No Platform: Intolerance for the tolerant?

I apologise for this being somewhat late, I have been busy working!. As a bonus this is an early post for tomorrow. From our recent debate on "Free Speech for Fascists?" I have been led to write the following article.

NUS, OUSU and various other institutions have a 'No Platform' policy which means 'excluding fascists from debate.' From the NUS, 'The no platform policy says firstly that fascists should not be given public forum, and secondly that if they do gain a platform other political parties and organisations should refuse to share it with them.' Can we really combat fascism by promoting a silence of this abhorrent group? In our liberal society how do we justify this lack of tolerance and direct prejudice towards other people?

Fascism is a problem in our society. The resurgence of fascist groups, such as the BNP, do plague us. They cause upset, harm, and fear amongst the general population. A no platform policy is an expression of our solidarity against this menace to society. However, it is a poor choice in solidarity, it immediately places some restrictions among our fellow people, and in doing so is a self criticism of our own liberal beliefs.

Students and members of society do have a duty to promote a liberal and free society; where people are free of oppression, harm and fear. Fascists often seek to upset this free society, often using xenophobia and discrimination of minorities as their key tools. How can we justify our version of society over theirs, when we seeking to curtail people's freedoms?

We do not have the right to limit their voice because they do not agree or promote a free society. Who has decided that they do not consign to our version of a liberal society? Instead we must work to instil tolerance and similar values upon members of society; so that those members are then empowered to dismiss fascists individually.

Any form of consensus is a majority decision, and thus will limit the rights of a minority group. Even if this is a well meaning decision, hoping to protect the vulnerable, it is very difficult to justify this double standard. Recently, it was decided to add other groups to this no platform policy, how exactly was this decision reached? By citing is as a democratic decision, that is a decision of a majority, and it may not benefit the whole of society.

Previously fascism was said to be an abhorrent group, however when reading further into fascism we can uncover a huge difficulty in quantifying exactly what fascism is. Look at the wikipedia article, it is very difficult to pin down a reliable definition of a fascist. We therefore have a consensus on who qualifies as a fascist, and who will be limited by the no platform policy.

OUSU must look out for the welfare of all students, it must aim to promote the free discussion and understanding of those individuals. It is patronising and disgraceful to think that the no platform policy is protecting students; it merely provides a bubble. Society has nasty people in it; people who will incite and cause harm to others. Instead of merely hiding from these groups and ignoring them, we should engage them in an active discussion, and tackle the problem head on. We can then lead by example, and convince spectators that our beliefs and values are what should be upheld.

There are various cases which show that as soon as a fascist group, such as the BNP, are allowed a voice on student campuses that incidents of racial violence will increase. However, silence and shying away from tackling the problem head on, equally is not solving the problem. Instead it provide an alternative legitimacy and 'underdog' status to those groups.

One of the arguments cited in favour of the no platform policy is that by providing a platform we legitimise their conduct. They can then use our good name to explain that their policies are acceptable in the mainstream. It is up to the individual to accept or deny that right, it is up to umbrella organisations, such as a students union, to promote the idea that tolerance is about respect of other people's views, opinions, and to live a life free of persecution.

The KKK was taken down in the US by a culture of discussion and openness. The mysterious and cultist behaviour of the KKK was running unchallenged on the fringes of society. Arguably this could be done while maintaining a no platform policy. It is important to ensure that people have sufficient knowledge of the other parties beliefs and actions in order to make a rational decision.

The double standard of a no platform policy is redundant in our modern society. While we may seek to drive fascists out of our institutions, their ideas are easily accessed by the web, newspapers, and other forms of media. Instead the policy promotes an underdog status to fascists. It curtails freedom of members of our society, thus undermining our liberal values.