|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
The Case of Simone ClarkeDateline: 8th January, 2007We can't have it both ways. If we believe in freedom of speech, expression and belief, then it's got to be freedom of speech, expression and belief for everyone and not just those who happen to think like us. It means freedom of speech, expression and belief even for those whose ideas we find repugnant, distasteful or even downright evil. Simone Clarke, a principal dancer with English Natioanl Ballet, was "outed" as a member of the British National Party by the Guardian. Many people - myself included - find the BNP repugnant, distasteful and even downright evil. There have been protests outside the Coliseum, demanding that ENB sack her. There is a post on our Forum which says exactly the same. The Forum post says, quite correctly, "no amount of spin can conceal the fact that the BNP promotes racism and Holocaust denial". Another fact: ENB is publicly funded and has a duty therefore to promote multiculturalism and oppose racism, which it does: eight of its principal dancers are non-British, including Yat Sen-Chang, Simone Clarke's partner and the father of her child, who is Chinese/Cuban. Yet another fact: Simone Clarke had never mentioned her membership of the BNP until the Guardian "outed" her and all she has done since is to admit to being a member and explain why she joined. She has never attempted to use her position to persuade others to join the BNP or support its policies. And yet another: the BNP, obnoxious thought its ideas are, is a legal political party in this country. Her reason for joining, she said, was because she is opposed to "unlimited immigration" and she actually admitted that most of the party's manifesto went "over my head". So she is not very bright (she has not realised, for example, that her partner could not join the BNP and many members actually believe that children of mixed race such as hers are "washing out the identity of this country's indigenous people", which is what Richard Barnbrook, the leader of the BNP in Barking and Dagenham, said to the BBC), seems not really to understand exactly what the BNP stands for but holds, as is her right, a view on immigration which is shared by many other people. For example, the government itself is opposed to unlimited immigration. So what it boils down to is that the protesters are saying that because she is a member of the BNP, she should be sacked. But isn't this fascism: sack someone from their job because they hold ideas which we don't agree with? Should freedom of speech, expression and belief only extend to those with whom we agree? Should a dancer, an actor, a doctor, a teacher or a social worker, have to hold the "proper" views before they are allowed to work in their professions? Do we ascertain the political views of a surgeon before we allow him to carry out a lifesaving operation on us? Do we buy our groceries only from those shopkeepers who have acceptable political opinions? All the current furore has done is to show that intolerance is not the sole perogative of the far right and to give undeserved publicity to the BNP. Freedom of speech, expression and belief is far more important than the political allegiance of a dancer and for ENB to give way to the protests would have the effect of reducing that freedom.
|
|
|
|