I think you are wrong here. the bbc takes the new labour line way too often for me but on this occasion i think they were tyrying to discredit the very damaging things blunkett is trying to do by linking him to the BNP. its not like the bnp are on everyday. even new labour voters don't want blunkett to be a full blown racist (just a closet one)!

You said it yourself 'fringe fascist'. Is denying freedom of speech to marginal loonies nobody listens to anyway the way in which you like to spend your time? People like you give the left a bad name

Griffin and anyone else should be allowed to say what they like, where they like, as long as they stay within the law. Fascism is best defeated by allowing fascist views to be aired and seen for the lies and prejudice that they are, rather than gagging them and giving them legitimate cause for complaint that their right to speak is being trampled on. We have laws to prevent incitement to racial hatred, and I'd be the first person to call for them to be used if the BNP step out of line.

The interesting thing about Blunkett's comments is that it's started this whole debate about what it means to be British. Aside from extremists like the BNP, nobody is saying that it means "white", or of British descent (if so, how far back?), or Christian. Yes, some people are just coming up with vague sentimental concepts like fish and chips and cricket pitches, but overall people are at least talking about values, rather than race, religion or descent. To me, that's a sign that many people are coming to terms not just with a multi-cultural Britian, but a multi-cultural world. I'm quite happy for Griffin to demonstrate just how far the BNP is out of step with the general public. Is that a bad thing?

the problem is that they are not as marginalised necessarily as people think (29% of the vote in recent election) and laws against incitement to racial hatred are rarely used. but i take the point.
not sure if its people like me who give the left a bad name though. since when could the left not handle a legitimate discussion....

You cannot let Nazis have a platform.

Everytime the BNP get airtime, it legitimates what they stand for.

People die because they get allowed to speak, it gives all the BNP supporters more confidence to go out and beat and kill Asian and Black people in this country.

The BBC should not keep giving them a platform, in a climate where racist attacks are on the increase as are racist votes.

That's one of the unfortunate prices you pay when living in a 'democracy'. People expressing really offensive points of view.

I think we can all sometimes get confused about free speech. Free speech means saying what you want without being beaten up or locked up. It does not mean an automatic right to have everything you say reported in all possible media.

If the BBC stopped interviewing Griffin, he and the BNP would still have free speech. They just wouldn't have the most-watched national TV network giving them respectability.

it was a good point to bring up, as can be gauged by the
response, since when did the left have a good name ?
Anyone who still believes in Left and Right must be of
their rocker. Besides the BBC has a complaints channel for people to aire their views why not use it ?
It's a matter of opinion wether this creep should be given a platform by the BBC we are all entitled to that
even if we do give the so called left a bad name.

all Right !

this isn't a democracy.

Anti-Nazi, all kinds of wackos get airtime on the BBC, it doesn't necessarily "legitimate" them. There are far, far more dangerous people in British politics, and from other countries, that get on air to advance views that are considerably more destructive. People don't die because the BNP are allowed to speak, people die because prejudiced people like to use violence to further their political ends, or just out of sheer sadism. Individuals have a choice. I have heard Griffin speak many times, but have somehow managed to restrain myself from attacking my black and Asian neighbours. If we're counting numbers, I'd imagine that the police are responsible for more racist killings in this country in recent years than the BNP or other declared racists. (Just a guess!) Are you going to be phoning up the BBC every time plod gets on air?

While the BNP surely like getting some airtime (and they really don't get a lot), the fact is that as soon as you start to pin them down on policy rather than slogans and sentiment, they're exposed for the bigots they are. It also cuts both ways, as the recent series about them shows. Not all coverage is good coverage. I'd much rather have the TV showing them for what they are than sweeping them under the carpet and pretending they didn't exist.

Internationalist, I'm not confused about free speech. In part, you're right. Free speech doesn't equal access to BBC airtime. But the BBC are (theoretically) independent and can do what they like, and part of *their* free speech and indepdendence means they can show just about whoever they like. As I argued above, BBC coverage doesn't necessarily give respectability. What's the alternative? The "reporting restrictions" as placed on the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland? I'm sure you remember what a farce that was.

Heather, I'm not quite sure which election you're referring to. The BNP (Griffin, in fact) got 16% of the vote in Oldham in the general election, and got 47,000 votes across the whole of the UK. They stood in 28 seats and got an average 3.9% share of the vote in those seats. That doesn't make them much of a force to be reckoned with, either electorally or ideologically. I'm much more worried about the various millions that voted Tory, as they ran a very high-profile and essentially racist campaign.

