NUJ abandons objectivity over BNP row

While the media was busy today ranting about an inconsequential decision to invite Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP), to Buckingham Palace, a far more pressing debate over the advertising rights of extremist groups has gripped the blogosphere.

It emerged yesterday that several websites run by regional newspaper publisher Newsquest have carried banner advertisements for the BNP, which is attempting to raise its profile ahead of the European elections on June 4.

What is troubling is that the ads, which appeared on the online editions of otherwise innocuous papers such as The Bromsgrove Advertiser, have provoked an outcry from the reputedly objective National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

For those unfamiliar with the BNP, the party is a widely derided political outfit that makes a habit of blaming all of society's ills on foreigners.

That tendency has understandably laid it open to allegations of racism – nudged helpfully along by its constitutional pledge to "[s]tem and reverse the tide of non-white immigration" – which has in turn led to the widespread vilification of its members in the media.

The niggling reality, though, and something that is consistently ignored by broadcasters, journalists and now even the NUJ, is that our fair British Isles are enshrined with freedom of speech.

Yes, many of us find the BNP's politics to be repugnant. Yes, its commitment to push through "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home" is delusional. Yes, above all else, its distinction between the rights of whites and non-whites is racist.

The vast majority agree that those views are objectionable – they are, after all, little more than crude manifestations of a fascist and extreme right-wing proposition (and not particularly successful ones at that, historically speaking) – but are they illegal?

Is it illegal to be of the opinion, as are many BNP supporters, that there are psychosocial differences in the make-up of certain ethnicities? Is it illegal to harbour a heartfelt belief that multiculturalism is an ill-conceived liberal pipedream? Is it illegal to be far right-wing?

And crucially, if these views conform to British law, is it proper for the UK's journalism trade union to boycott any political party that espouses them?

Most people will find such questions unsettling, precisely because they force us to accept the inconvenient reality that democracy affords jackasses the right to be heard too. In the eyes of NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear, though, the matter seems to be straightforward.

"Newsquest should be ashamed of itself for taking money from an organisation that advocates racist policies that would directly discriminate against the communities these websites serve," he gnashed.

But as Newsquest itself retorted after this latest furore: "We cannot selectively discriminate against legally constituted political parties standing in a public election." Mr Dear would do well to reacquaint himself with the principle of objectivity, not to mention his organisation's own guidelines on race reporting, which explicitly affirm the NUJ's "opposition to censorship".

What do you think – should the BNP be allowed to advertise?

Comments

[Donnacha DeLong]

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to advertise. It's that simple. Newsquest have hit the bottom of the barrel taking money from the BNP. For shame.

The BNP can exist, they can speak, then can flyer and they're even entitled to party political broadcasts. Anything more than that is optional and not a freedom of speech issue.

[Anon]

Although I disagree with most of what the BNP stand for, freedom of speech is something that we have to hold onto very strongly, for our current Labour government seems determined to undermine all our other human rights.

[weirdvis]

RiverScrap said: "The niggling reality, though, and something that is consistently ignored by broadcasters, journalists and now even the NUJ, is that our fair British Isles are enshrined with freedom of speech."

You think so? I can blast that out of the water with two words.

Geert Wilders.

Do I need to list all those anti-free speech laws based on political correctness?

It doesn't matter how odious the BNP is, it is a legal political entity with the right to advertise its existence. Anyone denying that right is against freedom of speech.

I happen to think that New Labour is an odious, extremist bunch of anti-British traitors who should be put up against a wall and shot but they, too, are a legal political entity with the right to advertise their existence. Of the two I know who the most dangerous party is.

Nice to see you back, BTW. I've missed your posts.

[Darth Vader]

Wrong! The party doesn't "blame the ills of society on foreigners". The nation's ills are the fault of successive Labour and Tory governments. Please do some research before you spout nonsense. As for the NUJ, the dictate that the BNP must always be reported upon in a negative way. Again , please do some research otherwise someone politically clued up will come along and make you look a prat!!!

[Martin (riverScrap.com)]

@ Donnacha DeLong You make a very fair point and on reflection I probably am guilty of conflating the two. I still believe, though, that by clamping down on BNP advertising, the NUJ is suppressing that party's right to free speech. Let's be realistic: the BNP is a political outfit, so its target audience is people who care about politics, i.e. newspaper readers. The NUJ, meanwhile, is the most powerful journalism trade union in the country, representing 38,000 individual journalists. The NUJ is in a unique position to 'silence' the BNP through its boycott, and by doing so it only lends credibility to Mr Griffin's contention that there is a nationwide conspiracy against his party.

I agree that individual newspapers should be free to decide whose ads they carry. But I do not think that a reputedly-objective industry body – especially one that serves as an emblem for the 'free press' – should issue edicts on this. (I'm equally critical of the NUJ's 2007 boycott of Israeli goods, which likewise served no other purpose than to taint its impartiality.)

@ weirdvis Thanks for the welcome back :) The blog has been put on the backburner recently as I just started a new job, and also had the joy of undergoing a septoplasty. But with things a little more settled I'll be aiming to do about one article a week from now on...

@ Darth Vader I can't agree with your assessment that the BNP does not "blame the ills of society on foreigners". To see evidence of this, you only need to look at its most recent election flyer: http://www.crooksdesign.co.uk/stock-photography-misuse.html. Despite the document's brevity, note the incessant theme of foreigners-damaging-Britain : "NO to immigration" / "cut-throat foreign competition" / "what immigration is doing to our NHS" / "bogus asylum seekers" / "British soldiers are ... abused ... by Muslims" / "80 million ... Muslim Turks ... swamp Britain".

Note also, at the bottom of that link, how the BNP is using stock images in its flyers for what it claims are photographs of its own supporters (more here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2436087.ece ). But that's a separate issue...

[Photographerofkilkenny]

The NUJ at HQ level now has the same policies on mass immigration into the British Isles as the EU Commission has. And there is more than a hint of suspicion that powerful EU countries, France and Germany, have policies especially in the fields of health and welfare designed to force the masses of economic refugees to travel on to the British Isles.
As regards advertising, neither the BNP nor the NF should be refused as long as there is no racist content in the advertising concerned.
But mass economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking as is now the accepted scam by Nigerians in particular should actually be addressed by the NUJ rather than the Union accepting forced mass immigration on the British Isles - and actually championing it.
Thousands of Nigerians fleeing from a democratically elected civil government of Nigeria as 'asylum seekers'? Nobody believes that - nor should the NUJ.