Prime Time.

[davywavy]

Roderick Griffin, leader of the the Brownshorts National Party, is to appear on the BBC's Question Time tomorrow night. Some people feel that he and his supporters should be denied any public fora, despite the undeniable fact that they did poll in excess of one million votes (6.2% of the vote) in the recent European Elections, and now have elected representatives squatting like toads in Brussels.

Personally, I feel that they should be allowed into public debate; they've got as many elected representatives from this country in Brussels as the Greens or the SNP, and Alex Salmonds' unappealing features are barely ever off our screens.
By marginalising them they can cast themselves as martyrs; it is only with free, open debate that imbecility and unfitness for power can be publicly demonstrated.

But what do you think?

[Poll #1474164]

Comments

[fonnparr.livejournal.com]

Why not, if the other panellists aren't capable of shooting down any argument that Herr Griffin comes up with then they shouldn't be politicians.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but look who they've lined up against him; a succession of intellectual mediocrities. Shame that someone like Hague or Field wouldn't step up to the plate.

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Freedom of speech wins it - but they are old labour with added racism :-)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Pointing that out to Old Labour tribalists is a fast route to an argument, as well. It's win-win.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it's a bloody silly notion: Old Labour is Old Labour with added racism. Remember the 'Nigger for a neigbour' slurs they advanced in the early '70s?

Nulabour is Old Labour with a few token photogenic but stupid darkies, and mandatory ghettoisation of the rest. Sorry 'diversity'

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Doesn't anybody remember Robert Kilroy-Silk fawning over "bold socialism" back when he was a Labour MP?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Lined up against him we have Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Bonnie Greer and Baroness Warsi, none of whom are debaters of the first rank it must be said.

[davedevil.livejournal.com]

Straw is heavyweight enough at least. Still I would love ot have seen someone like Hague or Cable give him the kicking he deserves.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I actually think that by preventing the BNP from talking to anybody else we just reinforce their ridiculousness, because they're never challenged (except by banner-wielding anti-fascists). I used to argue against NUS' "no platform" policy, although I think my view on that has changed now.

My feeling is that we should let them debate on QT and that we should hoist Griffin by his own petard when he opens his mouth. But then, I bet they said that about the Nazis, so...

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

iirc from A Level history the post WWI government suppressed the Nazi's at the beginning, which as the Nazi's were talking about German pride gave support to the idea that the Weimar Republic was the tool of the Allies/France. Not letting them talk gave them an underground chic / sense of being the only real alternative to the governing parties, and there is evidence to suggest that letting them be part of the mainstream would have resulted in the Nazi party not being so solidified and supported.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I used to argue against NUS' "no platform"

Back when I were a student, one of the various religious societies (I forget which one) were banned from putting up anti-arbortion and contraception advertising up around the union. When banned, they took up the 'Freedom of Speech' cause and took it to a vote in the union to see if the prevailing political orthodoxy of not allowing people the NUS doesn't agree with to speak was just and democratic.
I was one of the people arguing in favour of free speech and the society being allowed to go aheaad, on the basis that then i would be allowed to say anything I damn well pleased about them.

Still lost, though.

It reminds me of the time the SWSS tried to change the name of the SU to the Winnie Mandela Building. I counterproposed that we renamed it the Lucretia Borgia Building, as if we were going to be naming things after murderers why be coy about it?

That one almost got me banned.

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

Beyond the neccesity of him to get his moment in the lime light as part of the democratic process but I personally think it's an excellent chance for more of the British public to see him in the cold, harsh light of day. Enough of making him out to be a demon that turn a nation into Nazi Germany with a sound-bite, put a mic in his hand and let him be seen for the arse he is.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

I'd like to think that giving him air-time will allow other politicians to point out his hilarious and insanely racist flaws like sharks circling a dying a whale.

I'm not sure Gordon has the neccessary wit to do this mind you, but by keeping them off air, they don't get the chance to show what dicks they are.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Gordon won't be in the debate. Sadly the BBC has selected a band of political lightweights, none of whom I suspect are capable of delivering a knockout blow.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

Fools.. lets just hope that they'll manage to fox him with a columbo-style 'Just one other thing... what do you think about those black people?'

[fried-chicken.livejournal.com]

Some people were daft enough to vote for them, I think it's only right that they be allowed to be called on such things in debates in the hope that maybe those people will then realise exactly what they have voted for.

As you say, petty about the line up though.

If you could put anybody onto the panel to oppose them, who would it be?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Nelson Mandela, Milton Freidman, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.

The dust-up would be worth the price of admission, think.

[fried-chicken.livejournal.com]

Now that would be something to see.

Isn't Friedman an economist?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Or this would do the job nicely:

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Joanna Lumley and Michael Howard (son of romanian jews, and also a pretty authoritarian person)

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

Some time ago, somewhere on the internet, I was reading a discussion about whether the scientific community should engage creationists/intelligent design proponents in debate or not.

The scientific community, as you may be aware, is quite partial to the concept of free and open debate, but many feel that to engage in debate on the subject of creationism is to afford it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. How, then, do we reconcile this conflict?

One proposed answer, which I think is beyond brilliant, goes as follows: when the finest creationist mind demands a debate on the subject, don't send out Richard Dawkins; send them an undergrad student. A reasonably eloquent undergrad student, versed in debate and familiar with the typical lines of creationist argument, but still essentially a student, with scruffy hair and scuffed trainers. That is precisely how much legitimacy they'll be afforded at that stage. In the event they get past the student, they'll get someone more respectable to debate with.

Don't debate with Griffin on Question Time. Do it on Newsround.

[(Anonymous)]

C. S. Lewis used to debate with anybody who turned up. Just as a matter of interest what do you mean by "intelligent design"?

Reason is that "intelligent Design" seems to be used to lump any non atheists in with the creationist loons.

Honestly I would like to know, because some stupid people might think it means that the "intelligent design" people simply believe all that evolution stuff is right, but it that happened because because a creator chappie knew it would.

So, if that is bollocks, the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic stuff is crap. Which is fine but the argument doesn't seem to be Creationism.

You have:

a) Creationism, is per whatever scripture we are reading

b) It's all nonsense and there is no alternative to nihilistic depression so we might as well all become French

c) The science is right, but God has made it so (e.g. Fr. Georges Lemaitre S.J., the Jesuit who propounded the Big Bang Theory).

Please help me, perhaps you Anglican's can explain how Intelligent Design is for loonies but God exists anyway.

D