• RSS
  • Text Size:
  • -
  • irishtimes.com - Posted: October 22, 2009 @ 10:29 am

    The role of the mainstream in curbing the extreme

    Bryan

    According to David Adams, the focus on whether the BBC should host the far right British National Party’s (BNP) Nick Griffin, is neither here nor there. Leaders of mainstream political parties need to confront the BNP head on and tackle issues from which they have previously shied away. Issues like immigration reform.

    Gary Younge takes this line of thinking even further. He claims that we have New Labour to thank for Griffin’s scheduled appearance this evening. As far as Younge is concerned:

    Economically, its neoliberal policies have resulted in growing insecurity, rising unemployment, child poverty and inequality that have alienated the poor and made the middle class feel vulnerable. Politically, its lies over the war, stewardship of the expenses scandal and internal bickering have produced widespread cynicism with our political culture. The ramifications of its role in the war on terror in general, and Iraq in particular, were to elevate fear of a racialised “other” to a matter of life and death at home … Meanwhile New Labour’s race-baiting rhetoric gave the state’s imprimatur to the notion that Britain’s racial problems were not caused by racism but the existence of non-white, non-Christian and non-British people … Having inflated racism’s political currency, New Labour vacated the electoral market so that others with a more ostentatious style might more freely spend it. Once they had made these ideas respectable it was only a matter of time before a party reached a position where it too would earn sufficient respectability to appear on prime time. (More…)

    The problems highlighted by Adams also apply to Ireland. Presumably in order to avoid any slip ups that could see one labelled a racist, Ireland’s mainstream political establishment has kept as far as possible from meaningful debate on immigration and race. What Ireland has had, to its credit, is a variety of non-racist social and political groups which represent the interests of the indigenous poor and middle classes. Maybe that is why there isn’t an Irish BNP.

    Then again, it could also have to do with the fact that the non-white segment of the Irish population does not yet feel entirely secure. Once properly ‘integrated’ and with a sense of entitlement to a just slice of the national pie, who knows? A sufficiently large segment of the indigenous population might feel sufficiently threatened by some of their fellow citizens to give rise to a BNP-like entity.

    In any case, how Britain responds to Griffin and those like him will be instructive.

    • 23 Comments

    1.
    October 22, 2009
    10:51 am

    The equivalent of the demographic who vote BNP in Britain seem to vote Sinn Fein in Ireland. Sinn Fein’s immigration policy seems to be based on the Wolf Tone ideal and is very inclusive, on paper. This is probably due to the influence of Martin McGuinness, I would imagine.
    Many of Sinn Fein’s policies are deeply flawed and intellectually naive – and I am definitely not an apologist for violent republicanism – but it does prove that there are different ways in which the disaffected urban working class can be enfranchised and it need not lead to BNP style politics.

    Comment by getoffmycloud
    2.
    October 22, 2009
    11:30 am

    I agree.

    One question though, why Martin McGuinness?

    Comment by Bryan
    3.
    October 22, 2009
    11:31 am

    I don’t know if its more our rural heritage, cant quite put a term on it , but we just don’t have “hardcore” and active urban poor that one sees in the big cities of Germany, France or the UK , to the extent that anyone gets involved, it’s the Far left led by the champaign socialists like Boyd Barrett and Claire Daly (went to ‘private’ school with one and college with the other). I cant see that there is going to be a sudden change based on any racial tensions. There maybe resentment on a personal level if an entitlement culture comes to the fore , I don’t know the numbers but I guess in proportionate terms we have not had the obvious non white waves of immigrants that UK cities had post war.

