This is a reflection on the nature of British democracy in an increasingly sceptical age, where votes cast in elections are on the slide and disengagement with party politics is up. However, it can also be considered an open letter to Peter Hain, Diane Abbott and all the MPs who have criticised the BBC’s decision to invite Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP) to appear as a panellist on Question Time, the prime time political discussion television programme.

Let me first nail my colours firmly to the mast. The BNP is a fascist organisation, which is necessarily antidemocratic. Its policies are as illegal as they are illogical. Many of its prominent members have criminal records, for violent crimes and the incidence of racist violence increases wherever it enjoys electoral success or assumes a raised public profile. I am implacably opposed to their very existence. Having said all this, the BBC’s decision to give Griffin a platform on Question Time was inevitable and criticising the BBC for doing so is aiming at the wrong target. Allow me to explain why I consider this to be the case.

The BNP enjoys the status of a legal political party. As long as it does and subject to it crossing the threshold of electoral significance, the BBC had no credible choice but to provide them with a platform. The BBC Charter, approved by Parliament, obliges the BBC to give political parties the right to speak to its audiences. The criteria used by the BBC to determine the BNP’s electoral significance was exactly the same as that which applied to the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party), Plaid Cymru (the Welsh Nationalists), Green Party and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party).

So here is an idea, Messrs Hain, Abbott et al: instead of bleating at the BBC, why not do something which is in your powers but (quite rightly) outside of theirs, namely ban the BNP? Now, some of you may well be asking: what is the case for such draconian action against this organisation? There are several good reasons for the it to be outlawed. Firstly, a political point: they are necessarily antidemocratic; it is therefore absurd that they are allowed to hijack the democratic process to pursue their antidemocratic objectives. History repeatedly teaches us that this never ends well. Secondly, many of their actions are unlawful: they discriminate on racial grounds on who is eligible for membership. Following a recent legal case brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, they are obliged to consider changing this and to suspend acquiring new members until they do so. However, even if they make such a dramatic transformation, this will not change the third reason for outlawing them: their policies are illegal. They are committed to paying legally settled ‘immigrants’ and their descendants money to leave Britain. Ironically, this is discrimination on racial grounds against white Britons, who would be offered no such inducements to head for America, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere. Additionally, they are committed to unilaterally reneging on Britain’s obligations to refugees, which are governed by international law.

The legal case for outlawing the BNP, is I would contend, a compelling one. However, what are the democratic implications of such a move? Would this be the first step on a slippery slope towards banning all political parties that the powers that be find objectionable? Absolutely not, for two reasons. The first of these is the antidemocratic nature of the BNP; it is paradoxical to argue for the continued legal existence of an antidemocratic organisation on the grounds of democracy. The second is the malign effects of their electoral success and public profile. However objectionable some people may find the policies of the SNP, say, or the Greens, their success does not put families and communities at risk of violence. In sharp contrast, violence follows the BNP like flies following a bad smell.

Let me make it clear that I have no issue arguing with their opinions, which, intellectually and morally bankrupt as they are, present little challenge. However, the terms of any such debate must change, to protect the lives and wellbeing of people likely to be subjected to the violent excesses of their knuckle dragging hard core members and hangers-on. As long as they are legal, the lives of children, young people and women in particular are at increased risk, because like most thugs, those who commit unprovoked racist attacks are cowards, likely to prey on ‘soft’ targets.

A common counter argument to outlawing the BNP and its ilk is that, forced underground, they may become more dangerous. It is better, so this argument goes, to have them openly active where they can be seen. This is unsupported by the facts. The violence that surrounds the BNP is seldom out in the open, except in occasional street confrontations with organised anti fascist and anti racist opponents. Racist thugs, in common with all criminals, wish to do their work undetected. On the other hand, the democratic legitimacy conferred on the BNP by being a legally recognised political party hands them two gifts: publicity and respectability.

We would all do well to remember that the banning of political organisations in Britain is nothing new. Simply being a member of some Irish republican organisations is a crime. Several so-called Islamist organisations have also been outlawed in recent years. If a political party was established to promote the sexual exploitation of children, would banning it from standing for election be an affront to democracy? I would certainly hope not. The BNP is just as dangerous to many children as paedophiles and their claim to political legitimacy is just as suspect.

I am therefore calling upon democratic politicians of all parties and none to do the job you should have done a long time ago: ban the BNP now! And I am calling on all voters who oppose racism and fascism to write to your MPs, demanding that they stand up for democracy and community safety.

Related Reading:

Cyril Husbands