Exeter College Oxford allows homophobic organisation to hold conference on premises

Original post by michael321

Certainly we need some censorship in the most objectionable of cases, but this does not even come close to inciting any kind of violence or hatred.

This is a group which describes homosexual relationships as “evil”, “immoral” and “unnatural”, which has been accused of equating homosexuality to paedophilia, and which supports "corrective therapy" for homosexuals.

If a group which described interracial relationships as "evil", "immoral" and "unnatural", which equated interracial relationships to paedophilia, and which supported "corrective therapy" for those involved wanted to host a conference at Exeter, do you think they should be allowed to do so in the name of 'free speech'?

"Evil" is a pretty hateful word to me, I don't know about anyone else.

Reply 22

Original post by michael321

Whatever happened to free speech? No doubt loads of do-gooders will be protesting outside the college when the conference is ongoing...

You ask what happened to free speech, whilst criticising those about to use it to protest?

If you disagree with something, you are not going to change it by remaining silent. That is what free speech is about, after all.

Original post by michael321

God forbid someone be given a platform from which to exercise freedom of speech! I suggest that we only allow freedom of speech, in objectionable cases, without a platform...

The whole point of free speech is that it's founded on the idea that we, as a society, are intelligent and advanced enough to judge for ourselves which views are sensible and logical, and which are untenable. Certainly we need some censorship in the most objectionable of cases, but this does not even come close to inciting any kind of violence or hatred.

You most certainly can object to people expressing their views, when they are on private property. The student's of Oxford, rightly or wrongly, feel they have a say on who Oxford University associates with. That is what this objection is about, rather than notions of free speech. This is not censorship - it is telling them to go say what they have to say somewhere else, because we don't want it here.

Reply 23

Original post by la-dauphine

This is a group which describes homosexual relationships as “evil”, “immoral” and “unnatural”, which has been accused of equating homosexuality to paedophilia, and which supports "corrective therapy" for homosexuals.

If a group which described interracial relationships as "evil", "immoral" and "unnatural", which equated interracial relationships to paedophilia, and which supported "corrective therapy" for those involved wanted to host a conference at Exeter, do you think they should be allowed to do so in the name of 'free speech'?

"Evil" is a pretty hateful word to me, I don't know about anyone else.

Morality is subjective. If someone based their morality on the Bible, as many Christians do, I can see why they would reach the conclusion that homosexuality is "immoral", and I think it's fair enough that they might believe so.

As far as "unnatural" goes, again, I can see where they're coming from; after all, homosexuality is a bit of an evolutionary dead end. "Evil" is a bit strong, but these are second hand quotes, passed on by someone with an agenda, from one person (albeit the CEO) in the organisation, about just one of the many issues it will tackle in this conference.

The charge of equating homosexuality with paedophilia is rather flakey, and an example of shoddy journalism if you ask me. I discovered the original article here, and I can't see how it does anything of the sort. What it actually does is use homosexuality as an example of how declassifying something as a "disorder" leads ultimately to normalisation and a failure to discuss its potential downsides.

Race is a rather different kettle of fish. It's much more obvious and physical, and clashes much less with Christianity and other major religions, than sexuality. It's also now pretty universally accepted that racial discrimination is unreasonable, and once something has been consigned to paradigm it's fair enough to also consign it to illegality. On the other hand, when a reasonable segment of the population still holds strong views on the other side to the "enlightened" perspective, the best way to change things is to engage into debate rather than to deny a platform, which will only harden attitudes, and isn't really fair on people who hold views to which they are fully entitled.

For instance, take the article I talked about two paragraphs above, on paedophilia. When you think about it, the notion of being attracted to children is in many ways very similar to homosexuality - that is, it's something which is presumably innate and unchangeable, and not in itself reprehensible (though in the case of paedophilia as opposed to homosexuality, it is reprehensible if acted upon). But society has not yet accepted this logical fact, which it probably will in time, and as such trying to treat paedophilia is still something which has very widespread acceptance. Should we say that treating paedophilia is logically very similar to "treating" homosexuality, and thus outlaw it and censor those who advocate it? No; instead we need a debate on the issue, and if and when it is finally settled we can then consign it to paradigm and deny it a platform. Until that point, it must remain a legitimate view.

