On Nick Griffin

I haven’t failed to notice Nick Griffin’s spectacularly repellent return to the limelight. His threats towards and irresponsible, callous and potentially illegal acts against (i.e. giving out their personal address on Twitter) the couple disallowed service from a (apparently irony impaired) Christian b&b are so crass, childish and moronic as to make redundant any statement of distaste by myself. Anyone with a worldview not based on fear and hatred can see his actions for the cynical, desperate pandering to the armchair-fascists (or bar-support fascists) he relies on for votes and publicity. He has been quiet and half forgotten for a time, so he needed to re-enter the arena with a splash, so he latched onto a rabble-rouser and went “all Nick Griffin” on it.

So far, so predictable.

What worries me is the reaction. I received an email earlier asking to sign a petition to get Griffin banned from Twitter. Now, the main reason given is the publishing of the couple in question’s address, which is in direct contravention of Twitters rules of use. Fair enough, he needs to be reprimanded for that within the rules. What worries me is a call for him to be silenced for being disgusting. I would respond to this with two points.

The first, for the angry amongst us, which includes myself, I have to admit. Let him tie his own noose. Whilst there are lots of very deluded people out there who will agree with his published sentiments, there are also many more who will despise them. He is broadcasting on Twitter, not targeting (this does not seem to occur to him, incidentally). Let him speak, and make himself look like a monster wanker. He is not Adolf Hitler, he is a hooligan, an angry child, a half-baked fury-merchant and he must be allowed to reveal himself as this. No amount of negative publicity can do as much damage to his reputation than his own blundering, blustering ignorance.

The second point is that if we start censoring people for having horrible views, we not only damage ourselves in the long run, but also raise the question of credibility regarding our own views. The first bit is obvious; any attack on free speech sets a volatile precedent which can be used to justify an incredibly wide range of action in the future, far away from the original intention, however well meaning. The second is, in the short term, a greater worry as it is less easy to undo. A furious response will often be interpreted as a sign of insecurity. Those who stand against gay rights will see a vengeful response to Griffin’s hot air as a sign that they have made a dent, and they will carry on with it until they feel they can cause real damage. The response to this is not spite or rage or censorship. It must be dismissal of an untenable philosophical and political decision. It must be calmly disassembled, discarded for scrap. A response to meet Griffin’s arguments head on risks only turning the rational into a mirror image of the irrational instead of the measured rejection that it should be. Rationality is not a simple opinion; it is the outcome education, observation and reflection.

Let’s not dignify Nick Griffin’s asinine claims of “heterophobia” with the anger he lives on. Let’s just dismiss him into oblivion.