Who is we? Just us, or the public at large?
For example, a Catholic might find the views of anybody pro-abortion as oppresive, hateful and volatile, and they consider abortion to be indefensible. Do we give Catholic activists (which I admit is more of an American thing) the right to oppress and punish pro-abortion politicians?
On the other hand, there is a growing anti-religion wing (Dawkins et al) who think that the Catholic view (that everybody else is going to hell) is oppressive, especially to young children (which they view as a kind of mild child abuse). They see belief in religion as indefensible, and think that the beliefs are oppresive and volatile (see Northern Ireland, amongst many, many other places).
Basically, who decides?
This thing should be fought in the press. The BBC is supposed to be impartial, and other media outlets at least want to appear impartial. But they all interpret that as "you can't ridicule one party more than another". Sod that - treat them equally not by giving them equal praise/criticism, but by holding them to the same standards. If one party is acting dumber than another, fricking say so. If a particular party has zero positive attributes, it's not impartial to point that out.
The fact that the BBC did "proper" interviews with Griffin is a joke. He managed to stop them asking more than a couple of questions on subjects that he didn't want to talk about.
Basically, my view is that Griffin is entitled to say what he likes. However, if he wants to do that on a political program, then the interviewer should ask the most important political questions - it's not supposed to be a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Adolf Hilter Was My Lover Party. Man up and be a journalist for Christ's sake.
