I am not too proud to say that a lot of it went over my head but some of the things they mentioned were the things I think about all the time, mainly mass immigration, crime and increased taxes. I paid my £25 there and then -Simone Clarke

The furore surrounding the revelation that a leading dancer with the English National Ballet (ENB) is a British National Party (BNP) member has been interesting to follow for two reasons. Firstly, the media response, particularly from the Guardian (who broke the story), has been very critical, implying that being a ballerina is not consistent with having far-right political views. Secondly, the calls for her to be removed from the cast of the up-coming ENB production of Giselle at the London Coliseum, appear to suggest that freedom of expression is fine for the stage but not when it comes to political views, however extreme.

I think the problem for the media, and the wider public as a whole, has been that Simone Clarke is not someone who people would expect to be publicly supporting the BNP. Her profession and appearance serve as uncomfortable reminders of how prejudice can transcend all social groups. It is much easier for all of us to presume that BNP supporters are working class, white men with bull-dog tattoos on their arms. The image of a delicate and beautiful ballerina from Belgravia holding such political views is difficult to accept.

Because of Ms Clarke’s support for the BNP there have been calls for her to be sacked from the ENB. This I cannot support. I despise all that the BNP stands for, its policies, its image and its distorted view of the Britain in which I live. The difficulty is, however, the Britain I cherish (and would determinedly defend) is based firmly upon the principles of an individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech. It is those very freedoms that allow us to witness Ms Clarke dance beautifully. The same principles underpin our free media which allowed the Guardian to publish their story in the first place. Furthermore, I can write these comments without fear of attack or state censorship because British law on the basis of those principles defends that right. Simply because she holds abhorrent views is no reason to sack and muzzle Ms Clarke. To do so gives her, and her ilk, the very publicity they crave. More effective in the longer term would be to engage Ms Clarke in public discussion, so as to highlight to the wider electorate how ignorant and ill-conceived the policies she supports really are. Public humiliation is always more powerful than censorship.