Should they or shouldn’t they have done it? That’s the question revolving around the BBC’s decision to let right-wing hate-mongerer Nick Griffin get pilloried on Question Time this week.
Peter Hain’s no-doubt well-intentioned objections are, unfortunately, hypocritical and unjustifiable, just as Thatcher’s banning of Gerry Adams’ voice in the 1980s was. If you want to live in a free and fair democracy, then objecting to elected MPs having the same freedoms of expression as everyone else just because you don’t like their views suggests you are insincere about freedom and fairness, or you just don’t get it. In either case, it is Hain rather than Griffin that should be objected to. I don’t like a lot of things politicians say, but so long as they say them within the bounds of the law, then the only answer is to either change the law, or accept that it is a consequence of your own right to speak your mind. I am far more fearful of people who want to suppress the right to free speech than I am of people who want to say things I don't agree with.
In any case, refusing to let Griffin appear on Question Time would only have given him greater credibility. Letting fools expose themselves for what they are is one of the benefits of freedom of speech.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment