Con Home hypocrisy on Wootton Bassett….
the principled humanist secular left with a huge headache. After all, if we do not uphold the elementary argument for freedom of speech, who will? So here we are, forced to extend our efforts in support of a manifestation of execrable religious bigotry
is a crime worthy of note in its ‘LeftWatch’ column. Of course, the implication is the risible idea that supporting free speech is equivocal to carrying a banner supporting the aforementioned bigots. Never fear though Chris Grayling will leap to the rescue;
“We are absolutely clear in our view that the police and the local authority should prevent this march from going ahead.
I thought it would be interesting to see what both Conservative Home and Grayling had to say on ‘No Platforming’ the British National Party to see how just ethnocentric their conception of free speech is; I wasnt disappointed as they allowed columnist after columnist to lay into the ‘posturing’ of ‘No Platform’.
Paul Canal tells us;
Ignoring the far right is no longer an option.
Meanwhile, Melanchthon adds;
we now will have no choice but to debate with them, and if we are to debate with our opponent properly we need to understand the strongest part of his case.
So, Conservative Home doesn’t just want to actually allow the British National Party a platform but also wants to ‘understand the strongest part of Nick Griffins case’. What about Grayling? The Jewish Chronicle tells us;
As for a BNP presence on Question Time, he supports the cross-party consensus that once BNP representatives appear in the mainstream, politicians have to expose them as bigots.
So, it is ok to be a ‘preacher of hatred’ if your skin colour happens to be white? Is this really the message that the Conservative Party and its adherents want to send; is this, inconsistent and hypocritical vision of democracy its contribution to the ‘battle of ideas’ within the ‘war on terror’?
Lets deal with the objections.
- The British National Party has electoral support.
So what? Does this make its pronouncements any less offensive to Jews that survived the Holocaust or ethnic minorities than Islam4UK’s will be to the families of dead British servicemen? I would think not and if it does then it has to be proved that the sentiments of the former deserve more consideration or special treatment compared to those of the latter. In my eyes they do not and anybody who argues differently is in very deep danger of arguing that rights stem from ethnicity not being a human being.
The unspoken factor here is immigration and that the Conservative Party can use some limited growth of the British National Party as a bugaboo in making the case for tougher immigration controls. In that sense though it might be declared undesirable with sincerity it is in fact also useful politically at the same time so you can allow the British National Party oxygen on the spurious grounds of wanting to appear ‘consistently democratic’. Of course, since Islam4UK lack that level of political usefulness it is to be treated differently.
Incidentally, where does this curtailment of democratic expression end? Is it now ‘offensive’ and therefore liable to suppression to suggest the war in Afghanistan should end? Surely not people will protest but this is where this kind of inconsistency logically ends; you make an exception of one group and start finding others that should ‘justifiably’ have their right to democratic expression ended.
- It will act as a ‘recruting Sargent’ for the British National Party.
Whereas I suppose the British National Party slot on Question Time really turned Muslim youth away from Islamic extremists? English Defence League marches similarly must have the same effect in the warped world of the reactionary right. You cannot have your cake and eat it; however, what you can say is allowing the British National Party full-expression (while similarly employing the full-force of the state against Islam4UK) will further emphasise the feeling among the Islamic community that a Conservative Britain is actually ok with singling it out for persecution and exceptional treatment. As if they hadn’t already gleaned that from its support for ‘ethnic screening’.
You can therefore argue legitimately that the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the likes of Conservative Home acts as a recruiting Sargent for the likes of Al-Quaeda and their loathsome ilk. We can already see the contours of how a Conservative government; far from winning the ‘war on terror’ will further fan its flames.