BNP Questiontime | Law Careers |

For me I didn't see a problem with Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time, he is the leader of marginal political party. I certainly wouldn't have an objection to seeing the Green Party on Question Time or have I missed the point? Is the point about what he represents?

I thought the whole show was a bit of a charade, it appeared to be just an attack on the BNP with people firing questions left, right and centre. We might think he is an idiot, and that he talks rubbish, in fact we might even say he is racist in his views, but I would defend his right to say the things that he does say and trust in the rule of law.

The European Human Rights Act 1998, enshrines the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law. Article 10 – the Freedom of Expression – means that everyone is able to hold opinions, and is free to receive and impart information and ideas. If Nick wants to tell me that foreigners are taking all our jobs and we should stop them coming then so be it, it doesn’t mean it will compel me to act as he says, in the same way I haven’t sold my car because I am told it damages the environment.

I have a choice and I like the options. I like to be able to change my mind and I like it when people try to influence me – sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

If he, or anybody else for that matter is inciting racial or religious hatred then we have the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 to deal with it; we have a system of rules and laws. I think we should stick to them, because once we start making exceptions then we start to erode the system. That is not the path I would like to follow.

My favourite quote from my favourite case on Freedom of Expression is from Handyside v UK (5493/72) [1976] ECHR 5 (7 December 1976).

Article 10

(art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.  Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society".  This means, amongst other things, that every "formality", "condition", "restriction" or "penalty" imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

I don’t think Nick Griffin is a threat to national security and I don’t think a ban on his party is necessary in a democratic society and restrictions on him and his party are provided for in domestic legislation so let him say what he wants and I’ll even listen until he bores me and if you want to rant on about him and everything that you hate about his party then I’ll listen to that too, for a while. But in the end I will end up not listening to either... maybe I’ll sell my car and vote for the Greens instead.

Coming from a different background myself, i did start hating on the BNP party. Then again reading your post does change my opinion in a way. As a lot of people don’t realise that just like another person Nick Griffin is only giving out an opinion which he is allowed to do so. I think a lot of people should be more aware that no matter what he says everyone else also have a brain and can decide whether to listen to him or not.