    Comment by Liam
    4.
    October 22, 2009
    11:40 am

    Bryan , as NI is coming up here a question I have is (from my TV perspective of NI) is/why is the loyalist side more openly racist then the nationalist side? Is it different perspectives on ownership of the state? , or is it the ideology of SF as mentioned above in relation to Ireland

    Comment by Liam
    5.
    October 22, 2009
    12:07 pm

    Hi Bryan,
    This is purely my personal reading of the situation and as I am sick in bed at the moment I am afraid I cannot dig out sources to back it up.
    McGuinness, who is obviously a very controversial and divisive figure in the North, is also an extremely shrewd political operator. I would imagine it was part of his political calculus that an inclusive immigration policy would make Sinn Fein much more difficult to demonise for the political mainstream. Sinn Fein’s success has been based to some extent on dividing up the electoral market and retaining the semblance of radicalism to disenfranchised urban voters while also appearing somewhat deradicalised to more seasoned (most probably ex-FF) voters with nationalist tendencies. In terms of electoral positioning, it was a very clever move, which would seem to me to have the hallmarks of McGuinness.

    As well as it being a purely political decision, however, McGuinness is a well known Wolfe Tone enthusiast and he probably has some belief in inclusive republicanism on a ideological level also.

    Great blog by the way and brilliant to have commenters who are not merely trading invective and slogans.

    Comment by getoffmycloud
    6.
    October 22, 2009
    12:16 pm

    There have been nasty campaigns run by politicians like Ned O’Keeffe in Cork NE and various prominant far left groups including SF in working class dublin. I would name names but I don’t want to get sued. These were all unbranded leaflets so they were deniable but it was quite easy to see who was behind the messages.

    More than half of my year in European Business in DCU was German. There were 13 Irish people and 15 Germans. They talked at length about how the failure to discuss integration of minorities, especially Turkic minorities had caused huge issues for them and that was in the mid to late 1990’s.

    They warned about the early take-off on inward migration that started when they were leaving in 1998 to finish their degrees at home. They all said that without discussing how to integrate and having something like a citizens charter there is no template against which integration failures by the state to the migrant or vice versa can be judged.

    I completed my degree in France. I remember being called for my carte de sejour ahead of black africans, moroccons and algerians many of whom were dual nationality but had not taken up french nationality. It is a racist society that hides behind its secularism.

    It is this kind of scenario that we must avoid.

    Comment by robespierre
    7.
    October 22, 2009
    1:26 pm

    I agree totally. This issue was most apparent during the Citizenship Referendum where the no side accused the pro-amendment camp of “racism”. 80% voted to remove the automatic right to Irish citizenship of children of non-citizen parents. Since then, the number of asylum-claims has fallen by over 60%, implying a cause-and-affect relationship. Addressing immigration-control is not racism. We are the most PC country on the planet where immigration is concerned.

    Comment by Brian Boru
    8.
    October 22, 2009
    2:03 pm

    Just over on Younge’s piece on the Guardian site and I was wishing we had half as engaged politics on this issue as the UK does, but I guess that’s probably a good thing that we don’t

    However, the prospect of the white working class being sold out by FF is closer than we might think. Look at where they’ve lost heaviest in the last two elections: working class areas of cities. As for FG, they’re little better with the prospect of the ’small shopkeepers’ class coming unhinged against a powerless minority. Am I being too dramatic?

    Comment by Eoin
    9.
    October 22, 2009
    3:45 pm

    getoffofmycloud says: The equivalent of the demographic who vote BNP in Britain seem to vote Sinn Fein in Ireland. Sinn Fein’s immigration policy seems to be based on the Wolf Tone ideal and is very inclusive, on paper. This is probably due to the influence of Martin McGuinness, I would imagine.
    Many of Sinn Fein’s policies are deeply flawed and intellectually naive – and I am definitely not an apologist for violent republicanism – but it does prove that there are different ways in which the disaffected urban working class can be enfranchised and it need not lead to BNP style politics.

    I fail to see the link between the politics of Republicanism and the British Far Right when it comes to immigration. Republicanism is a highly-inclusive political doctrine, and it’s somewhat dismissive to suggest it is simply on paper at the whim of McGuinness.

    From Sands to McAllister to Adams, Sinn Fein Republicanism has always been an inclusive ideology – whatever other complaints can be thrown at the party.

    I don’t doubt the BNP and Sinn Fein attract their fair share of jingoists, but reading too much into this correlation is like Fox News accusing John Kerry of being a terrorist because himself and Osama Bin Laden agree on one issue.