Reply 24

Playa10

Why should freedom of expression not be upheld in this instance?

Reply 25

Original post by Playa10

Why should freedom of expression not be upheld in this instance?

Because you don't have the right to walk onto someone's private property and insult them. You can insult them from outside if you want, and Christian Concern can hold their conference on the street if they wish, but i think most students don't want them in our university.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 26

Original post by nexttime

You ask what happened to free speech, whilst criticising those about to use it to protest?

If you disagree with something, you are not going to change it by remaining silent. That is what free speech is about, after all.

But I did not suggest that Exeter college prevent these legitimate protesters from exercising their right to free speech on or around its property, which is what they are saying the college should do to the organisers of this conference.

You most certainly can object to people expressing their views, when they are on private property. The student's of Oxford, rightly or wrongly, feel they have a say on who Oxford University associates with. That is what this objection is about, rather than notions of free speech. This is not censorship - it is telling them to go say what they have to say somewhere else, because we don't want it here.

Not if you don't own the property you can't. The students are members and customers of the university and the college, but they don't and shouldn't have a say over how it handles its commercial interests, which is a matter for the staff.

This is censorship through the denial of a platform, and that is not something which should happen in a civilised society on any issue about which there still exists a substantial conflict of views.

Reply 27

Concept186

1

I think it's time to crack out the classic chants of "Always piss on the Exeter side of the street" and "Exeter, **** **** ****". Not that we actually need an excuse to start those :tongue:

.

But on a more serious note, while I seriously disagree with the group they let talk there I don't think we can really hold this against Exeter anymore than you could cry "Anti-Religious hatred" at the Oxford Union for allowing Richard Dawkins to talk there last year (even if he does give us atheists a bad name).

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 28

Original post by michael321

But I did not suggest that Exeter college prevent these legitimate protesters from exercising their right to free speech on or around its property, which is what they are saying the college should do to the organisers of this conference.

No, but you mocked them and implied it was unjustified. Protesting against views like this is what gets them changed.

Not if you don't own the property you can't. The students are members and customers of the university and the college, but they don't and shouldn't have a say over how it handles its commercial interests, which is a matter for the staff.

Well, yeah, so the objections are trying to change the mind of the Exeter college.

I think its very sad if you view the relationship between students and university as a purely customer-client relationship. There should always be open dialoge and a mutually beneficial relationship between the two.

This is censorship through the denial of a platform, and that is not something which should happen in a civilised society on any issue about which there still exists a substantial conflict of views.

Denying a group access to your property does not constitute censorship. I mean, this isn't even a conference that will be published at all, so how could it be? Christian Concern will find somewhere else, possibly getting some measure of the number of people they are offending along the way.

Their right to say what they want in the public domain is important. Beyond that, they are just private citizens and can be treated as such - nothing wrong with telling them to **** off. We are shunning them for what they believe, not denying them their right to believe it, and there is nothing wrong with that.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 29

la-dauphine

Original post by michael321

Morality is subjective. If someone based their morality on the Bible, as many Christians do, I can see why they would reach the conclusion that homosexuality is "immoral", and I think it's fair enough that they might believe so.

As far as "unnatural" goes, again, I can see where they're coming from; after all, homosexuality is a bit of an evolutionary dead end. "Evil" is a bit strong, but these are second hand quotes, passed on by someone with an agenda, from one person (albeit the CEO) in the organisation, about just one of the many issues it will tackle in this conference.

The charge of equating homosexuality with paedophilia is rather flakey, and an example of shoddy journalism if you ask me. I discovered the original article here, and I can't see how it does anything of the sort. What it actually does is use homosexuality as an example of how declassifying something as a "disorder" leads ultimately to normalisation and a failure to discuss its potential downsides.

