On Thursday, the BNP leader will, controversially, appear on question time. Should he be allowed? Well, on balance, probably yes. The BNP somehow manages to stay the right side of the various laws which govern the line between freedom of speech of inciting racial hatred. In addition, they now have over a hundred councilors and two MEPs so they clearly speak for a section of the populous, however objectionable they may be.
While their views may be, at the very least, distasteful they cannot now be ignored. To do so would risk them continuing to spread their bile at low level, letting it fester and spread like a cancer. It has reached a point where they need to be faced head on. They need to be given some (limited) exposure, a spade to dig themselves a hole and enough rope with which to hang themselves.
With the right counter arguments, their views can be shown to be ludicrous. Appropriate questioning will reveal their true colours. Their love for Britain will be shown to be a veil for their hatred of other races.
The British, whom the BNP claim to defend, are not some homogeneous, pure race that have inhabited this island for centuries. Wave after wave of invasions saw Celts mixed with Norsemen, Vikings and Normans. In more recent centuries, we have incorporated further waves of immigration from Ireland, China, the Caribbean and India and Pakistan, amongst many others.
This diversity, and acceptance, is core to British values. While immigrant communities may not always have had it easy, without them we would not be the nation we are today.
So questions for the BNP to answer: In identifying the “indigenous population” who do the BNP seek to defend? Where do they draw the line - families whose routes trace back prior to 1950 or 1900 or some other arbitrary date? Or do they just mean white people?
Nationhood is a complex subject on which there are many different takes. Many people are nationalistic and keen to celebrate their identity. Many people have fixed ideas about what being British (or English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish) means and their place in the world.
Having a sense of identity and belonging shouldn’t be about denying others the opportunity to share this. Being proud of who and what you are shouldn’t be about superiority and exclusion. Expressing national pride shouldn’t be about denigrating others.
You can express Nationalism without being isolationist. You can be patriotic without closing the borders and keeping the country for the “natives”. Above all, Britishness is not about telling Natural Born Britons, or any other residents, they should participate in a voluntary repatriation programme.
Further questions: Where do the BNP draw the line in international co-operation – the EU, the UN? Who would be eligible for voluntary repatriation? Is the Black or Asian soldier less of a patriot than his white counterpart?
While I do not believe the BNP stands for a true definition of Britishness or a correct interpretation of what it means to be a Nationalist, I can’t really question their status as a party – even if clauses in their constitution currently run contrary to anti-discrimination legislation.
I hope that Thursday’s appearance by Nick Griffen on Question Time really shines a light on the true identity of the BNP. They may speak of a love for Britain and it’s people, but at the heart there’s nothing but hate. They may dress themselves up as patriots, but what they stand for is a white isolationist agenda.
Forcing the mask to slip and thereby revealing the truth is the only way to combat the lies, half-truths and innuendo of a party whose core beliefs are contrary to that of the overwhelming majority of true Brits.
Andrew