    Comment by Steve K
    10.
    October 22, 2009
    4:02 pm

    As well as it being a purely political decision, however, McGuinness is a well known Wolfe Tone enthusiast and he probably has some belief in inclusive republicanism on a ideological level also.

    This is pure nonsense. Simply Googling “Sinn Fein” and “Immigration” will supply you with a long and consistent history of fairly aggressive pro-immigration agitation on the part of Sinn Fein in the Republic and the North.

    I feel slightly embarrassed to be defending Sinn Fein, a party of many faults and contradictions, but they are a left-wing progressive party. The BNP are a right-wing xenophobic party.

    The Irish BNP element, if it exists, is represented by Coir and Justin Barrett.

    Also, comparing British ultra-nationalism and Sinn Fein’s nationalism as equivalent in any way is off the mark. Irish nationalism, based on re-unification, is a perfectly acceptable and mainstream political goal in Ireland. The BNP’s xenophobic ideas of British nationalism share next to nothing with Sinn Fein’s.

    Comment by Steve K
    11.
    October 22, 2009
    4:12 pm

    Hi Steve K,

    I think you misunderstood my post a little. I have no reliable knowledge about the degree of sincerity or otherwise of Sinn Feins immigration policy. I did not intend to make it seem that Sinn Feins policy of inclusiveness was purely for political convenience, which is why I also wrote that:

    “McGuinness is a well known Wolfe Tone enthusiast and he probably has some belief in inclusive republicanism on a ideological level”

    You omitted this part of my post when quoting it, however.

    When I say its stance is inclusive “on paper” I am merely alluding to the fact that the policies have never been enacted because Sinn Fein have not been in government in the South recently.

    Comment by getoffmycloud
    12.
    October 22, 2009
    4:21 pm

    When I say its stance is inclusive “on paper” I am merely alluding to the fact that the policies have never been enacted because Sinn Fein have not been in government in the South recently.

    It’s an allusion that completely passed me, and anyone with a contemporary understanding of the term “on paper” swiftly by.

    Comment by Steve K
    13.
    October 22, 2009
    4:58 pm

    @SteveK
    “It’s an allusion that completely passed me, and anyone with a contemporary understanding of the term “on paper” swiftly by.”

    I have to compliment you on a slick put-down but I must also insist that there is a difference between having theoretical policies in a manifesto and actually being in government and being judged by outcomes. This is not Sinn Fein’s fault, but there is a definite distinction there. I am not speculating about what the outcomes of their policies would be, but it is uncertain, hence the policy is “inclusive on paper”.

    I am fairly neutral about Sinn Fein. The thrust of my initial post was highlighting the fact that they don’t generally use anti-immigration rhetoric to win votes which I think is a good thing. I also praised Mr McGuinness on his political acumen. I am a bit surprised that you found it so objectionable.

    Comment by getoffmycloud
    14.
    October 22, 2009
    7:45 pm

    Perhaps the reason the BNP has made ground is because the mainstream parties have been completely afraid to tackle the concerns of people over immigration. Into this vacuum came the BNP.

    I think it is likely that people with genuine and non-hateful concerns about immigration became so fed up with their position being ignored that, exasperated, they decided to support a radical and insidious option i.e. the BNP. Perhaps if there was more openness around the issue, such a dangerous party wouldn’t receive so much support.

    I agree with Brian Boru, having issues with aspects of immigration does not constitute racism. We would do well as a country if we could accept that.

    Steve K, how could Coir be seen as any way as unsavory as the BNP?

    I have to say I find it risible that a party who has murderers and IRA sympathizers among its ranks could be deemed “progressive”.

    Comment by John P
    15.
    October 23, 2009
    7:27 am

    Bryan,

    So many threads on this blog come back to issues of “difference”, “integration”, “mainstream versus minority/extreme” etc.

    I have no problem with mainstream anything as long as they allow the minorities an appropriate share in the public forum and power.

