The Death of Democracy
Tut! And double Tut! The Wanstead by election Hustings, due this evening, have been called off. Reportedly because the Labour candidate, Ross Hatfull, refused to share a platform with the British National Party. Kate Garrett, the Liberal Democrat also had reservations but it appears that Alex Wilson, the Conservative, was "looking forward to it". So was I, and a nice meaty report on this blog. The Green Party candidate, Ashley Gunstock said "our policy is that we only share a platform with the BNP where there is opportunity to challenge their views, which is exactly what a hustings is for". He went on, "since it is the Labour Party who have created the problems that have fuelled the BNP, perhaps they feel that their debating position is a bit shaky?" Nick Jones, UKIP, was unavailable for comment and the BNP candidate John Evans predictably said that he was not expecting any trouble.
One can understand concerns that there might be some trouble at such a meeting, it has happened before, but we have had a BNP councillor in the north of the borough for three years now without anything untoward happening. There are no Labour Party councillors on Area 3 Committee so one may well ask if they would refuse to attend and carry out their democratic duties?
It is true that these Hustings have been noted on various "white supremacist" websites, but what do you expect? It has also been noted on many other websites, the Wanstead & Woodford Guardian, this site, Ashley Gunstock’s blog, and the Redbridge-i forum to name a few. If you are going to hold a public meeting word is going to get round.
If you disagree with the BNP’s views then it is no good burying your head in the sand and hoping they will go away. You have to take them on through the democratic process and that includes Hustings. Once we allow the potential for violence between those with opposing views to undermine the democratic process it will be the beginning of the end for Democracy.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it and I will point out where I think you are wrong.
By the way, apparently a BNP campaigner has been arrested.
22 comments:
So if Ross Hatfull refuses to "share a platform" with the BNP, then clearly he hopes not to win the election. After all, the winner will have to share council meetings with the BNP until May 2010.
Illogical, Mr Hatfull. Unless, of course, you simply don't want to face the public?
Thank you Morris "Mr Spock" Hickey!
You can debate with the BNP all you like, but the BNP thinks the Green Party is "merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime" and that the BNP is the only true "Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment".
Why? Because the BNP "is the only party to recognise that overpopulation - whose primary driver is immigration ... is the cause of the destruction of our environment".
The BNP is trying to hijack Green policies solely to promote hate between communities, by claiming that immigration is the cause of all environmental problems and by highlighting Muslim slaughter of animals as not Green.
Phew, Marianne. There’s a lot to read between the lines there. But I note your quotation marks.
First, the BNP, or anyone else, can think what it likes, but unless it is subjected to critical scrutiny it remains a pipe dream. All political parties, and companies, are attempting to enhance their green credentials. Green is the colour of today but is it genuine? It’s not so much a question of whether you can convince your opponents but more about how yer average punter perceives the outcome of the debate.
Second, the BNP, whom I assume you quote, confuse over-population with immigration. They are not the same. Immigration merely displaces people from one place to another, it has NO impact whatsoever on the overall population or the carrying capacity of the life support system/environment of this planet.
Third, I see little difference between Kosha, Halal, or other means of killing animals for food. They all end up dead on a plate. But then I’m not a Vegetarian or a Vegan or an animal rights activist. I’ll consider comments though.
The cause of over-population?
Simple: over-copulation.
Would that be "joined up" thinking as in Latin?
I should have made it clear that all the quotations in my earlier comment came from an article placed on the BNP website yesterday. I was only trying to indicate that you cannot debate intelligently with the BNP because they have only one answer to everything: stop immigration, send them back.
"Them" is of course anyone the BNP don't think should be in the UK: black people (though some BNP supporters would allow "settled" – whatever that means – Afro-Caribbeans to stay), Asians, especially all Muslims and east Europeans (even though they are white). They don't realise, or deliberately ignore, the fact that the UK population today is the result of waves of immigrants over centuries. They simply draw arbitrary lines based on their prejudices and hate.
