My own tradition of Christian discipleship arises out of a history of persecution, intolerance and resistance to those powers, political and religious, that want to tell me what to think, what to say, how to live. At the heart of Baptist history and thought is a passionate witness to the right of each person to have freedom of conscience before God in the expression of their faith. Witness, in its semantic derivations, points us back to those for whom willing martyrdom for the sake of religious freedom was preferable to religious compulsion enforced by political oppression. So I try to live my life within that same passionate commitment to liberty of conscience before God with its inevitable corollary of religious toleration. And in turn, I stand in a tradition preferring the use of reason, persuasion and the witness of an alternative way of living as the preferred approach to changing the views of the other. In other words, witness, testimony, lived practices of faith, trust in truth as both ultimately self-verifying and as primary ethical stance, define the moral and political modus operandi of those committed to the classic nonconformist Baptist dissenting tradition.
So when there is a public furore about freedom of speech, political validity, liberty of conscience, I am interested, I have an opinion, I have a way of life to which I want to bear witness, my freedom of conscience conviction starts to sound shrill warnings like a manic car alarm. Should the BNP leader be allowed to appear on the BBC flagship political talk forum Question Time? The position of the BBC is that as a legal party with elected MEP's, the BNP is entitled to an invitation to take part, otherwise the BBC would be accused of political discrimination. And for the BBC to refuse to invite the BNP would give rise to accusations of bias, the BBC being in the pocket of the establishment, the independence of the BBC being compromised. And then of course the claim that the BNP would be made martyrs, would be given legitimacy for their claim that Britain no longer belongs to the British because the BNP which represents those disaffected with a multi-cultural Britain is simply being silenced; and if their views are so heinous, why not let them be heard and so be self-condemned before a mature thoughtful public. And so on. And so on. The claim is made that the BBC must be impartial; cannot be partial; must provide the same platform for the BNP as any other political party.
Now I know I'm standing on thin ice. Liberty of conscience must also extend even to those whose conscience recognises very different values to my own, even the leader of the BNP and its supporters. But I am not questioning his right to hold repugnant political opinions rooted in dehumanising convictions about human beings whose colour, faith, cultutral identity is different. Nor am I advocating the muzzling of voices that spew the toxic waste of racial hate and violence – by all means let's have the argument. And I recognise that in a democracy people vote for the candidate who most represents their interests, opinions, political apsirations, and therefore the election of the BNP to public office is its own moral critique of our culture.
But the question of whether or not Nick Griffin should be invited by the BBC to sit alongside mainstream politicians and other social commentators is not about democracy – but about the legitimation of that which has no moral legitimacy. And the invitation to the BNP isn't about free speech either. The BBC's concern not to silence the BNP, need not have meant providing them with a platform of perceived acceptance by a major public institution with unique status across the world – a publicly funded Corporation.
(I should say I am deliberately posting this before the programme is aired this evening, and so without the benefit of hindsight.)
No. As one trying to interpret what religious toleration means today, and as one doing his best to live faithfully and responsibly (only God knows with what mistakes and miss-judgements) in upholding freedom of conscience before God, I can see no moral justification for the appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time. And yes. I know that the moral argument is described as slippery and oppressive – whose morals, who is the adjudicator, who has the right to pull the plug, and what about the rights of BNP members? Well actually lets not talk only of rights. How about obligations? If the BBC feels obliged to have the BNP on the show, and does so by claiming the high ground of impartiality, and the claim it is merely reflecting the realities of a society that elected these men in the first place – then here's my question. What is the BBC's obligation to those who are the targets of BNP villification, intimidation and political rage? Do they have rights that the BBC recognises as playing a significant part in their editorial decisions? What does moral responsibility mean if it doesn't have some purchase on precisely those editorial decisions that impact on the safety, dignity and right to exist in peace of large sections of our popuplation of British citizens?
This isn't the first time on this blog I've taken issue with the BBC. The same claim to the absolute value of impartiality was made by the BBC in January. Then the Corporation refused to broadcast an appeal to relieve the suffering and misery of the civilians of Gaza, the appeal made by DEC the internationally recognised emergency disaster charity. (See the post on January 26 on this blog)
Are democracy and freedom of speech absolute values with no restrictions? No – they are fenced around by laws such as incitement to racial hatred. Right. But we all know that attitudes and underlying convictions that drive political goals are capable of being moderated in the public forum to allay moral censure and perhaps avoid legal action. The BNP is learning the lesson well, that the way to win power as an extremist group is to temper the worst excesses as a deliberate strategy of disarming opposition. At which point we are back to the issue of moral values, cultural fabric, humanising and humane politics. Are democracy and freedom of speech and editorial impartiality absolute values to be upheld at any price? Or are they the conveniently camouflaged idols of a culture so sold on free expression that it no longer has the moral vision to see and name evil for what it is, the courage to say no, and the ethical literacy to say why no must be said?