Are We all Free to Make our Mind up About the BNP?

The BBC has defended itself against those who have criticised their decision to allow the British National Party leader Nick Griffin to appear on its flagship show, Question Time, this evening.

The director-general Mark Thompson has argued that not allowing the BNP on television would be 'censorship'. Meanwhile up to 300 police officers will line the television centre to prevent any disturbances from anti-racist campaigners escalating.

The BNP's recent success in this year's European elections, where they won 2 seats in the continental parliament, raised the extreme party's profile whose leader Griffin has made comments in the past such as 'the ultimate aim...still remains an all white-Britain' to the Financial Times in 2002.

He has also encouraged ferocious chagrin from the mainstream media fundamentally opposed to the party's principles. In the build up to the show, Griffin has already courted controversy this week by criticising former Army generals, including General Sir Richard Dannat, accusing them of being akin to Nazi war criminals for their involement in Afghanistan and Iraq, even going so far as to provocactively state that those Nazi generals were eventually hanged for waging illegal wars.

No matter what Griffin says and whatever reaction he provokes, should he be free to espouse views of hatred, often neatly packaged for the media he loathes to give them an acceptable facade, or should we censor and restrict partys like the BNP, in direct opposition to the spirit of democracy?

There is of course, as demonstrated by BNP successes at the ballot box, a danger that the propoganda machine of the far-right will cherry pick key issues that some members of the electorate can relate to; immigration, over-population, resource competition to name a few, thereby promoting the BNP's position on these subjects as an attractive one to those who are vulnerable and fearful of their own seat in society.

Democratically, despite protestations, the BNP are a legitimate political party and voters are entitled to choose to support them.

Most decent folk know that the veneer of respectability that the BNP have worked hard in recent years to cultivate, is nothing more than a sham with many newspapers exposing the often disturbed, criminal and downright weird element that reside in the inner sanctum of the party.

This is despite BNP claims of support from teachers, professors and other high ranking officials who the party count as their sympathisers. I am in no doubt that there are probably those who inhabit the lofty echelons of society who may sympathise with the BNP.

Immigration, multi-cultralism and British national identity are key issues that have been carefully tip-toed around for too long by the mainstream political parties. A population of 70 million in Britain within 20 years apparently does not keep Home Secretary Alan Johnson 'awake at night'.

But what of the issues surrounding infrastrucure, supply of resources and everything else this would entail?

It is these topics that the BNP touch upon that merit discussion, not the party's crude line on racial purity and immigrant repatriation. In allowing Nich Griffin on Question Time, a leader of a party whose constitution is inherently racist, the BBC awared him perhaps the finest political platform.

In their opinion, this may be democracy in action, but at what cost? Will the BNP attract more voters dissatisfied with the mainstream who might be looking for a protest vote or will Griffin be rightly exposed?