Yesterday I interviewed Gary Marshall, the BNP candidate for North Devon and plan to publish a transcript of the interview in the near future, as well as use his comments in a news story.
Some people will say, wrongly in my opinion, it was wrong to interview him and the North Devon Journal will be wrong to publish anything he or the BNP says.
Some politicians refuse to share debating platforms with the BNP.
But this must be placed in its proper, rational, context.
The BNP is not an illegal party.
Gary Marshall is not an illegal candidate.
He will, in theory, be lawfully allowed to be elected to be the MP of North Devon, although he is highly unlikely to get anywhere near a victory.
Electors will be allowed to vote for him.
You might argue the BNP should be outlawed.
You might, correctly, report the racist history of the party.
You might, correctly, choose to interrogate the claims this party makes, factual and political, and ask yourself why it is preoccupied with immigration.
I'll happily report any anti-BNP campaigns and protests.
Journalists have a duty, and I don't say that lightly, to interrogate the people putting themselves up for public office. The public will then judge what candidates, and their parties, say, and do, and make up their minds accordingly.
If I miss a key question, which will happen given time constraints, you can try to button-hole the candidate yourself and ask them. You can write a letter to the local paper, if they do not respond, or if you do not like the response.
The public can decide if a candidate has chosen to answer a question properly, fully, and honestly.
The public will take note of any questions a candidate simply refuses to answer, and make a judgement accordingly.
The public will judge a candidate based on the company he keeps.
Any blanket censorship, including of people we find revolting, frightening, offensive, or dangerous, is an unwanted restriction on freedom of speech and expression; that must be within the law and there are laws against incitement to racial hatred, for example.
If you still think its wrong to interview the BNP, ask yourself this question: Would it be better if people voted from a position of ignorance about a candidate?
And should we hide away from opinions and people we find offensive or should we start asking them some questions and keep them on the radar of our society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adam Wilshaw, your democratic spirit is to be commended. The British National Party is up front about its policies. We speak the truth as we see it and it is for those who do not agree to argue against us and to prove us wrong.
ReplyDeleteThank you,Adam.To have diverging political views is not the same as being enemies. It is mostly those who conceal their true beliefs and intentions who should be classified as such.
Now that I have access to your blog I will give you access to mine. It is not my intention to be offensive but, like everybody else, I believe I have a moral obligation to speak my mind.
http://southsomersetpatriot.blogspot.com/
Squeaky wheel.
In my view the BNP should be considered in the same way as a crime syndicate. Racism is at long last recognised as a crime. Those who advocate racism are therefore criminals and BNP members have a long record of doing just that.
ReplyDeleteIt is time that Britain became an anti-nazi state.
While many of the actions of the BNP can indeed be criminalised, I don't believe blanket censorship is the answer.
ReplyDeleteTheir policies are very easy to expose as ignorant, reactionary and just plain stupid. The problem arises in our current media manipulated headline culture. How many people read beyond the "Britain is Full" headline. While these views are mindlessly broadcast, a culture of moral panics is created.
Everyone standing in this election has a duty to expose the contradictions and flaws in the BNP's position. Bring on the debate!