Jonathan Tremblay: The BNP on BBC: Democracy and Racism (A Short History of British Fascism)
[Jonathan Tremblay is a historian and is currently an intern for History News Network]
Britain has recently succumbed to the televised political debate, a forum which has become the norm in America but that remains tentative and novel across the pond. Indeed, in a show of impartiality, the BBC-hosted event invited all the major players but one invitation, that of Nick Griffin from the British National Party (BNP), has stirred up a fair amount of protest. The BBC reiterates its impartiality and claims it was only fair to invite the representative of 15 council and 2 European parliamentary seats; on the other hand, protestors resent the invitation of a party founded on the “rights of the indigenous peoples of the UK”. The far-right ideology based around anti-immigration is a much older tradition in England than televised debates but its success has always been prevented by the country’s firmly rooted traditions of a constitutional monarchy and personal freedoms. Finally, is racism a freedom?
Freedom of speech and expression has had a long-standing feud with the tendencies towards defamation and blatant racism. One should have the right to speak his mind without having the censure of government and society impeding his/her words. Conversely, at what point does freedom of speech and expression overstep its bounds and restrict one’s freedom of safety from discrimination, personal harm and verbal abuse? In this instance, the BNP tends to champion just the basic freedom of words by such statements as “the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was no longer a British city” referring to the audience present at the televised debate. Mr. Griffin affirms he is “not a Nazi”, he simply defends the Ku Klux Klan, chastises Islam and simply wants immigration to halt and all non-whites to be expelled from the “United” Kingdom.
Many around the world may scoff at Mr, Griffin’s eccentric ideals that cater to the very base of human hatred and reactionary impulses but the protestors in London on the night of the debate had a much more practical motivation for their dissent. Indeed, protestors claim and offer proof that every time the BNP is given ANY amount of national attention, their ranks grow (3,000 more members due to the debate) and there is a sharp spike in racially-motivated crimes around the nation. Nevertheless, the BBC’s generous impartiality was rewarded with a hefty 8,000,000 viewers during the event, a 400% increase from the last televised debate. Thus, the BBC won in ratings, the BNP won in popularity and the only real loser of the soirée were the power-holding parties that were shadowed by Mr. Griffin’s presence and views and indeed democracy was basically made fun of under the auspices of a purportedly “impartial” and “necessary” televised debate.
Indigenous?
Britain is a multicultural nation that, as far as we can tell, only holds its ancient Celtic roots through the lineage of some Welsh families. Apart from these “indigenous” English people, Roman, Saxon, Scottish, Irish, French and a plethora of other nations have either invaded, adopted or immigrated to the British Isles and today constitute the “British” people. Claims of racial purity do not have much legitimacy in such a richly multi-cultural nation. The last time a right-wing British political group was this notorious, swastikas were spreading from Germany to Austria.
Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists (BUF) rose to prominence in the early 1930s on a platform of anti-communism, anti-immigration and more subtly of anti-democracy. The immediately obvious flaw in this doctrine was that to gain power, the BUF had to convince millions of people that the freedoms they had enjoyed for the past 250 years had to be surrendered in favour of an all-knowing dictator and party. Indeed the basis of fascism, as detailed by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, was that it wasn’t because many people agreed that they knew what was best.
Adolf Hitler concurred and gained the German chancellorship in 1932 permitting him to impose his will, views and policies to all levels of German society (and soon around the continent). The situation is however very different. The Germans had experienced a precarious 13 years of republican democracy and had recently been heavily penalized and humiliated by the end of the First World War and by the Treaty of Versailles which blamed all the Germans for the terrible war. England had not only enjoyed constitutional monarchy for centuries but had won the war and was growing weary of “fascism” and the German menace as the 1930s progressed.
All in all, Mosley won a peak of 36,000 electors yet once he created and maintained close ties with the Fuhrer by the late 1930s, anti-Semitism appeared on the BUF charter and indeed all support evaporated for the eccentric little party. Violence ensued at all BUF events, especially with pro-communist factions and finally in 1940, Winston Churchill ordered the arrest of Mosley and the outlawing of all fascist parties. Some may say this was a victory for ethical morality and decency but others may claim that this was a dark day for freedom of speech and democracy in general. That being said, not many people shed a tear for the BUF as German bomber raids were setting London ablaze.