The BNP is not interested in local issues, except to say there are too many blacks, Muslims etc in Redbridge. Any debate with them would rapidly descent into a slanging match. Whenever I have spoken with BNP supporters, they come out with outright lies instead of arguments, such as that immigrants get preference in housing, benefits and healthcare, they don't work, don't contribute to the British economy and commit all the crimes. I cannot speak for the Labour candidate, but I expect these are some of the reasons he did not want to debate with the BNP.
Furthermore, many BNP activists are abusive and intimidating. I have seen them on the street myself in other by-elections and there was every reason to expect that the usual London and Essex BNP rent-a-mob would turn out for this hustings. It had been promoted on some of the vilest blogs and internet forums.
Reading Marianne's comments makes me think that the Labour candidate should rethink his wish to be in politics! (I don't think he realises what is involved!)
I know somebody who was 'canvassed' by him re the by-election.This person would normally have voted Labour and was 'deterred' because the total lack of awareness of local issues and the arrogant (ignorant really) response to hide this!
(By the way I know what the BNP and at least one conservative councillor would like me to do. Unfortunately, the French fishermen are blocking the ports, again!)
annesevant
There was no legal reason for cancelling the hustings, and it should have gone ahead. Simply because one candidate will not or cannot attend does not render it legally invalid.
Refusing to share a platform with the BNP increases the 'martyrdom' factor and is a simple cop-out.
Take on your political opponents and demolish their arguments if you can. Running away never solved anything.
Your blog sounds like something from the 1933 elections in the Weimar Republic, they were saying the same thing.
If you stand on the same platform as a fascist (which the BNP are, no matter how much they wear their suits and ties and grow their hair.) you accept their legitimacy and by doing so you are accepting their half-baked hate agenda is somehow justifyable and acceptable.
In my opinion democracy may be about defending someone's right to say what they will, however I will not defend something which will inevitable mean the death knell of me and my community.
The Labour candidate atleast had principle, unlike the rest of them who took heed afterwards.
Jean Boudrilliard? Monsieur, Madame ou Mademoiselle?
Not that it matters.
As an anglicised frog, I thought that listening to you enemies, whoever they are, was a good idea. I think I am with Judith on that one. That and watching the Guillotine in action whilst tricoting!
annesevant
I think Ashley Gunstock is totally missing the point. Under his view the hustings would have been overtaken by the single issue of fighting and opposing the BNP, and not about the local issues that affect wanstead which local the residents were concerned about. Anyway as far as I am aware it is the policy of all the main political parties not to debate with the BNP, so I can understand why the Lib dems and labour wanted to pull out.
Environmentalist1
It is possible that I may have misrepresented Mr Gunstock’s position so you may wish to put your point to him directly on his own blog.
As for “not debating with the BNP” that is precisely what gives credence to their views and engenders a perception that Labour and LibDems have no counter argument.
I sympathise with JB's comments about 1933, but looking at more recent British political history one can see that attempting to stifle debate about certain issues has not made the BNP go away.
The fact is that the BNP is not an illegal political party, and they are feeding on ignorance and prejudice and fear.
One of the popular stories told is that immigrants come to this country because of welfare benefits, yet I understand an investigation showed that they came because lax immigration enforcement meant that entry was easy, and work in the 'black' economy was plentiful. The myth about benefits has been allowed to grow because open and sensible debate on immigration has been suppressed by shrieks of 'racism' from the politically-correct brigade.
There is a law of unintended consequences ......
Tell it as it is Judith!
And somebody should sure be listening to you.
annesevant
Same thing happened to me at a 2005General Election Hustings Event. The Liebour Party refused to `share a platform` with the beastly and horrid man from the BNP. The hosts decided to proceed with the debate anyway, and Labour`s democracy-hating candidate flounced out of the meeting like a little girl having a tantrum. The Wanstead Labour candidate sounds like a man of similar calibre.
