Debating Society query (genuine!)

I'm not saying that I am going to do anything about this, but your views on the matter would be important to me...

Please read this...

"Oxford Union - the self-proclaimed "most famous debating society in the world" - has hosted a number of contentious debates during its 175-year history (speakers have included Malcolm X, Richard Nixon, Gerry Adams and OJ Simpson)." (from the Guardian)

Would anyone be prepared to try to out-do Oxford and offer an invitation to Ruairi O Bradaigh to address our Debating Society?

1) I don't know if we can propose someone easily - e.g. a petition may be required.
2) Ruairi may not want to attend.
3) Cambridge may not be as liberal as Oxford and refuse to offer an invite.

If you agree that it would be fair enough to propose it, then I would strongly consider writing a letter to him asking for his permission to request that he is invited and then, if I got a positive reply (by no means certain), I could maybe contact the uni's debating society formally requesting that they offer him an invite.

Reply 1

Helenia

20

I assume you mean The Cambridge Union?

They had a fairly prominent ex-IRA speaker in last year, for one of the Fresher debates (Nicky, did you go? It was one of the first of the year, think it was the terrorism one). I can't remember his name though. I think it might be Sean something but that would be terrible stereotyping :redface:

Who is this Ruari O Bradaigh, and what does he have to say? That's probably what they'd be most interested in knowing. Sorry for my pathetic political knowledge.

Reply 2

Poc ar buile

OP

Helenia

I assume you mean The Cambridge Union?

They had a fairly prominent ex-IRA speaker in last year, for one of the Fresher debates (Nicky, did you go? It was one of the first of the year, think it was the terrorism one). I can't remember his name though. I think it might be Sean something but that would be terrible stereotyping :redface:

Who is this Ruari O Bradaigh, and what does he have to say? That's probably what they'd be most interested in knowing. Sorry for my pathetic political knowledge.

Ruairi O Bradaigh would also fit the ex-IRA man profile. He is a politician now - the president of Republican Sinn Fein, from which Gerry Adams broke away in 1986 (though some would say it the other way round).

I, for one, would be interested to hear what he had to say. I also think it would be good to let people see a variety of things -

1) Both Cambridge and Irish Republicans can rise above the conflict and entertain reasoned debate.
2) To smash some British people's pre-conceptions of Irish Republicans as monsters.
3) Cambridge can be open-minded enough to out-do Oxford who invited Gerry Adams soon after Canarf Wharf, if my memory serves me correctly.

Reply 3

Squishy

11

polthegael

Oxford Union - the self-proclaimed "most famous debating society in the world"

Oxford has a debating society?

Reply 4

MadNatSci

12

Helenia

I assume you mean The Cambridge Union?

They had a fairly prominent ex-IRA speaker in last year, for one of the Fresher debates (Nicky, did you go? It was one of the first of the year, think it was the terrorism one). I can't remember his name though. I think it might be Sean something but that would be terrible stereotyping :redface:

Yeah, he was really interesting. I think his name was Sean!

Reply 5

Ticki

8

MadNatSci

Yeah, he was really interesting. I think his name was Sean!

I went with you to that and think his name was Sean too. Or did I go with Ben? I recall someone I sat with got very very angry.

Did anyone else go to the one with Galloway?

Reply 6

jamesvb

polthegael

Ruairi O Bradaigh would also fit the ex-IRA man profile. He is a politician now - the president of Republican Sinn Fein, from which Gerry Adams broke away in 1986 (though some would say it the other way round).

I, for one, would be interested to hear what he had to say. I also think it would be good to let people see a variety of things -

1) Both Cambridge and Irish Republicans can rise above the conflict and entertain reasoned debate.
2) To smash some British people's pre-conceptions of Irish Republicans as monsters.
3) Cambridge can be open-minded enough to out-do Oxford who invited Gerry Adams soon after Canarf Wharf, if my memory serves me correctly.

Hmmm well I used to be at school with the current president of the CU and I've got no intention to be sued for libel, but I would be very shocked if he would entertain Ruairi O Bradaigh... also I'm not really sure that many people would have an interest in attending. Terrorists turned politicians are two-a-penny in Ireland anyway arent they :wink:

Plus Ireland isnt really a current concern in the UK as things have been quiet for a while :cool:

Reply 7

musicbloke

17

Ticki

I went with you to that and think his name was Sean too. Or did I go with Ben? I recall someone I sat with got very very angry.

