A Conversation for The Forum

Free Speech at Oxford

Post 1

toybox

http://news.independent.co.uk/education/education_news/article3191505.ece

Holocaust-denying David Irving and leader of the British National Party Nick Griffin are to address a forum on free speech at the Oxford Union.

It seems that this has given rise to a controversy, some people advocating that their invitation should be withdrawn and some maintained.

In favour of letting them speak is basically the idea that you can oppose their ideas more effectively if they do express them. Also, not letting them speak would give them the opportunity to rail at a 'free speech' meeting where some views cannot be expressed. (Someone also claimed that it was OK to let Irving and Griffin speak because the audience in Oxford is educated enough to understand reasoned arguments against disputable opinions.)

On the other side, it is argued that their presence may lead to an upsurge in racial tension, and better to let people speak who are really denied free speech.

Well, what do you think?

(In any case, I don't think the invitation should be taken back now. I guess the organisers have thought it over in advance anyway.)


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 2

Teasswill

I'm presuming that they were invited as representative of those with views which do not support free speech. They're only two of a panel - I would hope that they'll condemn themselves out of their own mouths, compared with the others. On the other hand, I suspect they are sufficiently eloquent to sway some to their point of view. Oxford students may be academically bright, but that doesn't necessarily make them less naive.

I recall a similarly contentious debate concerning animal rights, which was featured in a TV programme. Possibly did more harm than good.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 3

2legs - Hey, babe, take a walk on the wild side...

If those who invited them believe they will actualy get them to discuss the topic I.E., free speech, then they'll be in for a shock, as I guess they'll just spout their useual vial views.
However, I'm guessing the chaps over there at Oxford ain't quite that dim, and I'm guessing they'll be great guest speakers who can eliquently demonstrate how free speech is a good thing, as they take the stand, spout their vial views, and demonstrate what i good idea freedom of speech is eo enable people with vial views to show themselves up to be the raciest, intollerent vial prats they are.
Respek to Oxford Union/whatever dept it was, f for inviting them, people like that need to be given a arena to air their views in order to rmeind saine normal people just what terrible awful views slimb bags like them hold smiley - magic


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 4

Secretly Not Here Any More

Well we can't pretend that these people don't exist, so why not give them the rope to hang themselves with? I've never known a single historian (student, lecturer or otherwise) give Irving's claims the time of day, as they fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, so why not let him rant obvious fallacies to a (hopefully) well-informed audience?


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 5

BouncyBitInTheMiddle

Let them speak, then let everything they've said be demolished.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 6

Xanatic

Seems to me David Irving is a great choice. He has himself tried being thrown in jail because people didn´t like what he said. Hopefully he can help show the hypocrisy of the so-called liberals.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 7

Mister Matty

Of course Irving and Griffin should be allowed to speak. They have little to say that any sensible person would agree with and their views should be exposed to all the debate and ridicule they deserve. It was exactly this challenging of Irving's holocaust denial in a court (rather than censoring it as is the case in Germany and Austria) that destroyed his position. Censoring it merely made it look like there was something to hide.

>On the other side, it is argued that their presence may lead to an upsurge in racial tension, and better to let people speak who are really denied free speech.

I'm intrigued by this. In this country, there are few restrictions on free speech and those that there are are in place for very good reasons. Does this mean someone denied free speech here or overseas?


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 8

Mister Matty

> Hopefully he can help show the hypocrisy of the so-called liberals.

Actually most of us "so-called" liberals support his freedom of speech and vigorously supported the rubbishing of his views in a courtroom debate.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 9

Sho - employed again!

But he wasn't thrown in jail (I'm assuming you meant in Austria?) because people didn't like what he said

He was in jail because in Austria (as in other places) Holocaust denial is against the law. Free speech has responsibilities and we all know that it is a tightrope. I hope that the OU can safely demolish his arguments, but to be honest most sane people will just point and laugh as usual when he starts. It's the less than sane ones we have to watch out for.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 10

Xanatic

So the fact it was a law makes it better? In Turkey there is a law against calling what they did against the armenians genocide. Is that also okay then?


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 11

Mister Matty

>So the fact it was a law makes it better? In Turkey there is a law against calling what they did against the armenians genocide. Is that also okay then?

I never said it was okay simply because it was the law, that would be an idiotic position. I said it was okay because the laws we have are for a *good reason* ie preventing people inciting racial hatred and violence. You can't argue the same for the Turkish law which is an absurd piece of rightwing nonsense designed to play-down something shameful the Turkish state did nearly a century ago and prevent internal debate on the subject.

Incidentally, I've read some opinions on the main subject of this thread and which point out that Irving and Griffin have been *invited* to use a platform for their appalling views. It is not a restriction of freedom of speech to deny someone a specific platform for that speech and so I now feel Oxford Union should not have allowed them to speak.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 12

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

So what was the Oxford Union's motivation for inviting them? Free speech or controversy?

Does free speech equate to *inviting* the odious to spout garbage? smiley - huh


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 13

Xanatic

Well in the case of Irving he has some experience of it. Same as inviting Aung San Suy Ki to talk about human rights. Not that I would ever claim they are similar people.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 14

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

I can see the (marginal) merit in inviting Irving to debate, eg 'This house believes that Hitler was not a total bastard.' But does he have anything worthwile to say about free speech? Other than - as with Griffin - 'Ooh! Ooh! Nasty 'so-called liberals supressing the truth!'.

There *are* things to be said about the limits of free speech. But not by them.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 15

Arnie Appleaide - Inspector General of the Defenders of Freedom

Meh, this seems to be just a poor imitation of Colombia U's hosting Iran's president.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 16

Xanatic

Didn´t they also have Ron Jeremy at one point?


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 17

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

>>Meh, this seems to be just a poor imitation of Colombia U's hosting Iran's

Hmm. At least Iran - love 'em or loathe 'em - arguably have some legitimate national interests. That is the law that the US has signed up to. I speak as no fan of Ahmedineijad.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 18

swl

Well, it's off in any case - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm

So, what's the difference between Ahmadinejad & Griffin?


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 19

Edward the Bonobo - Gone.

Ahmedineihad syas some stupid things. Plus he's also misreported as having said some even stupider things (eg he never called for Israel to be wiped off the map). He's an awful politician and a stooge of the most reactionary elements within the Iranian theocracy. Nevertheless, he's the nearest we have to a representaive of Iran's sovereign interests. I reckon he'd be worth lietening to.

Wheras Griffin's mandate is...what?

It should also be said that while I might expect Ahmedineijad to represent Iranian interests re, eg, uranium enrichment, I would not expect him to have anything interesting to say about the Scottish Premiership, Japanese literature or freedom of speech.


Free Speech at Oxford

Post 20

swl

Ahmadinejad and Griffin are two sides of the same coin. Their politics are very similar. The only difference is one lives in a country that supports those views. It's just a question of scale really.

Your second point is valid - should people who oppose free speech be invited to speak about free speech?

This has handed the BNP a propaganda gift. Like it or lump it, they do attract hundreds of thousands of votes and these people are constantly presented with "evidence" of the hypocrisy, bias and mob mentality of the left.

A debating chamber is a far better environment to tackle extremism than political parades and meetings. The views of the extremist can be held up to the light and dissected. There is no opportunity for bully boys to shout down opposition. A chance has been missed methinks.

Couldn't help but shudder at the sight of the shaven-headed goons escorting Griffin into the building.


Key: Complain about this post