He and I have a little history. He doesn't like me very much after I completely trashed him in a debate on a Russian TV station.
And so he wrote a piece on his blog about me called "Kate Smurthwaite and the Third Reich", in which he accuses me of basically being a Nazi. Argh! The irony! I can't take any more! His "point" (in the loosest sense) is that I support the work of Marie Stopes who a very long time ago were involved with eugenics. Of course I don't actually support eugenics (surprise Melanie Phillips and interesting how you and the BNP can only come up with the same transparent arguments eh?). I don't make the assumption that anyone who eats Kellogg's cereal is an anti-masturbation campaigner, though again there is a historic link. A strong one actually.
There is however a serious point here. We are widely aware of the BNP's very very unpleasant attitude towards anyone who isn't white-British. We can forget sometimes that they're also horribly horribly sexist. And yes they have female members and candidates but as we've seen they also have members and candidates who aren't white-British. One of their stated policies last time I looked (their website is down today, sorry fascism fans - try the Conservatives site instead) is that any single mother who wears a short skirt should have her children taken away.
Footnote: When I agreed to do the interview Russia Today did NOT tell me I would be up against a BNP guy. They said it would be a religious anti-choice person. I don't particularly have a strong view on when one should and shouldn't "no platform" an organisation like the BNP, I was live on air when I found out who I was debating with and made the snap decision to carry on. Love to hear views on whether that was the right choice or what you-all would advise if it happened again another time...?
7 comments:
Not only was Marie Stopes in favour of eugenics, she was also strongly opposed to abortion. What was the BNP argument again?
Good job Kate!
I heard part of a Radio 4 programme tonight on the involuntary sterilisation of women in Ubekistan. Sounds horiffic.
I do so love people who pick up on the smallest, insignificant detail, then blow it up into a major point....
.... only to get shot right down.
Top job!
I think you made the right choice regarding carrying on the debate when you found out it was a BNP spokesman. The "no platform" position only ever gives the advantage to them. It makes them appear to be a serious threat who everyone is scared of. When the truth is they are a bunch of bumbling idiots with no facts to back up a single of their ridiculous arguments. I've never seen any of them win a single tv debate or come out of it looking less than foolish.
http://theubiquitousmind.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/do-we-have-moral-right-to-gag-bnp.html
Yes interesting piece but doesn't really address the difference between denying people the right to discuss a subject and "no platforming" someone with offensive views. It's not about free speech. I have free speech, I don't have the "right" to be on Question Time. The producers of Question Time have the freedom to choose which views and which guests are right for their show.
This is a big problem. Often when I discuss abortion it will be me and someone who opposes abortion. This can give the impression that it is a 50-50 debate subject. But it's not - the vast majority of people in the UK are broadly pro-choice. The anti-choicers are a small extremist minority. Similarly when we put the BNP on shows it makes their views appear more mainstream.
Post a Comment