Shane Croucher

The BBC has once again taken flak, this time for hosting a debate on its Have Your Say section, which was entitled “Should gays face execution?” Once it became notorious, the Beeb changed the topic’s name to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”.

On the surface this is jaw-droppingly offensive, making you cringe as you cower from your screen out of embarrassment for the BBC. However, once I read on and learnt the reasoning behind the topic, I could see why they’ve shed light on this issue, even if they have dealt with it very badly. The fact is that the Ugandan government will vote on a bill which proposes:

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a “serial offender” or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for “attempted homosexuality.”

In the interests of human rights, this is an important problem. Africa is known for its intolerance towards homosexuality, much of which stems from Africans’ hard-line religious beliefs. If there is a situation arising in a country whereby people are persecuted and murdered for their sexuality, it should brought to our attention.

Britain recently signed a 10-year aid deal worth £700 million to the Ugandans. It’s very much in our interests, as British taxpayers, if our money is going to a country which is abusing its citizens’ human rights. The question shouldn’t be whether Uganda should debate gay execution, but what should Britain do to prevent the bill from passing? Then a bigger question arises – what is Britain doing to quell anti-homosexual intolerance throughout the whole of Africa?

The BBC were right to raise the issue of homophobia in Uganda. However, they approached the issue entirely wrongly.

Well, Griffin certainly got slapped down last night, didn’t he? And I definitely overestimated his ability, and underestimated the panel.

However, one thing I will say is that the BNP have a point when they complain that the QT format seemed to have changed, in order to attack Griffin for the entire show. It lacked the usual diversity of topics and was dominated by race and immigration discussion, an obvious way to trip Griffin and his ridiculous views up, when that should have only played one part. What about grilling the BNP on other issues, like healthcare, education – everything else? The BNP simply doesn’t have an answer to any of these topics, and I would have liked to have seen Griffin squirm whilst trying to answer those questions, as well as ones on race and immigration.

Not only that, but as Dianne Abbott has put it:

It’s all very well in the morning to say ‘oh well he got smashed’ but in the long run people who are attracted to the BNP will come away saying he was a victim,” she said. “When you put the BNP into the mainstream like that they drag people on to their agenda. Everyone is talking about Nick Griffin. The programme has given him unnecessary exposure, unnecessary credibility, and giving more credibility to a fascist party in the middle of a recession is a very dangerous thing

On the whole, we didn’t learn anything new. But at least Griffin looked like a chortling imbecile, as he awkwardly navigated his way through the session. His backtracking was priceless.

Tonight, Nick Griffin and the BNP are being given a platform on Question Time. They are being welcomed into the mainstream by the BBC, who claim that it’s their duty to reflect society – of which the BNP are now elected to represent in Europe. To an extent they’re right. The BNP should face the same scrutiny as other parties, on programmes like Newsnight, where they can be grilled on a pre-decided topic, allowing the journalists working on the show to conduct some in-depth research, in a bid to prevent the BNP ‘getting away with it’, so to speak.

But Question Time is not a good forum to hold them to account. Firstly, it’s well known that the BNP survives solely on propaganda-based policy. How can you fight propaganda in a television debate? An example of this can clearly be seen from Griffin’s appearance on Tuesday night on Channel 4 News. He reeled off claims about Selly Oak Hospital charging wounded soldiers for using televisions. This has since been proven false. Civilian patients have to pay to watch TV, but military personnel are given free cards with ten pounds of credit each, allowing them to watch TV or make phonecalls for free. If they run out, the cards are simply topped up by the military liaison officer. It was only the next day that Griffin got called out. This is one of the problems with Question Time. Griffin can use propaganda, misinformation and sensationalism to put his twisted message across. The other panelists and David Dimbleby are hardly going to have enough reference material, or knowledge on all the examples Griffin will no doubt cite, to call him out on it. Only reflection on what Griffin is saying, which will come in the hours and days after his appearance, will reveal the truth. But the damage will have already been done. The huge press that this issue has received will ensure that there is a larger-than-usual audience. Once Griffin has used this platform to spout propaganda, which does not open itself up to rationality and therefore cannot be contested with rational debate, Griffin may have had an impact on some parts of the audience who are susceptible to his vitriol. What good can possibly come of this?

Another argument put forward by those who believe Griffin is right to have a platform, as an elected representative, is that we will in some way ‘expose’ the BNP. How many times do we have to expose the BNP? It’s almost being presented as if this is the defining moment for them, and a chance to stick it up ‘em. Well, they get exposed time and time and time and time and time and time again. When comes the point where we go ‘there’s a societal problem here, so let’s deal with it’?   

Let’s not even start on Jack Straw…His record is tarnished and he’s a part of a weakened and inept government. He might as well draw a target on his forehead and be done with it. How this man is supposed to challenge Griffin is a mystery to me…

By giving Griffin a platform where his views might well be appropriately challenged, but his evidence to support his views isn’t, is not the way to beat the BNP. Some people watching will say ‘hold on – he’s got a point’, when he substantiates his claims with false evidence.

I think Griffin may do well, and the BBC will be regretting their decision tomorrow morning…