Sunny Hundal asks a couple of interesting questions over at Pickled Politics; should a no-platform policy with regards to the BNP be continued and should that it be extended to groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir?
By way of a background, I understand a no-platform policy (in the instance of the BNP) to mean that no-one from an organisation with that policy would share a speaking platform of any description with a representative of the BNP and that the BNP should not be invited to speak at said organisation. I don’t consider this to impinge on freedom of speech. Firstly, there is no obligation, for the most part, on anyone holding an event to invite people of all political persuasions. Secondly, there are no restrictions placed as a result of the policy on the BNP’s ability to inform others and on others to inform themselves about the BNP as there is plenty of information out there, not least on their website; nor does it prevent their arguments being dealt with as it is not necessary for someone to be present to be able to take on board their argument.
The point of the no-platform policy is to prevent a serially mendacious party from being able to claim any form of recognition or acceptance from civil society because they will twist ‘appearing on platform x’ into an endorsement of their existence and precisely because they crave that acceptance. The evidence for that is the dropping of the boot-boy image for suits and the attempt to cover up their racist and violent tendencies for the image of a legitimate political party.
Sunny asserts that the ‘BNP has been successfully de-legitimised’. I’m afraid that this is not universally true; in parts of East London, they are very much legitimate to some parts of the community. It is true that there was not much of an increase in the vote for the BNP but it put them above the five per cent threshold to give them an Assembly seat; we cannot deny and must not ignore the benefits that the BNP will seeks to extract from this position. There are many things that can be done and, in fairness, are being done. However, abandoning a policy of delegitimisation just as the BNP achieve an electoral success would simply allow them to say that their ‘growth’ means that the mainstream parties now see them as a legitimate part of the political sphere.
A good reminder of the illegitimacy of the BNP comes from the Tory Troll, who reports that an internal challenge to the leadership of Nick Griffin has been met by that organisation’s elections officer, one Eddy Butler, telling members not to sign any nomination papers and for ‘zero publicity’ to be given to the challenger.
Hizb ut-Tahrir are a different kettle of fish altogether. Yes, they are unpleasant and, yes, they have traits in common with the BNP but it would be wrong to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as simply an Islamic version of the BNP. For one thing, they are in different situations and they have different political ends; that alone is grounds to consider different tactics for opposing these groups differently.
The BNP, as I see it, wish to appeal to all whites. Their tactics are dependent upon a broad appeal and, because of the level of their support, they cannot nurture individuals. Their aim is to represent what they would consider the ‘true’ inhabitants of the UK; a broad take-up of the no-platform policy makes it harder for them to claim that representation as the mainstream not only disagree with them but see them as beyond the pale. That might sound a little counter-intuitive, but they are not just going after the alienated but after people who feel they are abandoned by the major parties; the difference there is important.
Hizb ut-Tahrir are not targeting all Muslims; rather, they are going after Muslims they might consider susceptible to their influence. They seek to capitalise on alienation and would be able to capitalise on the exalted position of difference if no-platform were broadly implemented towards them; for those who might feel removed from the British polis (to the extent that it exists), this would highlight Hizb ut-Tahrir as a standard around which to rally.
I would echo a point made by Sunny:
“The other problem is that most of the people who choose to take on HuT don’t know much about them, which provides them an opportunity to play the victim card and pretend they’re just lovely people.”
“[T]he truth will set you free” (John 8:321) or knowledge is power2; whichever way you prefer it, providing honest information and background to both these groups is a decent part of defeating them. The question of no-platform is essentially a question of the best way of delivering the message and countering the threats they pose in a manner which at least does nothing to strengthen their position and at best weakens it. Given that, as I have said, I have no philosophical objection to no-platform, it becomes a tactical issue. Going back to the original questions, I would say that we should continue the no-platform policy against the BNP but that we should not extend it to Hizb ut-Tahrir at this juncture.
xD.
1 – Disclaimer – the truth will set you free, but you might not like it.
2 – And, given that I’m quoting a lot and that both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir have their own variations on truth, ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’.
As I understand it, “no platform” is not just refusing to share a platform – it is also denying a platform.
I’ve seen that used in the wrong hands (e.g., student politics when I was at Uni) to deny free expression to those who happen to be unpopular with the currently ascendant faction.
Hopefully the real world is different – and I am not sufficiently up to date on student politics to comment on the situation in the last few years.
I can see the sense in refusing to share a platform, however.
Matt,
The point is well made; the policy could be abused. However, almost anything can be. I would say that a motion to implement a no-platform policy needs to be carefully drafted and carefully scrutinised; it should certainly be specific to a given organisation rather than undefined and contested terms like ‘fascist’.
As I said, I understand no-platform to include an organisation not inviting the BNP (or whoever) to any events. There is a particular implication for student societies; as they are part of their respective unions, they would be bound by such a platform and prevented from inviting along (say) Nick Griffin. As you will recall from your student days, there are, sadly, people who think that controversy is per se good and so will do anything to promote it, regardless of the cost. The example there is the Oxford Uniion, which is a separate legal entity to the Oxford University Students’ Union.
Trying to disrupt a separate organisation’s event would, like as not, fall foul of a variety of laws (including trespass). I don’t think any organisation can legally resolve to break the law of the land. In the case of students’ unions, such a policy would automatically be ultra vires to the extent that it conflicted with the law.
I am not sure what the position is regarding ‘official’ election hustings.
xD.