Why liberalism is a Sisyphean task.

I'm a social liberal through and through. By this I mean that I truly believe that a sentient, consenting adult ought not to be constrainted in their thoughts, views, expressions and behaviours, provided they do no harm to another. In parallel I believe that others should accept and respect the views and choices of others, neither judging nor discriminating. Or something very close to that anyway. (OK - I know that harm can appear in many forms - but guiding principles have to start somewhere)

On this basis, I must grant someone whose views I utterly oppose airtime equivalent to anyone else with an equivalent public mandate. Thus Nick Griffin must be heard. Censorship is fuel to the censored. Sunshine is the best bleach, etc.

So, I watched tonights BBC QT debate with some hesitation. Did the act of watching provide succour to the BNP? (I usually watch QT anyway, so I claim a 'no' to that question). Would the other panelists deliver as interrogators - and if they did would NG emerge as vanquished, victor, or victim?

The programme left me a little querulous. Jack Straw looked terrified - too much to lose if he cocked up, I thought. Chris Hulne was largely left out of it. Bonnie Greer flipped between mock flirting and sliding a flick knife between Nick Griffin's ribs - an approach which seemed to leave the flummoxed BNP leader flipping between asking her out and choking on his own vomit, which was most entertaining. Baroness Warsi did the most effective job, I thought, in offering potential BNP voters an alternative, for which I guess I'm grateful.

Most of the audience questions were answered by the other panelists with a direct, or glancing attack on the BNP, even when they were not always the direct object of the question. When Nick Griffin was questioned, he either deflected the question or began a very direct response. And the more explicit his answers became, the greater were the interjections from the panel. I found myself shouting at the TV - 'Sssshhhh - let him speak, let him pursue his own arguments until they run out of line, let him hang himself high and dry'. Time and again he might have swung from his own gallows but was hauled down mid-choke by his opponents for further clarification. 'Put him in the sun', I yelled, to no-one in particular 'let us see clearly what he is'. But no, each time he was released to hide behind a cloud and dust himself down: the ends of his reasoning lay silent and unexplored.

For example, his answer to his alleged holocaust denial was to say that he had recently changed his mind, but could not explain why because [European holocaust denial laws] prevented him from clarifying. Jack Straw offered him - somewhat implausibly - immunity from prosecution to say what he really thought, but he demurred and the debate moved on. Et cetera.

Nick Griffin is able to speak on national TV, thanks in part to the principles of free speech and free expression that I uphold. It is hard to fight vehemently against Nick Griffin's racist, homophobic principles, yet uphold equally his right to be heard. Sisyphus would surely sympathise.