Anyway, by the end of the night myself and the Tory, Lib-Dem, UKIP and English Democrat candidates had all had a lively and civilised debate on various issue, shook hands, and hopefully provided an interesting evening of political discourse for the audience. The Labour Party were missed by nobody and the hosts in Wanstead could and should have done the same thing. The failure of the Wanstead Tory, Lib-Dem, Green and UKIP candidates to insist the meeting went ahead regrdless makes them almost as cowardly and unprincipled as New Labour`s Stalinist nation-wreckers as far as I`m concerned. Wanstead deserves better.
Cllr Julian Leppert
British National Party
That is a tad unfair. At least one of the other candidates wanted the meeting to go ahead anyway but was given no choice.
"One of the popular stories told is that immigrants come to this country because of welfare benefits" - Judith.
Well the Mayor of Calais, Mrs Natacha Bouchart is prepared to face reality even if most of our politicians aren't.
She told reporters that "it was Britain's immigration system which was predominantly to blame for thousands of Africans, eastern Europeans and people from central Asia trying to clamber aboard lorries and trains in Calais to get to the UK every day.
"Requesting asylum is easier with them (the British) than in France," said Mrs Bouchart.
"The asylum seeker is given accommodation and receives £31 to £40 a week according to their case, when the annual salary of the average Eritrean is around $200 (£136).
"That seems enormous and it's attractive."
May I suggest that both theories (welfare state and black economy) are not mutually exclusive.
Now, I don't know anything about shadow economy in France because I am not there to watch with my own eyes,...
And may I add that when long suffering husband suggested, at Cabinet, that they should investigate areas of benefit fraud in Redbridge, quite a few councillors hissed in horror and husband was left lost for words for a second or two (most unusual)!
annesevant
Whilst having considerable sympathy with Mms Bouchart in Calais, one wonders what action the French authorities could take to stop these migrants getting as far as the Channel ports in the first place?
Refusing to share a platform with fascists and racists is a long-standing policy shared by many, not just members of the Labour Party. In Scotland, Labour, SNP, Conservative & Liberal Democrat candidates in the European election campaign have agreed a common policy of refusing to share hustings with the BNP. Tory MEP Struan Stevenson is quoted saying:
"If there is anyone who thinks they should invite a BNP candidate to a hustings or TV debate, they won't get the rest of us."A hustings meeting gives candidates limited time to make their own statements and respond to questions. It allows voters to get an impression of the candidates. It does not allow each candidate to make full responses to everything all other candidates say. It does not allow candidates time to fully expose what others may wish to conceal. This is especially relevant to the BNP.
A central plank of current BNP leadership strategy is the attempt to portray themselves as a normal political party (I won't link to the "BNP Updates Language & Concepts Discipline Manual" item on their website - you can find it for yourself if you want). Participating in hustings with other parties helps them achieve this image of legitimacy.
The BNP can organise their own events, distribute their own literature, use their website and canvass door to door. They have their freedom of expression & voters can easily inform themselves about the BNP, if they so wish. Refusing to share, or offer, a platform with them does not impinge on their rights.
Nor does it prevent people from challenging the policies and lies of the BNP. Candidates don't have to meet with them to counter their position. And everyone can challenge them by helping in the work of Redbridge Together and the Hope Not Hate campaign (see their take on it).
Well done to Ross for leading the way in withdrawing. Well done to those who followed his lead, though shame on those who remained ambivalent.
I can't understand why there is no criticism of the organisers of the event here. They were under no obligation to invite the BNP & official guidance is easy to find. They chose to cancel the event rather than go ahead with four or five parties not including the BNP. I don't know anything else about these people but that tells me all I want to know.
All the above is said much better than I can here.
Dave.
PS: Sharing a council meeting with another elected member is one of those unfortunate obligations about which there is no choice. Entirely different to taking part in a hustings.
Dave
You say “All the above is said much better than I can here.”
It says: "….but they [BNP] are not just going after the alienated but after people who feel they are abandoned by the major parties;"
This seems to me to be saying that the major parties have created a problem that they don’t know how to deal with and therefore wish to sweep it under the carpet rather than face up to the consequences of their own actions.
I have also seen the Redbridge Together piece and here is Weggis’ take on it.
Post a Comment