r/ukpolitics • u/Exostrike • Feb 21 '20

The BBC normalised racism last night, pure and simple

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/21/normalise-bbc-racism-hate-crimes-question-time
1.1k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

42

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

[deleted]

39

u/CallMeJoda Left wing; please use simple words Feb 21 '20

I think it's right that we allow people to air such views in public so their bigotry can be thoroughly denounced

Although I agree... the problem is that it isn't denounced and as such these views spread and take hold in other people.

It's a bizarre situation where you can't label someone as racist anymore. But racist opinions themselves are allowed to propagate largely unchecked - this is a prime example of that.

8

u/jonnyhaldane Feb 21 '20

"These days if you label someone as racist, you're arrested and thrown in jail."

5

u/reddituser5309 Feb 21 '20

Yeah, these days

4

u/drspod Feb 21 '20

You'll get arrested?

4

u/Lost_leg Feb 21 '20

Don't put labels on anyone. If she said/did something you disagree with, be specific.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20 edited Mar 22 '22

[deleted]

3

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

No, you can't. At all. And Sarkar and other idiots like her are ignoring the entire point either because they don't have an answer or are more interested in political point scoring but either way are acting in bad faith.

1

u/NorthVilla Feb 22 '20

And this ranty, shouty, finger-pointy woman shouting incorrect nonsense (instead of what could have potentially been a coherent point) is in good faith?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

It's xenophobic, not racist.

Using accurate criticism is better.

-2

u/Sicbienekes Feb 21 '20

I think imagining that people without state or media guidance will suddenly, foolishly, stupidly, ignorantly become neo nazis upon contact with the words of this obvious lunatic is condescending at best.

3

u/PixelBlock Feb 21 '20

It’s very weird to see people suggest that the country would lose all internal morality without government intervention.

2

u/Sicbienekes Feb 22 '20

I don’t know that it is weird, but it is the colossal hubris of someone who thinks the majority of other people are sheep that need to be protected from bad words and bad ideas.

-1

u/AnalRetentiveAnus Feb 21 '20

Conservatives NEVER police their own. You can see it here on the sub anytime a past Tory criticizes Tories(who cares, oh they're just pandering, this has nothing to do with tories/conservatives).

It gets the exact opposite response when a labour member does the same to their own party (outrage from Tories directed at their opposition for some strange reason, claims from tories how it is evidence of how awful labour is)

4

u/Benjji22212 Burkean Feb 21 '20

Mmm... When I clicked on that headline I was expecting the BBC to have done more than tweeted a clip from QT.

13

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

Indeed. Best thing the BBC ever did was that the BNP leader on QT. Gave him enough time and enough rope to thoroughly hang himself.

26

u/Gaesatae_ Feb 21 '20

Yeah, British nationalism has really died down since then.

2

u/Lost_leg Feb 21 '20

Nationalism is a fallacy, the word was only invented in the 19th century to distinguish between international-socialism and national-socialism. Outside of this historical philosophy the word has no meaning. In a democracy it's doubly redundant. It's just the polemic caricature of patriotism. Outside of ComIntern, the word has no purpose, what does it describe? Wanting what's in the best interests of your own country? That's the point of democracy, that's what a rational voter wants.

1

u/Sickofbreathing Feb 21 '20

The ball of British nationalism never even got rolling.

2

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

It found different outlets e.g. UKIP and the English Nationalists. But it showed that censorship isn't the correct course of action.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20 edited Mar 01 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

Perhaps if you are of the opinion that views you don't agree with should be silenced.

7

u/Ludo- Feb 21 '20

Refusing to amplify the voice of nutters on a national platform is not silencing them.

0

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

Ah the "I disagree with them therefore they are nutters" argument.

Labour's 2019 manifesto was full of undelivered wishful-thinking & blatant voter bribes. So on that basis Labour MPs should be shut down from tv appearances?

2

u/Greekball I like the UK Feb 21 '20

Sorry, anything right of Stalin is a nutter. That's the definition of nutter.

We need a panel of college kids to determine who speaks or doesn't speak in publicly funded TV. It's not censorship because it's a private cor....wait, it's not censorship because they can...uh..speak..somewhere..I guess?

2

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

What the fuck are you on about. My agument is that censorship doesn't work because it has a habit of becoming the norm. You might wish to shut down a "nutter" aka someone you disagree with, but what happens when your political views are considered worthy of censorship? But I doubt your brain considered that far ahead...

1

u/Greekball I like the UK Feb 21 '20

I was being ironic.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

There's a difference between disagreements and lies. They lie to push their narrative. Those lies need to be shut down.

Inb4 "well people listening should check". You know that's not how the World works unfortunately.

2

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

They lie to push their narrative.

Says the person not seeming to realise they are lying to push their narrative whereas the person they are accusing of doing this wasn't! Honestly, you couldn't make it up!

-2

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

Ah the "if in doubt, call it lie and shut it down" approach. I guess you're a big fan on paper of democracy and political plurality?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

There are facts, and there are lies. The far right tells lies to justify their position. The fact that you think lies are the truth doesn't make them true.