After all is said and done, is there a place for racism in our free and open society? Or would this racism be the demise of a free and open society? I think there is too much at stake to test it either way and for now, allowing the Nick Griffins of the world to talk while protesting their very words may be the very best way to exercise democracy known to man. To quote Winston Churchill: “...democracy is the worst form of government; except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Read entire article at The End is Coming (History Blog)
Britain has recently succumbed to the televised political debate, a forum which has become the norm in America but that remains tentative and novel across the pond. Indeed, in a show of impartiality, the BBC-hosted event invited all the major players but one invitation, that of Nick Griffin from the British National Party (BNP), has stirred up a fair amount of protest. The BBC reiterates its impartiality and claims it was only fair to invite the representative of 15 council and 2 European parliamentary seats; on the other hand, protestors resent the invitation of a party founded on the “rights of the indigenous peoples of the UK”. The far-right ideology based around anti-immigration is a much older tradition in England than televised debates but its success has always been prevented by the country’s firmly rooted traditions of a constitutional monarchy and personal freedoms. Finally, is racism a freedom?
Freedom of speech and expression has had a long-standing feud with the tendencies towards defamation and blatant racism. One should have the right to speak his mind without having the censure of government and society impeding his/her words. Conversely, at what point does freedom of speech and expression overstep its bounds and restrict one’s freedom of safety from discrimination, personal harm and verbal abuse? In this instance, the BNP tends to champion just the basic freedom of words by such statements as “the audience was not representative of the UK as a whole as levels of immigration in London meant it was no longer a British city” referring to the audience present at the televised debate. Mr. Griffin affirms he is “not a Nazi”, he simply defends the Ku Klux Klan, chastises Islam and simply wants immigration to halt and all non-whites to be expelled from the “United” Kingdom.
Many around the world may scoff at Mr, Griffin’s eccentric ideals that cater to the very base of human hatred and reactionary impulses but the protestors in London on the night of the debate had a much more practical motivation for their dissent. Indeed, protestors claim and offer proof that every time the BNP is given ANY amount of national attention, their ranks grow (3,000 more members due to the debate) and there is a sharp spike in racially-motivated crimes around the nation. Nevertheless, the BBC’s generous impartiality was rewarded with a hefty 8,000,000 viewers during the event, a 400% increase from the last televised debate. Thus, the BBC won in ratings, the BNP won in popularity and the only real loser of the soirée were the power-holding parties that were shadowed by Mr. Griffin’s presence and views and indeed democracy was basically made fun of under the auspices of a purportedly “impartial” and “necessary” televised debate.
Indigenous?
Britain is a multicultural nation that, as far as we can tell, only holds its ancient Celtic roots through the lineage of some Welsh families. Apart from these “indigenous” English people, Roman, Saxon, Scottish, Irish, French and a plethora of other nations have either invaded, adopted or immigrated to the British Isles and today constitute the “British” people. Claims of racial purity do not have much legitimacy in such a richly multi-cultural nation. The last time a right-wing British political group was this notorious, swastikas were spreading from Germany to Austria.
Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists (BUF) rose to prominence in the early 1930s on a platform of anti-communism, anti-immigration and more subtly of anti-democracy. The immediately obvious flaw in this doctrine was that to gain power, the BUF had to convince millions of people that the freedoms they had enjoyed for the past 250 years had to be surrendered in favour of an all-knowing dictator and party. Indeed the basis of fascism, as detailed by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, was that it wasn’t because many people agreed that they knew what was best.
Adolf Hitler concurred and gained the German chancellorship in 1932 permitting him to impose his will, views and policies to all levels of German society (and soon around the continent). The situation is however very different. The Germans had experienced a precarious 13 years of republican democracy and had recently been heavily penalized and humiliated by the end of the First World War and by the Treaty of Versailles which blamed all the Germans for the terrible war. England had not only enjoyed constitutional monarchy for centuries but had won the war and was growing weary of “fascism” and the German menace as the 1930s progressed.
All in all, Mosley won a peak of 36,000 electors yet once he created and maintained close ties with the Fuhrer by the late 1930s, anti-Semitism appeared on the BUF charter and indeed all support evaporated for the eccentric little party. Violence ensued at all BUF events, especially with pro-communist factions and finally in 1940, Winston Churchill ordered the arrest of Mosley and the outlawing of all fascist parties. Some may say this was a victory for ethical morality and decency but others may claim that this was a dark day for freedom of speech and democracy in general. That being said, not many people shed a tear for the BUF as German bomber raids were setting London ablaze.
After all is said and done, is there a place for racism in our free and open society? Or would this racism be the demise of a free and open society? I think there is too much at stake to test it either way and for now, allowing the Nick Griffins of the world to talk while protesting their very words may be the very best way to exercise democracy known to man. To quote Winston Churchill: “...democracy is the worst form of government; except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”