No Platform Policy
In an early Guild Council at the University of Birmingham the ‘No Platform Policy’ came up for renewal (all policy lapses after three years). Strong arguments were made, both in favour of such a policy and against. Some students were concerned by the groups on the list (the BNP, the National Front and Hizb ut-Tahrir) while others debated the importance of free speech and intellectual debate.
Recently the legal challenge being brought to the BNP regarding their membership rules has caused me to reexamine the issues at hand, especially with their recent European gains and growing profile within the UK. Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer today about the governments inconsistent approach to Fascism within the UK making a good point when he said ‘
Opposing sectarianism equally without regard to colour and creed would not only be principled, but would have the additional advantage of reducing racism in the white working class.’
– The government is looking to remove members of the BNP from all positions influence – including teachers, yet they are a recognised political party. How can both attitudes be pursed by the government?
It has been argued that by challenging the BNP’s membership rules the party will be given even more legitimacy and many people have asked the reasonable question of why would you? Who would want to join a party that wishes them to removed from the country? So to bring this back to no platform and place it within the context of students and university. The No Platform policy prevents the groups on the list from speaking/campaigning at the Guild or presenting/talking to any Guild societies. Such a policy sparks intense debate because many students believe that all groups should be allowed and that those that peddle fascist ideology will be intellectually shot down by clever and well informed students.
As a proponent of No Platform i think the counter argument – that a student’s Guild should be a safe space to socialise and work, takes precedent. Those students who believe they can shoot down the BNP’s beliefs and prove them to be of a social underclass, not worthy of attention will not always be around to play the virtuous white knight. There is also a reason it is called the ‘No Platform’ policy – in essence, by allowing the BNP into the Guild it is essentially an endorsement of what they have to say – it gives them a platform and a sense of legitimacy such a group should not be afforded.
Unfortunately, even with the highest officer election participation in recent years (almost 20 per cent) i know that many students did not exercise their vote in the European elections, either because they were unaware or not registered. This is a sad state of affairs, we should be the most active, the most vocal and the best informed demographic. As students we are in a stimulating environment where we are challenged daily and taught to think critically, active political participation should be something we are good at and proud to be so.
Yet at the moment we seem content to watch the political landscape change and do very little about it, aside from debating Guild policy amongst a select few. Birmingham has a No Platform policy – does your university? If so, do you agree with it and if not, do you feel it should?
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
