Nothing to fear from debating with extremists

Rather than ban the debate or protest outside the venue, it is our duty to engage and challenge the likes of Nick Griffin, writes Emmanuelle Schön-Quinlivan

THE invitation to Nick Griffin, MEP and leader of the British National Party, to speak at University College Cork caused uproar and upset among students and staff.

Those opposed argued UCC was giving him a platform to express his views which are commonly regarded as extremist, racist and xenophobic.

They considered that letting Griffin speak was going to be the spark to set alight extreme right wing voters and lead to the creation of a far right party in Ireland. The organisers of the talk, on the other hand, were making a case for the freedom of speech to be respected. In the end, the invitation was withdrawn for security reasons.

I do not believe freedom of speech was at the heart of this dilemma. However, freedom of rebuttal was. Those who opposed Griffin’s talk aimed to impose their view of democracy to other staff and students, a view which does not allow certain elected representatives to be challenged systematically, coherently and calmly as they express extremist views.

Yet Griffin was democratically elected. Do the people who voted for him not count? It is through debate with his voters that we engage and attempt to open their minds, see that there are alternative solutions to their concerns.

As a French citizen who has seen the French extreme right party, Front National, grow consistently since 1986, there are two main reasons why I think we should listen to and confront Griffin rather than shut him out.

Firstly, far right parties tend to be demonised by the “establishment”. This puts them into a rather comfortable position where they just have to lament themselves over the mainstream parties’ undemocratic attitude to gain a few more votes every time.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National and candidate to the 2012 French presidential election, was invited to debate in a prestigious Parisian university but, as with Nick Griffin, the invitation was withdrawn.

This only comforted her discourse of them against us, the working people versus the elite.

Turning down debates with Le Pen does not make the 15% to 20% of French citizens who will vote for her disappear, nor should they be disregarded. This approach by the establishment, academia and the elite is lazy and pointless. It will only reinforce these voters in their opinion that parties such as that of the BNP or the Front National can work for them.

Secondly, if you move away from the simplistic positions for or against Griffin’s talk, it might be interesting to reflect on the reasons why he and Le Pen achieve electoral success. It can be argued they put the finger on real and politically incorrect concerns experienced by the working class, the working poor and voters living in disadvantaged areas in particular.

French citizens experience disturbance, vandalism, and even fear in their neighbourhood because of young offenders, drug dealers or gangs. Amalgams are easily made by people and used by far right parties to blame so-called immigrants who often are national citizens from the second or third generation of immigration.

Le Pen poses questions which are of interest to a majority of French people about the place of Islam and Muslim values in France, about the future of less educated people in a globalised world, about safety issues and respect for the authority of the state.

It might be politically incorrect to focus on a specific religion or group within this religion and ask questions about shared values within the public domain. Yet most French people would put it on any political party’s agenda. It might be politically incorrect to question the euro (even though more and more are) but many people are worried and would like to debate it rather than just be told the euro is the only way forward.

Debating will make no difference to staunch supporters on either side. But for those of us who sit quietly in the corner, who voted for another party in a previous election but were disillusioned and consider a bold move to a more radical party, debate is crucial.

The questions asked by far right parties might be relevant but their answers are intolerant, exclusive and simplistic. Rather than ban the debate or protest outside the venue, it is our duty to engage and challenge the likes of Nick Griffin or Marine Le Pen.

Engaging is not endorsing. As Le Pen is proving with over 21% of favourable opinion polls, the far right can not be cast aside.

UCC’s department of government will take the opportunity of the 2012 French presidential election to organise a conference discussing candidates’ ideas on April 20, a couple of days before the first round. We will see then if Le Pen will achieve the prowess of her father when he reached the second round of the election.

Yet 10 years later, the far right is at its highest ever in France. As the French moralist and essayist Jeseph Joubert said: “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

* Dr Emmanuelle Schön-Quinlivan is a lecturer at the department of government at University College Cork