    I remember having a very affable discussion one time with Jean Marie Le Pen whose political philosophy the BNP adopted or stole, depending how you view them, and at one level (a bit Ian Paisley) he would charm you into believing that his entire political philosophy was an act. But then i watched his passion when he spoke and the affable man gave way to a demagogue that I just could not abide. And his blood pressure went off the richter when he spoke on immigration.

    But the experience gave me fodder for thought and every time I think of Le Pen I think of that affable discussion. Not because it is 100% him but because it is potentially 100% him. Which is why we must listen and work on him!

    Should we stop the BNP or the Front National ? No. If I have right to speak outside the mainstream (which I consider myself) they must have it too.

    We have no right to stop any view being proposed in the public domain. Our Governments have however an obligation to ensure that the views expressed in the public domain don’t cause my death. That goes for left and right. And thats why good policing goes hand in hand with good democracy.

    I am aware of the fact that the above views appear extreme, but it is the only logical conclusion of my fundamental belief in free speech. If we have to curb the right then logically we have to curb the left, and I won’t go there.

    The greatest gift of true democracy is that everyone gets the right to say what he/she thinks, whatever …………

    And remember this is a blog of “difference” as I said at the outset. It is why I write here.

    Patrick

    Bangkok

    Comment by Patrick Hennessy
    16.
    October 23, 2009
    5:38 pm

    Patrick wrote: “I am aware of the fact that the above views appear extreme, but it is the only logical conclusion of my fundamental belief in free speech. If we have to curb the right then logically we have to curb the left, and I won’t go there.”

    Patrick,
    I don’t see anything extreme in your post at all unless you mean the bit about finding out that Le Pen isn’t the devil incarnate but a human being with an opinion, or the bit about not wanting to restrict the expression of extreme opinions. I think you’re spot on. There’s far too much demonizing of anyone who disagrees with us. You disagree with me therefore you’re:
    a)a moron
    b)a fascist
    c)a communist
    d)all of the above.
    The mainstream hates to be challanged, is what I think it is.
    I believe that topics must be discussed, opinions must be voiced and debated, or else you end up with two things:
    1- Turning the unpopular or unorthodox into a bogeyman that people are afraid of touching.
    2- Generifying the political spectrum so voters become apathetic and disenfranchise themselves because they feel they’re not being represented.
    What we’re seeing now is that they end up voting on the fringe because the fringe parties happily take on issues that the mainstream parties won’t touch. I think it’d be constructive if the mainstream political scene were forced by the current voting patterns to start dealing with topics that people actually want to have dealt with.

    Comment by Steve
    17.
    October 24, 2009
    9:42 am

    Nothing extreme in there Patrick….though you could of course have been more accurate when you mentioned the limits on freedom of exp.

    Our contributor from the clouds mentions how the Sinn Féin demographic includes the disenfranchised youth in Ireland to which the BNP appeal to in the UK.
    I think this is a fair comment and it’s followed by a compliment to Sinn Féin’s contrasting approach to immigration; thus an example of how this section of society need not necessarily go the way they have in the UK.

    But I think there is much more to BNP support than the disenfranchised youth to which the likes of SF appeal which I guess is what Bryan and David Adamas are getting at.

    At the risk but with no intention of bashing the english, dare I suggest that there is a psyche in the UK which is simply not present to the same extent in Ireland.

    I’m struggling to put my finger on it but I imagine the BNP members come from radically different classes…their reasons for joining therefore differing; from economic isolation (disenfr youth/low paid workers/middle class) to delusions of grandeur/longing for colonial days of racism and authority and power…?

    I don’t believe a significant section of Irish society harbour such notions and if that’s the case then I haven’t really answered the question…

    (but I need a cup-of-tea so…)

    Comment by michaelstrasb
    18.
    October 24, 2009
    11:21 am

    From Shannon Airport:
    Late for the Pary again:

    Some comments:

    When CCOB and the coalition govt banned Sinn Fein from the air they allowed its members to cry discrimination, and there were enough people, genuinly alienated, to hear them.

