On Inviting the BNP to Speak to Democracy Activists

[danieldwilliam]

I find myself on the horns of a dilemma.

I’m trying to set up a programme of speakers for the 2013 Edinburgh Democracy User Group In the Pub meetings. One of our decisions at the planning meeting for this was to invite all the major political parties to send a speaker to talk to us about their parties core values and how they make decisions internally.

My working definition of “major” is any British party that holds a seat at the European, Westminster or Holyrood Parliaments. I’ve excluding Welsh and Northern Irish parties on the grounds of logistics, although if anyone can find a Plaid Cymru member in Edinburgh I’d be delighted to buy them a pint of Brains.

So, I’ve invited Conservative, Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, Green, Respect and UKIP speakers.

It’s not that I’m not happy to have speakers from other parties. I’d be delighted but my first objective is to invite the major parties and I wanted a rule of thumb to apply when I said I was going to spend time trying to get a speaker from X party but not as much time trying to get a speaker from Y party.

The problem is, my definition of major includes the BNP. They currently hold two seats at the European Parliament.

I’m genuinely in two minds about inviting them to speak. On the grounds that they have a democratic mandate should we engage with them. Should we deny them a platform because they are anti-democratic (and are they anti-democratic?)  Are we wiser if we know our enemy or is a fool’s errand to give them a platform?

Suggestions from the floor welcome.

Comments

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I hear you on the rules.

Whilst I agree that the BNP are fully human I’m not convinced that that puts me under any obligation to have any dealings with them.

(To be clear, that is not convinced = not certain either way but open to persuasion or facilitation of thinking rather than not convinced = a euphemism for I am right.)

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

I don't think it puts you under an obligation. But to me it is a compelling argument for being open to conversation rather than closed to it. See comments passim about best how to support and help conversations. Also see all known writing by Jonathan Haidt.

(On a similar note, having had the experience of becoming entangled with an EDL march, I would take steps to ensure an alcohol-free environment if I were going to do this.)

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yeah there is a lot to be said for being open to the conversation.

Good call on the alcohol point.

That does, very genuinely, present me with a logisitical difficulty, in that I have no budget but can get free space at a pub in exchange for us buying drinks.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

I do completely get that - it occurred to me as I was writing - but I think it's worth giving it your best possible shot. Could you get a similar deal in a coffee bar, one night only? They might be glad of the business if it's early in the week.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I’m sure it’s not an insurmountable problem and a coffee shop would be a good venue.

I’ll ask around and see if anyone knows of one.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Here's today's example of Haidt saying it better (albeit at greater length) than I.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Interesting to see that Haidt acknowledges the change in position of American society on gay marriage, and puts that down not to better, more persausive arguments, but to a change in the culture - very encouraging stuff.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree with him that the value of reason in changing minds is very, very low.

In my experience, the only useful way to open minds is through human connection, which is hard. (Jeez. It's hard with people we love, never mind our political enemies.)

I don't know about culture change. I suspect that there is a huge factor in that time has passed and a generation of people has grown up with the idea that gay relationships are normal. But I couldn't say what contributed to that change, and in particular whether it is entirely emergent or whether it can be nurtured through intervention. (I know about the seatbelt legislation, but don't know how far such things can be generalised.)

(edited for mistyped words)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think growing up in an environment where gay people are shown as being normal, open, and accepted parts of society makes it less likely that they will frighten your elephant. And I love the fact that I'm somewhere in a middle generation on this, somewhere between Turing and Tatchel in terms of the normalacy of homosexuality.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Not with you on a Turing - Tatchell continuum - both seem to find / have found homosexuality entirely normal.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of society's view of homosexuals, rather than their own self-image. Turing was hounded to death before I was born, and Tatchell was operating as an openly gay politician in my early adulthood - so I've been able to watch that process of acceptance by society as it evolves.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

Gotcha.

[andrewducker]

If they were elected to a parliament, would you feel that they should have time to speak at it?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I do. I'm with Voltaire on this. I also think that we should not design our constitution to advantage or disadvantage particular parties or view points. (Although, I've never lived in a country with a history of extremist governments.)

Also, it's our bloody stupid fault if we elect fascists. So we should be careful.

And that's part of the underlying reasoning for my major parties heuristic. The parties on List A got elected to speak & vote in a parliament. Those on List B, didn't.

The other part being logistical but f4f3 is going to sort that out for me.