Jimmer, if you can't tell the difference between the political systems in the UK and say, Burma, then I suggest you move there. No, our system isn't perfect. Yes, it is democracy and it allows us to air our views with very few serious restrictions here, in the media, on the streets, and in the ballot booth. You don't know you're born.

"It is unacceptable that the BBC treats Blunkett yet again as a legitimate commentator on race relations in Britain
today." What experience, knowledge or understanding does this man have of black or Asian culture? What's wrong with a Pakistani choosing to speak URDU? It's a free friggin' country! What's so ruddy good about "being British" anyway? Isn't Blunkett breaking the law, with his xenophobic laws?

this is a democracy. anyone can stand for election and the polls do not lie - they reflect what the public are willing to support. the BNP have a few hotspots where they pick up sizeable votes but that is not a reflection of their strength as a party nationally (or even locally for that matter - votes don't equal members).

I think every vote for the BNP is a failure for the left. BNP votes come exlusively from working class areas and to then turn around and say the best thing to do is to ban the BNP just shows how far off the track much of the left is.

some communities (rightly) think that they have been left behind by the mainstream parties (and I am a Labour party member). they have legitimate concerns about the distribution of limited resources in poor communities. all the left does a lot of the time is accuse them of being racist for even asking questions. as a result they see the left as a complete waste of time and some choose to vote BNP as a protest.

personally I don't even think a lot of BNP votes are cast by people who are actually racist. and if the BNP said what it really believes the votes would dry up. but as long as the BNP poses as the party concerned about difficult local issues in multi-cultural areas and as long as all the left can do is yell "racism" at people at the bottom end of the scale rather than really look at the same issues the BNP will still get votes.

the left needs to listen more and lecture less if it is to regain its momentum

Most BNP voters are not fascists or even 'hard' racists; they're council tenants that have been denied repairs and other services for years, are angry as hell, and can be conned by the plausible Griffin into thinking that Muslims are to blame and that he and his Nazi pals will somehow save the day.

How to combat this? I support a twin-track strategy. It is worth exposing the BNP as Nazis, as this drives some folk away from them. But we must also challenge the idea that estates can only have limited resources over which different ethnic groups must compete. Truth is, the government could afford decent housing, schools and other services for all council tenants, if they'd tax the corporations a bit more. That's the real issue.

Anyway, here's the ANL links page, so you can browse around for your own preferred approach to anti-fascism:

The ANL & hangers on are the worst offenders. Who else could walk into a Glasgow estate and seriously argue for a "refugees welcome here" approach? as a very well-argued Red Action (I think?) article on Sighthill said such an ultra-liberal strategy ends up meaning you put race before class. fair enough if you are a liberal but not if you are on the left.

as for taxing corporations fair enough as a long term national strategy. but you can hardly use it as an answer to local issues can you?

The BNP are nothing but stupid pretend nazis with bomber jackets. The biggest Nazis are the government for killing muslims in their thousands. but the government gets the most airtime. So smash yer TVs and kill the state!

The whole issue's extremely complicated, but I ultimately agree with Heather and anti-nazi, much as it goes against my libertarian tendencies; we in the "left" (and yes, I do think the terms left and right are useful- if not essential): we should allow no platform for racists and fascists, and we should be taking every opportunity to expose Blunkett and the rest of the scum for the opportunist wankers that they are. The BNP is not a "respectable" political party; it's the political wing of a bunch of inadequate thugs who put dogshit through Asian families' windows, and who idolise Adolf fucking Hitler.

Blunkett's whole premise is a filthy joke. I work with asylum seekers, who are abused, vilified and shat on by officialdom at every turn. I have yet to meet ONE who wasn't desperate to learn English- though plenty of them can't get a college place because of the failure of the Home office's National Asylum Support Service to actually issue them with the paper work which would allow a college to claim funds for their education.

As for Tom's mealy mouthed criticism of the "asylum seekers are welcome approach", what does he see as the alternative? Collude with New Labour, the Tories, the press and the fascists?

And when did asylum seekers become responsible for inner-city poverty? If I'm putting "race before class" here, explain something: what class do most asylum seekers belong to? Who needs to bunk into the country in the back of a van? The Hinduja brothers? Mohammed Al-Fayed? Don't quite think so.

never understood what that term meant? thought it meant trying to disguise what you are really saying? if so I should point out your knee-jerk reaction to what I said ascribes views to me that I do not have. where did I say that asylumn seekers were to blame for poverty? and where did I state what class asylumn seekers are from?

what I am saying is that chanting asylumn seekers welcome here on behalf of residents in an already poor area is a suicidal strategy. it is patronising (claiming to speak on behalf of the residents) and dangerous (risk inflaming local tensions) and is one of the worst examples of sixth form level do-gooder politics I have seen for a long time.

