hypocrisy is good, m'kay

Freedom is a solid good, that requires to be treated with reverence and respect. -- Mary Wollstonecraft

The British National Party (BNP) are known for their fascist principles, the prominent being that they don't believe anyone but full blooded English people should live in Britain. They were founded in 1982 and have since refused any applicant in their party that were non-white until this year when finally their party was seen by the law as discriminatory. Now they are allowing their first non-white member, a Sikh who, however, does not believe in racial integration in Britain, and believes that Islam (a religion not his own) is based solely on "deception, fraud, and surprise attack." Non-white by look, yes, but not exactly uniquely ethnically-minded to those already in the party. The BNP were recently featured on a show called Question Time, where audience members ask political leaders questions which they then obliquely answer in a manner that positively benefits their public appearance.

The BNP have never been asked to feature on this show because of their ideals. But in the name of "democracy" they were allowed to guest for the first time since the show's first broadcast in 1979. Although Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP (who has on numerous occasions stated that he does not believe the Holocaust occurred), was soundly ridiculed by most of the public and other representative parties on the show, it is thought that after he appeared, some people who were not aware of the BNP before now look favourably on them.

I'm going to be frank. I don't think the BNP should have been allowed to feature on this show. Some say that it would have been non-democratic to NOT allow them on this show. I can't see any good reason for letting them on now when they never have been before. They have the rudimentary features of modern day Hitler and Stalin. Whatever issues they may promote that are not anti-humanity -- whatever they may be, I haven't yet heard -- I still do not think the BNP should be given a voice. I think it is right -- even democratic -- to stifle their voices.

Democracy dictates that everyone should be given free say, but how is it correct to allow a repressive faction to participate in our democratic society when their actions nullify the purpose of democracy? This is what is wrong with our world, among many other things: we are afraid of being hypocrites. We are afraid of looking bad. In order to save face, we refuse to take a stand on something most of us believe is wrong.

There are no definitives in this world, although we like to pretend they exist, in order to make us feel safe, in order to not have to think too strongly about a complex, contradictory issue. Democracy is roughly translated as allowing others to say what they wish and believe what they will. This definition is too simple by far, but if we are to believe that it's foundation is such, then why can't we also believe that in a democracy that allows such free-will, we should also be given the right to denounce and even lawfully chastise those who use their rights in an unnatural manner? Even if that means we are seen as hypocrites? For even though a law was passed this year prohibiting racial segregation within the BNP, so far the only non-white member to be admitted to the party still shares the parties racial principles. In this case, both literally and morally, looks differ from actual intent.

Humans are gullible by nature, and what happened in the time of Hitler's reign was our gullibility used to its full advantage. We don't have to be taken advantage again. And if we are hypocrites for saying that the BNP should not be allowed to spew its propaganda on live television, or be given a prominent voice in Parliament, then maybe we will share the brunt of public denunciation, but then maybe we stop something that has the potential to become destructive against that democracy that we promote with such steadfast pride.