Race is a rather different kettle of fish. It's much more obvious and physical, and clashes much less with Christianity and other major religions, than sexuality. It's also now pretty universally accepted that racial discrimination is unreasonable, and once something has been consigned to paradigm it's fair enough to also consign it to illegality. On the other hand, when a reasonable segment of the population still holds strong views on the other side to the "enlightened" perspective, the best way to change things is to engage into debate rather than to deny a platform, which will only harden attitudes, and isn't really fair on people who hold views to which they are fully entitled.

For instance, take the article I talked about two paragraphs above, on paedophilia. When you think about it, the notion of being attracted to children is in many ways very similar to homosexuality - that is, it's something which is presumably innate and unchangeable, and not in itself reprehensible (though in the case of paedophilia as opposed to homosexuality, it is reprehensible if acted upon). But society has not yet accepted this logical fact, which it probably will in time, and as such trying to treat paedophilia is still something which has very widespread acceptance. Should we say that treating paedophilia is logically very similar to "treating" homosexuality, and thus outlaw it and censor those who advocate it? No; instead we need a debate on the issue, and if and when it is finally settled we can then consign it to paradigm and deny it a platform. Until that point, it must remain a legitimate view.

I've always said that being tolerant doesn't mean I should have to tolerate intolerance. Using a holy book or a religion as an excuse to incite hatred doesn't make it any better in my eyes. It's very easy to brush off this kind of thing if it doesn't affect you, but reading this (written by an LGBT Oxford student) really opened my eyes:

Spoiler

I personally have little tolerance for anyone who says that homosexuality is evil. In a hundred years' time perhaps we'll look back and wonder why we were so accepting towards homophobia that's justified under the name of religion, just as we did in America after racial segregation was finally outlawed. I completely agree with you about the paedophilia thing - I think in this way it's also similar to heterosexuality, but I don't see this organisation rushing to announce that fact. Exeter College is not engaging in debate by allowing them to hold their conference. That's the problem. It's just giving homophobia another voice, with none to counter it. Of course these people are entitled to hold their views, but not at a university whose LGBT students (not all LGBT students, but still a significant number, who are just as much a part of this university as any other student) feel devalued and ignored as a result.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 30

ScheduleII

11

I'd far prefer Christian Concern to the likes of Dawkins. I am a Christian, no fundamentalist, and Dawkins makes the most outrageous slanders against God and believers in Him. If you complain about religious people "trying to save you", then stop trying to "save" people from religion. Tolerance has always been a two-way thing.

"No platform" policies are generally unjust, the only reason an organisation should be denied a platform is when they are being truly hateful or encouraging violence, crime or disorder. You may find it "homophobic" to oppose homosexuality, but it isn't hateful. You can believe a person's sexuality is wrong/unnatural without hating them. I am totally against the BNP and racism but if a racist/nationalist organisation wanted to host an event at University it should be allowed to, provided that the University are aware of what is being said and that it does not encourage any sort of maltreatment based on race/nationality. If it does, it's illegal and the police can get involved.

If they were Fred Phelps/ Marc Carpenter types then of course ban them. Freedom of speech is not so strong that it allows for outright hate to be expressed in public. Their sort of activities would likely be illegal under our laws on inciting hatred so the police could deal with it, while nothing that UK Christian groups has done is anywhere near that level.

Reply 31

Original post by nexttime

No, but you mocked them and implied it was unjustified. Protesting against views like this is what gets them changed.

I still think it is unjustified. But at no point did I suggest we impinge on their freedom of speech.

I disagree; protesting about views like this preaches to the converted and hardens the attitudes of opponents.

Well, yeah, so the objections are trying to change the mind of the Exeter college.

I think its very sad if you view the relationship between students and university as a purely customer-client relationship. There should always be open dialoge and a mutually beneficial relationship between the two.