I am a socialist, not a liberal. I think economic equality comes first. if placement of a new group of people on an estate (rgardless of race, nationality, hairstyle) risks undermining the low level of economic wealth of that area, or resulting in an unfair ditribution of resources I am against it. it has nothing to do with race, asylumn or the rest of it. it is straightforward bread-and-butter stuff.

clearly it is not a socialist approach to lower the standard of living in already poor areas. but that is what you are doing if you add more people to the pool already competing for scant resources in a poor area. regardless of what good you think you are doing that is often the bottom line economic result. unfortunately these are difficult issues and cannot be answered by this simplistic "everyone welcome here" approach.

but probably by your interpretation just by saying this I am a BNP apologist because, as you suggest, there is no difference bewteen labour, the tories and the fascists. no doubt in your world anyone pointing out that in some cases the original working class population of an estate gets dealt a cruddy hand by refugee placement policy is being racist - even though where I live the 'domestic' working class is predominantly afro-carribean - difficult isn't it?

never understood what that term meant? thought it meant trying to disguise what you are really saying? if so I should point out your knee-jerk reaction to what I said ascribes views to me that I do not have. where did I say that asylumn seekers were to blame for poverty? and where did I state what class asylumn seekers are from?

what I am saying is that chanting asylumn seekers welcome here on behalf of residents in an already poor area is a suicidal strategy. it is patronising (claiming to speak on behalf of the residents) and dangerous (risk inflaming local tensions) and is one of the worst examples of sixth form level do-gooder politics I have seen for a long time.

I am a socialist, not a liberal. I think economic equality comes first. if placement of a new group of people on an estate (rgardless of race, nationality, hairstyle) risks undermining the low level of economic wealth of that area, or resulting in an unfair ditribution of resources I am against it. it has nothing to do with race, asylumn or the rest of it. it is straightforward bread-and-butter stuff.

clearly it is not a socialist approach to lower the standard of living in already poor areas. but that is what you are doing if you add more people to the pool already competing for scant resources in a poor area. regardless of what good you think you are doing that is often the bottom line economic result. unfortunately these are difficult issues and cannot be answered by this simplistic "everyone welcome here" approach.

but probably by your interpretation just by saying this I am a BNP apologist because, as you suggest, there is no difference bewteen labour, the tories and the fascists. no doubt in your world anyone pointing out that in some cases the original working class population of an estate gets dealt a cruddy hand by refugee placement policy is being racist - even though where I live the 'domestic' working class is predominantly afro-carribean - difficult isn't it?

Fine. I'm a socialist too. So let's chat. HOW does the domestic working class get "dealt a raw deal by refugee placement policy"? You're doing exactly what you deny- effectively blaming asylum seekers for poverty.

And if the "everyone welcome here" approach is simplistic, what's your alternative? Denial of the right to asylum? Close the borders?

I never claimed you were a BNP apologist but, curiously enough, you do appear to be advocating a literal "National Socialism".

Surely a socialist viewpoint is an internationalist one that seeks to unite members of the working class around precisely such issues as poverty, resources, wealth distribution, environmental degradation etc. Many of the refugees we're talking about here will be fleeing persecution precisely for upholding "socialist" views of this sort.

So wouldn't it make more sense to explore ways of attempting to unify the concerns of the "domestic" working class with new arrivals facing the same struggles, rather than depicting a Darwinian struggle for "scant resources"?

Fine. I'm a socialist too. So let's chat. HOW does the domestic working class get "dealt a raw deal by refugee placement policy"? You're doing exactly what you deny- effectively blaming asylum seekers for poverty.

And if the "everyone welcome here" approach is simplistic, what's your alternative? Denial of the right to asylum? Close the borders?

I never claimed you were a BNP apologist but, curiously enough, you do appear to be advocating a literal "National Socialism".

Surely a socialist viewpoint is an internationalist one that seeks to unite members of the working class around precisely such issues as poverty, resources, wealth distribution, environmental degradation etc. Many of the refugees we're talking about here will be fleeing persecution precisely for upholding "socialist" views of this sort.

So wouldn't it make more sense to explore ways of attempting to unify the concerns of the "domestic" working class with new arrivals facing the same struggles, rather than depicting a Darwinian struggle for "scant resources"?

Don't you think they sound the same? After all the Walsh don't like us, niether do the Scotts.