Nick Griffin and democracy

Was this a great day for democracy, I was asked this morning as I sought for the umpteenth time on television and radio to justify the BBC’s decision to invite the BNP onto its Question Time programme. Of course it is not a great day when a party that is avowedly hostile to ethnic minorities is given a platform on the broadcaster’s most prestigious discussion programme. This is not a day that will be remembered with fondness by anyone except supporters of the far-right party.

And yet the alternative for democracy and for free speech – the most basic of civil liberties – would have been worse. The most important free expression is the right of an individual or organisation, whose views one finds most obnoxious, to have its say. One works from the assumption that Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, will be subjected to robust, passionate and forensic cross-examination. The rest is up to the good sense of the public.

The only realistic and practical criteria for curbing free speech reside in the law. If Griffin or any of his followers break the law – as they have done in the past – then they should be subjected to the full might of the law. Until or unless they do, they are entitled to be heard no matter how uncomfortable that leaves mainstream society.

It is not for governments, less still public service broadcasters, to determine the acceptability of opinion. When in February Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, announced a list of 16 undesirable foreigners who would be denied access to the UK – from the Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders to radical Islamist preachers to an American shock-jock radio host – she was setting a worrying precedent. One is either a free individual or guilty of a crime. That is surely one of the most important lessons of our, imperfect, democratic system.

Dyab Abou Jahjah

Dyab Abou Jahjah is the Lebanese-born founder of the Arab European League, an Antwerp-based organisation which claims to speak for Europe’s Muslims. The Arab European League gained a certain notoriety when it weighed into the Motoons debate by publishing a series of anti-Semitic cartoons, ‘testing the limits’ of free expression in Europe.

Abou Jahjah is also, according to this New York Times profile, a former teenage member of Hezbollah, and still apparently a supporter of that organisation, having gone so far as to say he would return to Lebanon to fight with them against Israel in 2006.

Abou Jahjah was in London on Monday 30 March to address a Stop the War Coalition meeting, alongside Hezbollah MP Hussein El-Hajj Hassan, among others. He returned to Belgium after the meeting, with the intention of coming back to London for more meetings on the Friday of that week.

However, when he attempted to enter Britain again, he was prevented from doing so by customs officials, and sent back to Belgium after being detained for six hours.

Naturally, he is not happy about this, and believes the reason he has been barred is a campaign by ‘Zionists’.

In a statement, the Home Office told Index on Censorship:

‘This individual has been barred from entering the UK as we believe he is not conducive to the public good — he has made statements that incite religious hatred and place community harmony at risk.

‘The government supports freedom of expression, but believes it needs to be exercised responsibly. We will continue to oppose extremism in all its forms.

‘That is why we are determined to stop those who try to spread hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced in October last year.

‘EEA nationals can be refused admission to the UK on grounds of public security.’

Which is consistent with the previous reasons for banning Geert Wilders, Fred Phelps, and others. But it is curious that Dyab Abou Jahjah, who has been on the political radar for several years now, seemingly only came to the attention of the Home Office last week.