I don't think it's sad, I think it's pragmatic. I certainly think there ought to be a mutual dialogue and discussion, but I don't think students should be protesting about decisions taken routinely, in the commercial interests of the college, outside of term time, and with no bearing on the students. What I suspect this is is a vocal minority of students, and some interfering people outside the college, looking to impose their views.

If you look at the LGBT society's statement in the comments section of TOS, which they posted because the one which appeared in the article was slanted and cut down, it was perfectly supportive of Exeter's decision.

Denying a group access to your property does not constitute censorship. I mean, this isn't even a conference that will be published at all, so how could it be? Christian Concern will find somewhere else, possibly getting some measure of the number of people they are offending along the way.

Their right to say what they want in the public domain is important. Beyond that, they are just private citizens and can be treated as such - nothing wrong with telling them to **** off. We are shunning them for what they believe, not denying them their right to believe it.

It does constitute censorship, which is the suppression of views found to be objectionable. In denying a group access to their freely available conference, rooms, Exeter would be (quite legitimately, but rather distastefully) censoring them on the basis of their democratically held views.

The way to devalue the views of groups like this is not to behave like grumpy children and send them away (or rather, impose your views on others and insist that they send them away), but to ignore them, continue to publicise the great weight of scientific evidence against their views, and wait for their silly opinions to die out. By censoring them you merely contribute to the dangerous notion that we ought to shun people for holding minority views - something which ultimately stifles and narrows legitimate debate and discourse - and you give them ammunition and make them martyrs.

Reply 32

la-dauphine

Original post by ScheduleII

You may find it "homophobic" to oppose homosexuality, but it isn't hateful. You can believe a person's sexuality is wrong/unnatural without hating them.

So would you consider a person who said that black children shouldn't go to the same schools as white children to be racist? Even if they apparently didn't hate black children, they just thought it was wrong?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 33

ScheduleII

11

Original post by la-dauphine

I've always said that being tolerant doesn't mean I should have to tolerate intolerance. Using a holy book or a religion as an excuse to incite hatred doesn't make it any better in my eyes.

I personally have little tolerance for anyone who says that homosexuality is evil. In a hundred years' time perhaps we'll look back and wonder why we were so accepting towards homophobia that's justified under the name of religion, just as we did in America after racial segregation was finally outlawed. It's just giving homophobia another voice, with none to counter it. Of course these people are entitled to hold their views, but not at a university whose LGBT students (not all LGBT students, but still a significant number, who are just as much a part of this university as any other student) feel devalued and ignored as a result.

Many Christians, Jews and Muslims feel devalued and ignored when the equality view of gay and straight relationships is the only one presented. Are they less important to you than LGBT people? We also have human rights. To be laughed at, insulted, told we are backward and stupid- I am talking about just for believing in a religion, not our attitudes to homosexuality- makes us sad as well. We are now a minority (strongly religious people). Perhaps it doesn't affect YOU if most of your friends are atheist, agnostic or religious liberals. But what about our rights to not be offended for what is part of our humanity, i.e. our faith? Gays speak of suicides caused by homophobia. Do you not think that religious people, left out of society and marked out as weird/dumb/immoral by secularists for having different views to the majority, may also suffer mental health problems and attempt or commit suicide?

So now you have the majority on your side with respect to homosexuality, you need to show some respect to people who think differently, unless you think that all non-believers in "gay is OK" deserve to die. In which case you are inhuman anyway.

Reply 34

Original post by la-dauphine

I've always said that being tolerant doesn't mean I should have to tolerate intolerance. Using a holy book or a religion as an excuse to incite hatred doesn't make it any better in my eyes. It's very easy to brush off this kind of thing if it doesn't affect you, but reading this (written by an LGBT Oxford student) really opened my eyes:

Religious affiliation is no excuse for lawbreaking, but simply considering homosexuality immoral or wrong is not illegal and is a view to which people are entitled.

