No Platform for the BNP!
Sheraz Qureshi explains why he thinks the Nazis shouldn't be given
speaking rights at his college
Its our university: We dont want violence and increased
tensions on campus!
Whenever the BNP are invited into a university they inevitably increase
tensions on campus. This is because when fascists are invited they
often bring their supporters (thugs) with them and this results in
students who are ethinic minorities or homosexual being put at an
increased risk of attack / verbal assault. Giving the BNP a platform
also gives people who wouldnt otherwise do so the confidence
to attack others, and the reason for this is that words that that
are designed to inflame tensions unsurprisingly increase the likelihood
of their being physical attacks against minority groups. We say
the Student Union is like a private members club, and it has the right
to invite (or not invite) whoever it wants, this means that if the
Student Union perceives there to be a security risk to its members
it has every right to adopt a no platform stance.
"Only one thing could have broken our movement - if our enemies
had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed the
nucleus of our movement with extreme brutality." A Hitler
Believing that support for the Far right can be countered through
debate is naive.
In the setting of the university, students are between the ages of
18-21 and away from home for the first time. This results in significant
sections of the student population feeling isolated and alone
and in these circumstances people who are drawn to support the far
right do so more out of a desperate attempt to cling to ideology in
order to feel a sense of belonging rather than as a result of
a rational thought process. Belief in far right ideology allows
people who are struggling with problems relating to self-definition
an opportunity to define themselves against a foreign other
and hence, to feel a sense of previously lacking purpose and superiority.
The reason why this is relevant is because it demonstrates why those
who believe the far rights supporters will have their minds changed
through more debates are so misguided because of
the desperate way in which far right ideology is clung to by its supporters;
out debating their speakers in a public setting will not change their
Debating with the BNP adds a veneer of respectability to the party
and their views
Part of the BNPS policies is to divert the publics attention
away from their violent and bigoted polices and every time
the BNP are allowed to partake in a debate dressed in suites and smartly
presented it helps perpetuate the image of the BNP as just another
political party and if the BNP are able to do this it means
they are able to target more mainstream voters.
The reality is that the suits not boots rhetoric is meaningless,
behind closed doors the BNP are very clear about what their real aims
This is a life and death struggle for white survival not
a fancy dress party. A little less banner waving and a little more
guile wouldnt go amiss. As long as our cadres understand the
full implications of our struggle there is no need for us to do anything
to give the public cause for concern. We must at all times present
them with an image of moderate reasonableness. Of course we must teach
the truth to the hard core, for like you I do not intend this movement
to lose its way, but when it comes to influencing the public forget
about genetic differences, historical revisionism or Zionism, holocaust
denial and so on, all that people want to know is what can we do for
them that the other parties cant or wont. Politics is
always the art of the possible so we must judge every single policy
by one simple criteria, is it realistically possible that a decisive
proportion of the British people will support it, if not scale it
down to our short term ambitions, to the point where the answer becomes
yes. This is not a sell out but the only possible step
further towards our goal" Nick Griffin, leader of the
There aim is to follow the model of Le Pen in France, and to become
a mainstream fixture in politics we must not allow this to
"If the enemy had known how weak
we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly. It would have
crushed in blood the very beginning of our work." J Goebbels
Legal precedent: Oliver Wendall
Oliver Wendall (an American supreme court judge) argued that it was
legal for a man to go into a large empty field and shout "fire"
at the top of his voice even if there wasn't a fire. However
if he were to do the same in crowded theatre then he was acting illegally.
The reason why this case is important is because it demonstrates that
in western societies freedom of speech doesnt extend to behaving
in a way that puts other people directly at risk. Fascism does put
people at risk.
Fascism should not be tolerated! Facists are dedicated
to destroying democracy using whatever (violent) means necessary.
By allowing the Facists to speak on public platforms we allow them
to rehabilitate themselves. We allow them to attempt to undo the damage
that world war two and the holocaust inflicted on their public image,
bu allowing them to pose as respectable and whats
the consequence of this? The far right then go on to win elections,
and to abolish freedom for the press and democratic / human rights!
Weve seen this happen before and we cant allow this to
happen again and thats why it makes sense to vote for no platform!