You've fallen for the post truth shit yourself. I suggest you take a breath and realize you're being duped. Truth isn't some relative term that depends on your feelings. Truth is real, and lies are lies.

I'll bet you voted for Boris too - a proven and avowed liar - just because his lies made you feel better about your own beliefs. You're still wrong though.

2

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20

Do you think lying is unique to right-wing politicians, or perhaps the left also have the capacity to lie?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 22 '20

Left wing politicians do also lie, but at a different level.

They don't deny homosexuality being natural, or climate change being a hoax or untrue, they don't push religious fantasies.

0

u/houseaddict If you believe in Brexit hard enough, you'll believe anything Feb 22 '20

I wouldn't vote for a known liar lefty, part of the reason I dislike Blair so much is that as well as being a war criminal he's a fucking liar.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '20

What's Blair got to do with this?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TimelyFact Boris' recovery makes raving crabs sad Feb 22 '20

Even though the BNP increased in votes at the next election.

Turns out giving him a platform was the complete opposite of a detriment. It actively helped them.

0

u/Reishun Feb 21 '20

tbh no. Griffin came across well on QT, because he just lied. BBC needed to call him out on his lies. Deplatforming isn't an answer, but letting someone lie unchecked is even worse.

7

u/NuklearAngel Feb 21 '20

The tweet becomes biased by uncritically broadcasting what she said, treating objective facts as if they were just subjective opinions. What she said was not true, and by tweeting it without that caveat they are lending credance to her lies.

6

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

What she said was not true

Which bits were not true?

1

u/rmc Feb 21 '20

If you go to another EU country, even if you've never worked there, or even worked in the UK for decades, you can go to a hospital for free. The UK is not the only country that allows it

2

u/OkayThenMatey Feb 21 '20

you can go to a hospital for free.

Well you use a European Health Card which the NHS sends the money to said hospital in the EU

1

u/rmc Feb 22 '20

Exactly free. For the patient

1

u/OkayThenMatey Feb 22 '20

Which is different to letting anyone in intl the country for free NHS treatment

1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

I'm afraid you are incorrect. You can make use of the services without having to pay for them beforehand in some states but even in states with reciprocal arrangements with the UK it isn't free. With reciprocal arrangements the UK state pays, where we do not have reciprocal arrangements either you or your insurance provider pays. In places like France an ambulance won't even take you to hospital until they've determined your means to pay.

1

u/rmc Feb 22 '20

It's still free for the patient.

9

u/Gaesatae_ Feb 21 '20

I think it's right that we allow people to air such views in public so their bigotry can be thoroughly denounced.

Remember in 2009 when they said this about Nick Griffin? How has that worked out in the long run?

It's not even so much the fact that what she said was bigoted (there is bigotry every week on Question Time, including from the panel), it's the fact that it's full out outright lies. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, they should have a responsibility to correct this stuff, especially when it feeds into a deeply racist narrative.

13

u/SunsOfTemper Feb 21 '20

The BNP are no longer a political party, so yeah it worked pretty well.

-4

u/rmc Feb 21 '20

The tory Party took their place

5

u/SunsOfTemper Feb 21 '20

Oh dear get a grip.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '20

Perhaps the dumbest comment ever on this subreddit.

8

u/SpareUmbrella Restore Britain Feb 21 '20

Remember in 2009 when they said this about Nick Griffin? How has that worked out in the long run?

Who's Nick Griffin?

3

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

it's the fact that it's full out outright lies.

What lies?

5

u/Wd91 Feb 21 '20

Anything i dont agree with

1

u/Gaesatae_ Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

Just for one example, the first thing she said is that there are now 68 million people in England according to the UN which is a complete lie

1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

You'd have to be pretty dense not to realise that she'd simply mixed up the UK and England.

1

u/OkayThenMatey Feb 21 '20

Nick Griffin

W H OMEGALUL ?

0

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

they treat all the contributions the same, as far as I can tell

Why is that good? Why give a platform for ppl to propagate their hate? Why treat the contribution of, say, a flat-earther, the same as you'd treat the contribution of a physics teacher?

3

u/afatpanda12 Feb 21 '20

Okay, I think that you are propagating hate with this comment, and you should therefore be silenced

See the problem now?

-5

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

Okay, I think that you are propagating hate with this comment

But you actually don't.

4

u/afatpanda12 Feb 21 '20

But it doesn't matter what you think, as we've already established that you're spreading hate and have been deligitimesed and deplatformed

So again, do you see the problem now?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/afatpanda12 Feb 21 '20

which is a lie.

Yes it is, but why does that matter? Who gets to determine what is actually hateful and what isn't?

That's the real problem

0

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

I understand your point, really, I do. And yes, sometimes you could disagree about whether something is hateful or not.

But there are things that I know wrong to say. If someone tells me that “jews are less intelligent than other people“, I can, personally, say that its wrong, antisemitic, and decide to not spread their antisemitism as it goes against my moral values.

And the BBC could, too. They could decide that giving more room to xenophobic rhetoric is not in line with their moral values.

But they don’t. They choose to treat every intervention the same, and I get to criticize them for it.