Spoiler

I personally have little tolerance for anyone who says that homosexuality is evil. In a hundred years' time perhaps we'll look back and wonder why we were so accepting towards homophobia that's justified under the name of religion, just as we did in America after racial segregation was finally outlawed. I completely agree with you about the paedophilia thing - I think in this way it's also similar to heterosexuality, but I don't see this organisation rushing to announce that fact. Exeter College is not engaging in debate by allowing them to hold their conference. That's the problem. It's just giving homophobia another voice, with none to counter it. Of course these people are entitled to hold their views, but not at a university whose LGBT students (not all LGBT students, but still a significant number, who are just as much a part of this university as any other student) feel devalued and ignored as a result.

This is not some kind of tit for tat battle whereby every instance of one opinion being disseminated has to have an equal, opposite and related opinion voiced in the opposite direction. This conference is part of the general voice and discussion of anti-gay sentiments, and Gay Pride, a great many articles in the left/centrist media, etc. form part of the general voice and discussion of pro-gay sentiments. Stifling either side's viewpoint in any way is not fair or conducive to discussion. It's sad that the person you've quoted has suffered as a result of this, but censorship is not the answer.

I would not object to some kind of LGBT conference centre refusing to host this event, just as I would not object to a traditionalist Church refusing to host an event with any kind of gay or homosexual theme. But I do not like the idea of those with a pro-gay agenda going around telling other people and organisations that they cannot give a platform those who believe homosexuality to be immoral, just as I would not like Christian organisations to go around and pressure an independent local community centre not to host a gay-orientated event.

If LGBT students feel "ignored and devalued" then frankly they need to grow up. And yes, I'm sure that's terribly insensitive of me and I should be shot at dawn, but in life there will be lots of people who disagree with you and who hold totally unreasonable views, but you can't go around telling them to shut up because they are hurting your feelings and spreading lies, you have to counter the bull**** with truth.

Reply 35

Original post by michael321

...

I'm not sure the scientific literature against homosexuals being evil is going to cut it for this case. Making it clear that these views are not acceptable at our university, even when most of the students are not there, sends a far clearer message and would be far more valuable to the gay rights movement. I really don't think things like martyrdom are issues here.

The line has to be drawn somewhere - be it at the KKK, the BNP, or elsewhere, Oxford has an image to maintain and a student body to keep happy; the morality of its funding is an important issue. I arbitrarily choose to draw the line just in front of Christian Concern. You clearly draw it further along.

Reply 36

ScheduleII

11

Original post by la-dauphine

So would you consider a person who said that black children shouldn't go to the same schools as white children to be racist? Even if they apparently didn't hate black children, they just thought it was wrong?

Supporting segregation would be seen as racist, yes. But it wouldn't mean that the person hated blacks. And if someone said this, then I don't believe they should be sanctioned for it (depending on the context). The way democracy works, there would have to be millions of people in this country who wanted to segregate schools to vote in politicians who would allow it. So, unless violent force is used, people holding socially "unacceptable" views such as racism would never be able to enforce them anyway. They still deserve freedom of speech.

The difference is, there is no philosophical case sensibly to be made for believing in racism. There is a case-usually based on particular metaphysics, I will admit- to be made for the union of one man and one woman, in some theories open to procreation, being the central principle of right human sexuality and for all other forms to be wrong. You may disagree with it but it is a view that can be supported by appeal to many of the greatest theologians and philosophers, if it is not to be allowed in public because it offends people with non-traditional sexualities then it should follow that Christianity be banned because it may offend Muslims, Islam banned because it can offend Christians and atheists such as Dawkins banned because they speak offensively about many peoples' beliefs.

Who is to say which views are allowed? The offended parties? Then everything would be banned. The government? Then you'd have tyranny. The majority? The majority were AGAINST gay/lesbian relationships for a long time, and why should a majority use their power to oppress minorities?

Reply 37

username457532

17

I don't know how they can claim not to know who was holding the conference. Yes, they booked in a different name but in less than a minute I could fine out that it was run but Christian Concern and find info about their homophobic views on their website.

Reply 38