We don't see many demonstrations on the news these days, ones where slogans are shouted and placards waved. Last night there was a rather large and noisy demo in Oxford.
The reason for this was the Oxford Union's decision to invite Nick Griffin of the BNP and the holocaust denying historian David Irving to debate the issue of free speech.
The success of the demo was such that the debate had to be abandoned. Do people see this as a good thing or a bad thing?
My own view is that if as a society we value liberty and free speech then sometimes we have to extend that to people whose views we find obnoxious and if that includes Griffin, Irvine and the 'Lyrical Terrorist' then we just have to put up with it.
Perhaps the best defense against racist, anti-Semitic and illiberal views is to face them head on and defeat them politically rather than going down the road of 'denying them a platform'
Dunkirk
I'm all for free speech, but agree with the protesters in that the Oxford Union was not the right 'platform'. Perhaps more effective would have been a complete media blackout about the event (there seemed to be more cameramen than protesters) and even a boycott of the event. There would have been no offence to anyone if the auditorium had been empty, and the speakers left twiddling their thumbs!
Perhaps more effective would have been a complete media blackout about the event (there seemed to be more cameramen than protesters) and even a boycott of the event.
Ironically, there usually is a complete media blackout of events organised by the Oxford Union and although an organised boycott doesn't usually apply it may as well do given the numbers these events normally attract.
Perhaps that's why the event organisers chose to invite Griffin and Irving. The result of the demonstration was that this achieved enormous publicity and each of the speakers can pose as decent, moderate people whose views are widely represented but unpopular with the liberal establishment and the Left.
Perhaps if they were exposed to public scrutiny a little more then people could see them for the racially motivated bigots they really are and not the moderate, concerned patriots they pretend to be.
As for Irving, his views are laughable but by not allowing him to speak are we not lending him an air of mystique and some credibility?
Dunkirk
Well, I'm just an ordinary punter, and I don't think either of them have any mystique or credibility.
I wouldn't deny them a platform - possibly in the North Sea - but what were the Oxford Union trying to achieve? It was always going to end like this.
Sharon
I'm all for free speech so my vote goes that way. With one rider - I don't know, is it just in Germany that there's actually some law against denying the Holocaust? (I think so.) So long as it's within the law, then free speech is essential to a democracy, and speech obviously is lawful. Because who decides what isn't allowed, huh? The pigs of Animal Farm? No thanks.
I don't know if Jabba was serious? A "complete media blackout" by definition is a denial of freedom - the media have to be free to cover speech in order for it to be free speech. And left to the media, of course they'd cover this.
[Aside: about 20 years ago his publisher invited me to a David Irving book launch. I'd never heard of the guy and went along just to keep in the publisher's good 'books' as he was doing a couple of mine. I don't remember after 20 years ... did I maybe shake Irving's hand? 😮 But I didn't buy his book. 🙂 I wonder who the other maybe 100 people were, and what company I was in??]
V
Wasn't there an American professor who had evidence to suggest black people were not as clever as white people? He was supposed to give a speech in London but pulled out at the last minute due to fears over his safety or something.
Well, I'm just an ordinary punter, and I don't think either of them have any mystique or credibility.
I wouldn't deny them a platform - possibly in the North Sea - but what were the Oxford Union trying to achieve? It was always going to end like this.
I agree. The debate was to be about free speech, which Mr. Griffin is entitled to it in our society, and which he would have made the most of it during this debate. What is ironic is that if his BNP ever came into power free speech would be the first thing to go.
Wasn't there an American professor who had evidence to suggest black people were not as clever as white people? He was supposed to give a speech in London but pulled out at the last minute due to fears over his safety or something.
Yes there was. He also said that if parents could ever discover that a foetus was likely to be homosexual, then they should be entitled to an abortion.
Tricky thing, free speech. If a mentally ill person was ranting on a street corner they would be gently led away and given appropriate care and attention.
What is ironic is that if his BNP ever came into power free speech would be the first thing to go.
Prior to the Nazis coming to power in Germany the Weimar Republic enacted a number of measures to curtail free speech in order to curb the rising threat of National Socialism. The Social Democrats supported this, so the irony was that once the Nazis had come to power the Social Democrats were hardly in a position to oppose on the basis of free speech and the defense of liberty.
Also a lot of the mechanisms of supression of free speech were in place from the previous regime and the population had become familiar with the use of various emergency powers. When the Nazis used them it was not seen as something unusual.
Dunkirk
Free speech is a funny thing, isn't it? We all (well, most of us) would say we support it absolutely, but is it an absolute? No, there are exemptions. Few sensible people would argue against banning those who try to preach and spread hatred.
But there is a difference between allowing free speech and actually providing a platform. If the BNP organise their own meeting, that is one thing (though I would defend the right of opponents to oppose - as I have done in the past). But why should the Oxford Union provide a platform? Is it because there are thousands of people in Oxford who are either devotees or are thinking of becoming so? No, of course not. It is, as pointed out above, purely a publicity-seeking stunt by the posh kids who run a student debating society - but who recognise the unwarranted interest that their particular society attracts simply by being at Oxford. Did you hear their president speaking about this event?
We hear the argument that extreme right-wingers should be allowed to condemn themselves out of their own mouths, but this is naive. People like Griffin and Irving aren't stupid. They know how to present themselves and their views as moderate and reasonable - thereby luring in those who might be frightened off by the sort of right-wing ranting we used to see from organisations such as the National Front and British Movement. Even behind closed doors, people like Griffin are now careful to sound sensible and appealing. Let's not make it easy for them to con the unsuspecting and the gullible.
Let's not make it easy for them to con the unsuspecting and the gullible.
Isn't that what the demonstrators did by turning out in large numbers and ensuring that this was a news item rather than an obscure curiosity for 'posh kids'?
Isn't that what the demonstrators did by turning out in large numbers and ensuring that this was a news item rather than an obscure curiosity for 'posh kids'?
They certainly helped provide the publicity - though you could also argue that they drew attention to the fact that Irving and Griffin are not the sort of people who should be welcomed into polite society.
People like Griffin and Irving aren't stupid. They know how to present themselves and their views as moderate and reasonable
Absolutely right. Having had a publisher-acqaintance in common (as I posted above), and being at his book launch, and having him discussed around me - before I knew anything at all about Irving - I got the impression, naively, that he was a kind of brave non-mainstream historian. I knew nothing of his views on the Holocaust BTW. I think at the time it was his "Churchill's War" that came out then. I remember him saying of Churchill, "I hate him. I hate the man."
V
Well, I'm just an ordinary punter, and I don't think either of them have any mystique or credibility.
I wouldn't deny them a platform - possibly in the North Sea - but what were the Oxford Union trying to achieve? It was always going to end like this.
Sharon
I agree with your first statement but I also believe they have the right to be heard just as the anti-facist movement has the right to be heard.
I would actually be interested what they have to say and how they explain away the holocaust, racial purity et al...
At the least it would have been a hoot I would probably have been chucked out for laughing too loud at their idiocy but I still think that I have the right to listen and make my own mind up....
Prior to the Nazis coming to power in Germany the Weimar Republic enacted a number of measures to curtail free speech in order to curb the rising threat of National Socialism. The Social Democrats supported this, so the irony was that once the Nazis had come to power the Social Democrats were hardly in a position to oppose on the basis of free speech and the defense of liberty.
Also a lot of the mechanisms of supression of free speech were in place from the previous regime and the population had become familiar with the use of various emergency powers. When the Nazis used them it was not seen as something unusual.
Dunkirk
Isn't that similar to what our current government and previous regiemes have put in place in the UK?