    SF members worked on local causes, worthy indeed, like shouting that drug pushers should get off the streets. But the aim was not the good of the community but the good of SF. Now they have TDs, and drug pushers are worse than ever.

    SF should have been put on the air often, and debated and debunked. What was CCOB afraid of? His own debating skills?

    Same for the BNP. Give them rope to hang themselves.

    Easy to call them scum but that would resonate with many who feel they are treated like scum. As Danny DeVito said, as the Penguin: I was #1 but they treated me like #2.

    Hard times always cause the natives to close ranks, Ireland, UK, America.

    Interesting comment above about hard-core labour supporters and working class politics. The modern easy life, the union busting of the kind championed by Reagan, part-time farmers in factories (check-out Crown Controls strike, Galway, 1970s) and more, have broken any spirit of solidarity that might have existed. We have to go back to 1913 for a look at what it once was.

    Bryan, keep on truckin’.

    Comment by DesJay
    19.
    October 25, 2009
    6:17 am

    DesJay,

    When I wrote my comment above I thought of (Conor Cruise O’Brien) CCOB

    O’Brien was/is one of my heroes. And I was devastated when he tried to silence Sinn Fein.

    O’Brien has now joined the “Ancestral Voices” the name of one of his books that best brings the historian and philosopher within him together.

    CCOB was afraid of the ancestral voices and Sinn Fein epitomised them.

    Here is a quote from his book

    “If there were an equivalent of a Richter scale in relation to the volume of reception of ancestral voices, these politicians would rate on that scale roughly as follows;

    Jack Lynch 2
    CJ Haughey 3-4 (?)
    Neil Blaney and Kevin Boland 7-8 ”

    I think he could have well finished this scale by putting Sinn Fein at 9.

    His belief in the power of Sinn Fein to make faint ancestral voices loud was unshakable. And evidently he believed this would be a negative thing. Why?

    To me thats precisely why he should not have silenced them. In the end all ancestral voices come out, and CCOB the philosopher historian must have known that.

    CCOB was never mainstream and for him to try to curb a considered “extreme” like Sinn Fein confounded me.

    But I loved his flaws as much as I loved his genius. They came in one package. His decision to ban Sinn fein from the airwaves was, in my view, a fundamentally flawed decision………….or maybe I missed something ………..

    Last night I told a British friend of mine here that I wrote on this blog defending free speech in all circumstances. He looked at me and said ” so if you were jewish and an excited mob is storming down the street in front of you shouting ” Kill the Jews” you would say keep it up lads.”

    It’s never simple, is it?

    I can only end with another quote which hit me on the forehead this week. “The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it.”

    Thanks to all the seekers of the truth on this blog.

    Have a good day!

    Patrick Hennessy

    Bangkok

    Comment by Patrick Hennessy
    20.
    October 26, 2009
    3:34 am

    Brian, the difference between the voting habits of the disenfranchised working class in Ireland and in Britain is to be found in their different experience of imperialism. 800 years of oppression has left its mark.

    For the British white racists it is their historical privilege that they seek to recapture, a privilege built on the sweat of its colonies, the blood of their liberators and the wealth of their lands.

    As the providers of that sweat, blood and wealth … we have a different view.

    Comment by Betterworld Now
    21.
    October 26, 2009
    1:11 pm

    I’m not all that sure about SF’s left-wing credentials. Armed Nationalism has always been a right-wing political characteristic.

    Comment by Frank Jameson
    22.
    October 26, 2009
    4:39 pm

    Frank Jameson wrote: “I’m not all that sure about SF’s left-wing credentials. Armed Nationalism has always been a right-wing political characteristic.”

    Not always. The Provisional IRA owe a reasonable amount to 60’s-era left wing revolutionary ideals and rhetoric. They’re looking to move away from that towards the center these days, but they’re a product of the 60s.

    Comment by Steve
    23.
    October 29, 2009
    1:06 pm

    Who’s job is it to keep the extreme right out of government? http://moveproject.wordpress.com/

    Comment by Alina

    Comments on this article are now closed.


Search outsidein