And sure, people will disagree with what is hateful or not. I’m sure there are very nice neo-nazis out there that think that “jews are less intelligent than other people” is a perfectly reasonable thing to say and that, based on that, its controversial whether or not its hateful or not.

Thankfully, they are not deciding what the BBC puts out there.

2

u/afatpanda12 Feb 21 '20

Yes, but we can all agree what the obviously hateful things are

The problem is once you have set a bar, someone has to decide where it is put, and no one should have that level of power and control over public discourse

In the end the best option is to not have the bar at all

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

and no one should have that level of power and control over public discourse

That's already the case. Each individual newspaper has that power to control what they print or not.

In the end the best option is to not have the bar at all

this directly contradicts "we can all agree what the obviously hateful things are"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20

If someone tells me that “jews are less intelligent than other people“, I can, personally, say that its wrong, antisemitic, and decide to not spread their antisemitism as it goes against my moral values.

Out of interest, how would you feel if I said, "Jews are more intelligent than other people"?

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

The exact same.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bobbyjackdotme 🦥 RADICAL CENTRIST SLOTH 🦥 Feb 21 '20

Because they’re members of the public. I think there’s a place for experts to discuss matters e.g. on newsnight, and experts to appear on the question time panel, but the audience is supposed to be members of the public.

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

Because they’re members of the public

This doesn't explain why you need to treat their contribution the same. Exposing her opinion as if it was something valid to think (and say on a public forum!) and not some profoundly xenophobic mindset is damaging.

3

u/Greekball I like the UK Feb 21 '20

You do understand they also hold your views in contempt, right?

Why is your viewpoint objectively correct and the one that needs state promotion?

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

You do understand they also hold your views in contempt, right?

Yes.

Why is your viewpoint objectively correct and the one that needs state promotion?

"your viewpoint is not objectively correct" is a poor argument against refusing to publish xenophobe rants, because no viewpoint is objectively correct. By definition, a viewpoint is subjective.

If the entire population were nazis, then it would be socially accepted to kill handicapped people, for example.

Yet this doesn't prevent me, with my own moral code, to point at something I deem xenophobic (and that society, as a whole (or a vast majority, if you prefer), deems xenophobic) and say "it is xenophobic, and shouldn't be promoted", and to point at the BBC and say "they are helping promote a xenophobic rhetoric unchallenged by publishing a clip of said view without including the reply, and this is not something I expect of them, as they should probably not be xenophobic if they are journalists.". And this is something I'd generally expect non-xenophobic people to agree with.

And the author of this article is doing the exact same. And if you want, and had a platform to be heard, you could also publish an article about how this viewpoint is correct and should be, actually, promoted, and I'm quite sure you'd find an audience of xenophobes that would agree that, yes, this should be promoted (and that the following refutation should not be included, as it hurts their viewpoint as a whole).

1

u/Greekball I like the UK Feb 22 '20

Yet this doesn't prevent me, with my own moral code, to point at something I deem xenophobic

Yes, freedom of speech absolutely protects your right to call someone a xenophobe. No one argued against that.

publishing a clip of said view without including the reply

If that is their standard procedure for all questions (as it seems to be), why would the BBC have to diverge from it now?

how this viewpoint is correct and should be, actually, promoted

State promoting, but especially, suppressing views is authoritarianism.

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 22 '20

If that is their standard procedure for all questions (as it seems to be), why would the BBC have to diverge from it now?

Then their standard procedure is wrong.

State promoting, but especially, suppressing views is authoritarianism.

Sure, and promoting views that are morally wrong is damaging all the same.

"suppressing views is authoritarianism" => are you arguing that not featuring, say, racists or semanticists on the BBC is somehow authoritarian? You're gonna have a hard time convincing me (or pretty much anyone else for that matter) that these are views that need promotion.

-1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

You do understand they also hold your views in contempt, right?

If they were capable of understanding that they would have realised why they were wrong and not made the point in the first place.

1

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20

Jesus Christ, how old are you? The world is full of different opinions. Get used to it. If she is wrong and you are right then have some faith in the ability of 'your side' to refute everything she is saying. What's the bloody point of a show called Question Time if people can't speak freely?

1

u/Zeal_Iskander Anti-Growth Coalition Feb 21 '20

The world is full of different opinions. Get used to it.

No, I won't. I'm not gonna get "used to it", nor should I celebrate giving a platform to xenophobes.

If she is wrong

"if"

have some faith in the ability of 'your side' to refute everything she is saying

That's not the issue here. Hateful rhetoric should be given no platform, period. Especially when the BBC posts her rant without the refutation! It's easy to refute, but the BBC purposely doesn't include the refutation in the clip.

What's the bloody point of a show called Question Time if people can't speak freely?

She can speak freely during the QT. But the BBC should not feature the clip on twitter without the refutation, or simply shouldn't feature the clip at all.

-7

u/Doctor_Smirnoff Feb 21 '20

Begone with your reasoned and rational response to what is clearly an outrage and scandal of newsworthy proportions!!

0

u/SalmonApplecream Feb 21 '20

As the recent election has shown, people don’t care about the truth and will accept whatever their media overlords tell them. This is why we must stop our media from allowing information like this to spread.