & determine not to vote for them as a result, isn't that a good thing, though...?
I've heard that they may be planning to field a lot of candidates this time around in places like Barking & Dagenham, precisely because of the way the debate is stifled by the main parties, i.e. it's causing a backlash, a 'they must be onto something!' effect that they feel they can exploit.
"..if even 1% of his 10,000 readers a day (or whatever it is) click on the link, that seems to me to be a hundred too many."
If they click on it, and 99 of them immediately think 'bunch of w*****s' & determine not to vote for them as a result, isn't that a good thing, though...?
Mr E, wow, so much to comment on, I'll try to keep to the narrow issue of free speech. For now. I personally cannot countenace any prohibition on free speech, even when coming from the BNP or German Neo-Nazis. We surely play absolutely into their hands and allow them to manipulate the vulnerable if we say their words are so bad they cannot be countenanced, considered and defeated by weight of argument. It is oxygen to the denizens of this underworld to do so.
we need to hold firm and take the longer view that our arguments, our ideals and our aspirations so outweigh the shit served up by these second rate fascists/socialists that we will prevail. To undermine such a fundamental principle for short term political expediancy is just not an option.
You're either a libertarian or you're not. There's a lot of shit out there I don't like but I'll fight it with principle, you should too.
we need to hold firm and take the longer view that our arguments, our ideals and our aspirations so outweigh the shit served up by these second rate fascists/socialists that we will prevail. To undermine such a fundamental principle for short term political expediancy is just not an option.
You're either a libertarian or you're not. There's a lot of shit out there I don't like but I'll fight it with principle, you should too.
scared myself shitless by blogging my thoughts. New to this but feel free to wield the knife, I'm no fucking pussycat!!
The problem is that many reading the BNP site less than thoroughly may think their policies look ok. Preserve British culture, what's wrong with that?
It is only when you read some of the details of policy, and I am referring especially to their plans to scrap all anti-discrimination legislation, you stqrt to see some of the problems they would cause.
It is only when you read some of the details of policy, and I am referring especially to their plans to scrap all anti-discrimination legislation, you stqrt to see some of the problems they would cause.
Personally, I think we have to show the BNP up for what it is: a party trying to be everything to everyman but which underneath hides a deeply reactionary, and in some cases most certainly fascist, ideology.
In my view, the no platform strategy has failed, although whether that's really down to the BNP or just concerns about immigration is hard to tell. The fight against them has to come from within the communities themselves, and they have to take on their arguments and destroy them. Generally, this actually isn't that difficult, but as Barking shows, it doesn't mean you're going to be listened to, which should really energise the effort rather than just sow disillusion.
While the BNP pretends not to be fascist and while some of its members and those who vote for it may not even be racist, the foot soldiers of the party most certainly are both. You only have to read Stormfront to see that. Proving this is another way to defeat them, and it doesn't help by suggesting that they're like the far left except with more race hatred. They may have similar economic policies, but the sheer venom of the BNP makes them out as being far different and much more of a threat than Respect is.
In my view, the no platform strategy has failed, although whether that's really down to the BNP or just concerns about immigration is hard to tell. The fight against them has to come from within the communities themselves, and they have to take on their arguments and destroy them. Generally, this actually isn't that difficult, but as Barking shows, it doesn't mean you're going to be listened to, which should really energise the effort rather than just sow disillusion.
While the BNP pretends not to be fascist and while some of its members and those who vote for it may not even be racist, the foot soldiers of the party most certainly are both. You only have to read Stormfront to see that. Proving this is another way to defeat them, and it doesn't help by suggesting that they're like the far left except with more race hatred. They may have similar economic policies, but the sheer venom of the BNP makes them out as being far different and much more of a threat than Respect is.
I am astonished that this is not always borne in mind : Na-Zi stands for NA-tional SOC-ialist, yes they were fascists, but they were socialists too.
Asanother comment said, there are strong similarities between the extreme right and extreme left. I say they are identical, equally dangerous to the restof us in the extreme centre.
Alan Douglas
Asanother comment said, there are strong similarities between the extreme right and extreme left. I say they are identical, equally dangerous to the restof us in the extreme centre.
Alan Douglas
eugenides: "right-wing extremism"
What a pity, you should fall for this triesome BBC ploy, used often to discredit those who love freedom with the smear of racism.
As others have said, there is little between the Nationalist or the Internationalist versions of socialism. Both to greater or lesser extent elevate the state and repress the freedom of the individual. Both in the more extreme manifestations are capable of an inhuman racism and hellish cruelty.
I don't think there can be any centre ground, you either love freedom, or you don't. It is our most potent weapon and at the same time a powerful weapon for our enemies.
What a pity, you should fall for this triesome BBC ploy, used often to discredit those who love freedom with the smear of racism.
As others have said, there is little between the Nationalist or the Internationalist versions of socialism. Both to greater or lesser extent elevate the state and repress the freedom of the individual. Both in the more extreme manifestations are capable of an inhuman racism and hellish cruelty.
I don't think there can be any centre ground, you either love freedom, or you don't. It is our most potent weapon and at the same time a powerful weapon for our enemies.
anon: if you read on, you will see that I make reference to the similarity between the BNP and the far left, and provide a link to a Devil's Kitchen article about same.
I was going to put the reference to right-wing extremism in the first paragraph in inverted commas, but decided that it might be misinterpreted, so left it as you see it.
I was going to put the reference to right-wing extremism in the first paragraph in inverted commas, but decided that it might be misinterpreted, so left it as you see it.
I would agree with much that is written here, both on the blog and in the comments, and disagree with other parts. However, on the issue of free speech, can there be anything more important?
The issue of anonymity has been discussed on the blogosphere at length recently; it's something that I struggle with. I do see a case for it at times, but only rarely. To me this is part of the whole debate on free speech, the blogosphere vs. the mainstream and where do we all go from here.
The issue of anonymity has been discussed on the blogosphere at length recently; it's something that I struggle with. I do see a case for it at times, but only rarely. To me this is part of the whole debate on free speech, the blogosphere vs. the mainstream and where do we all go from here.
"The principle of allowing the maximum possible free speech, confident in the knowledge that liberal ideas will triumph over racism and prejudice, is a sound one,"
Indeed.
" but experience suggests that it doesn’t always pan out that way in practice. Over the last decade or two, right-wing parties around Europe have capitalised on fears about immigration and dissatisfaction"
non-sequitur. The failure here is not of "liberal ideas to triumph over racism", it is the failure of anyone to put liberal ideas across with any cogency and of the mainstream parties to tell anything approaching the truth.
It is political correctness that squashes the ability of the mainstream to put these liberal ideas that and allows the extremists to exploit the situation.
The suppression of free speech is on the liberal side, and that is not the fault of the extremists.
Indeed.
" but experience suggests that it doesn’t always pan out that way in practice. Over the last decade or two, right-wing parties around Europe have capitalised on fears about immigration and dissatisfaction"
non-sequitur. The failure here is not of "liberal ideas to triumph over racism", it is the failure of anyone to put liberal ideas across with any cogency and of the mainstream parties to tell anything approaching the truth.
It is political correctness that squashes the ability of the mainstream to put these liberal ideas that and allows the extremists to exploit the situation.
The suppression of free speech is on the liberal side, and that is not the fault of the extremists.
FOR NOT BELIEVING IN MOB RULE, REPUBS SURE LIKE TO INCITE MOBS. 3 STRIKES, DEATH PENALTY, GAY MARRIAGE, "PATRIOT" ACTS, THE IRAQ WAR FOR OIL: http://deanberryministries.net
Post a Comment
<< Home
