david irving and nick griffin at the oxford union

[luke]

should david irving and nick griffin be able to speak at the oxford union?

i'm still listening to last nights show, but i'm on the yes side at the moment. i've said before on here but i kinda go along with what chomsky says in that 'if you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was stalin. if you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech'

what are others people views on it?

what gets me is that these two are allowed but norman finkelstein wasn't! the guy who invited irving and griffin, luke tryl, was also connected ( but i can't remember how, but i remember the name ) to finkelstein not being allowed to talk ...

a bit of trivia - nick griffin has a glass eye and the bnp has a jewish councillor!

[faceless]

I answered yes, but only because it's got such a good reputation that the low-level arguments they put across will probably be seen under a powerful microscope.

[luke]

i was thinking along that line as well - it would be great to see galloway debate them - he'd destroy their arguments

[Salim201]

if you're talking about the doha debate then finkelstein was allowed, I think its in the archives, it was about the Israel Lobby and their influence on silencing criticism.

Totally agree with Chomsky's position on free speech, its quite simply though really, there are two positions on freedom of speech, you're either for it or against it, because it's a contradiction in terms to say your in favour of freedom of speech for 'some people' and 'some views'. You can be sincerely in favour of limitations but I don't accept that.

The main aspect of freedom of speech is its function as critical of states and state power, its not too important otherwise, we shouldn't be restricting eachother from criticism we should be focussing on where the state and huge corporations overstep the line. Its pointless joining UAF I think they're probably the same people who campaign against palestinian militants, and islamic militia's in various parts of the world where they haven't been and know nothing about. I'm interested in hearing what these people have to say, and therefore the UAF are trying to affect my right to hear these views as well as their right to express them. Its fairly uncontroversial, i thought we'd moved on. Respect are using AIPAC tactics and it shouldn't go down that route

[Brown Sauce]

i listened last night, and before the show i was firmly in the yes camp. after one caller posed the question, should we allow pedophiles a stage? my view changed, but not for long.

lately there was a neo nazi march in the town where i live, near to hannover, germany. there is a freedom of speech law here that has to allow these people their right to march. most of the population were up in arms about it, but it is in the law so it went ahead.

the police, and fair play to 'em, closed off the streets they were to march in, and let nobody else in. so they had their march, but on a very wide deserted street, all 35 of them had it to themselves, giving them a firm measurement of their size.

[faceless]

If you'll pardon the pun, it's not a black-and-white issue Salim.

[nekokate]

I've not listened to the show yet, but for the moment I'm a "Yes". I'll let you know if I've changed my mind later today after I listen to George's and his callers' take on it.

[Brown Sauce]

i'd also say that as a ps to my last post, all the attention that this is getting, not least because of the demonstration against it, is only giving it publicity that it craves and in no way merits.

[faceless]

I just looked at the Oxford Union page here and it describes the evening simply as "Free Speech Forum". All tickets are gone...

[luke]

[faceless]

A tory with principles? blimey...

[luke]

The Oxford Union said it was important to give people of all views a platform.

except norman finkelstein! the bbc should mention that in the article

interesting that you can have these extreme right wing nuts, but you can't have an articulate scholar from the left

interesting to note as well there isn't a single mention on the bbc site about finkelsteins case, except a couple of mentions by visitors in comment sections in reference to this griffin/irving debate. in fact he's hardly covered on the site at all - one article in 2000 and one appereance on radio4 in 2005! they didn't even cover his tenure!

but search for alan dershowitz and you get three pages of results!

[Comsatangel]

Difficult one this. I'm not sure which way to vote. A few months back Griffin was invited to talk at the University I studied at and used to teach at: The University of Bath. he was invited there by one of the students who was also a BNP party member. I was furious and was gearing myself up to go back there and join the protest. The talk was eventually cancelled though. I have mixed feelings about it. My experience as a student, and later, a teacher at the campus was that Bath is one of the most racist and right wing campuses in the country. I've visited many university campuses but I've never seen violent attacks on overseas students and racist graffiti on the toilet walls on any other university campus apart from Bath. It was a while ago I was there though, so maybe some of the other unis are catching up. But I'm veering towards voting for letting Irving and Griffin speak. Give them enough rope and maybe they'll hang themselves.

[Salim201]

cheeky puns aside.. I'm afraid it is a black-and-white issue and I underlined why. The only limit on free speech which is justified is direct incitement to violence, (which itself has to be unjustified!)

Firstly there is understandable outrage at these speakers having a platform, but no-one is invoking the right to freedom of speech. Cast your thoughts back to the danish cartoons fiasco, there was no outrage from the liberal media, all I remember is countless commentators having a serious discussion about freedom of speech, which in the end was put in the context of 'backward' muslims who should understand 'not to be offended'.

What that shows is that its ok to permit an outright racist attack in the name of freedom of speech, as long as its against a minority, already in an unfavourable light, namely Muslims. But there are inconsistencies with other issues. The whole issue is dealt with quite thoroughly in John Stewart mill's, On Liberty.

[faceless]