Did anyone else go to the one with Galloway?

Urgh, I really dislike Galloway. He is not left-wing and is quite an islamist. Also he has disgusting views on abortion.

MB

Reply 8

jamesvb

musicboy

Urgh, I really dislike Galloway. He is not left-wing and is quite an islamist. Also he has disgusting views on abortion.

MB

Hehe damn straight - they should have given him a republican guard uniform and left him tied up in the middle of baghdad as the yanks were moving in on the city :cool:

Reply 9

Ticki

8

musicboy

Urgh, I really dislike Galloway. He is not left-wing and is quite an islamist. Also he has disgusting views on abortion.

He also called the Union President a bitch (she was actually really lovely) and threatened to punch the guy from the Telegraph. And he filmed the whole debate and warned everyone that he'd sue them for libel. Really scary guy - a complete bully.

Reply 10

KaiserSoze

1

Ticki

He also called the Union President a bitch (she was actually really lovely) and threatened to punch the guy from the Telegraph. And he filmed the whole debate and warned everyone that he'd sue them for libel. Really scary guy - a complete bully.

I'd have liked to see him try, the guy from the telegraph looked like he could have punched him into the middle of next week - though you've gotta love his description of galloway as an 'unconvicted criminal' - so true!

Galloway is pathetic - the libel thing especially, considering some of the crap he was coming out with. A man so far to the left he seems to have inadvertantly come round to the right (or is it some kind of third way?)

Reply 11

Poc ar buile

OP

jamesvb

Hmmm well I used to be at school with the current president of the CU and I've got no intention to be sued for libel, but I would be very shocked if he would entertain Ruairi O Bradaigh...

1) That would be a tad fascist - and remove the right we are all supposed to have in Britain to freedom of speech, freedom of will and freedom to information.

2) Your views in the sentence after the one I quoted are EXACTLY the reason why I think that O Bradaigh should be heard. The people of Britain have been drip-fed a series of lies over Iraq (they accept this now), and the same is true of Ireland. There have been countless examples throughout the years of mis-representation and indoctrinating propaganda. It would be good to let the whole country listen to people like O Bradaigh for an afternoon. But for us, the "intellectual elite" of society, it is IMPERATIVE that we do not allow ourselves to be duped like the masses (BY EITHER SIDE, I HASTEN TO ADD!).

3) I accept that O Bradaigh would put across a highly biased view on Ireland. I am not expecting everyone to listen to him and run out to sign themselves up for commissions in the CIRA. What I would expect and like to see is everyone coming away with a "I never thought of it like that", "is that true - I had better look that up", "I never thought of Republicans as nice guys who wanted to be our friends" kind of attitude. They could then arrive at a balanced view. That could be a compassionate unionist view - but it would be balanced all the same.

Reply 12

MadNatSci

12

I don't think they're particularly worried about how controversial or biased their speakers are: they invited Jean-Marie le Pen not that long ago...

You can suggest it to the Union www.cambridge-union.org or once you come up you can write it in a book they keep there for suggesting debates/speakers. It sounds like an intriguing one to me. Perhaps it would be even more interesting as part of a debate? Although they did have a debate involving an ex-IRA man (Sean) recently (this house would never negotiate with terrorists), but the Ireland issue is always relevant...

Reply 13

Poc ar buile

OP

"...with a line up including Lord Archer and Tony Martin alongside provocative debate titles such as This House Would Appoint Gay Bishops and This House Wouldn't Deal With Terrorists featuring former IRA terrorist Sean O'Callaghan, he has tapped into contemporary and relevant political issues."

It has to be said that this O'Callaghan guy is under death sentence by the Provos (an fascist, Mafia-style organisation I really dislike - although I totally understand their desire to execute the dude like any other military organisation would - he is a traitor who sold his comrades down the river for the Queen's shilling).

"CONFESSIONS OF AN IRA INFORMER
BBC Two Tuesday 6 July 2004 11.20pm-12.20am

In 1990 Sean O'Callaghan was sentenced to 539 years in prison for crimes committed as a member of the IRA. Six years later he was released, having revealed that for most of his time as a terrorist he had been working as an informer. This documentary looks at O'Callaghan's double life"

Hardly a wonderful choice for a Republican view... :rolleyes:

Reply 14

Helenia

20

polthegael

"
Hardly a wonderful choice for a Republican view... :rolleyes:

Ah yes, well he wasn't there to speak on his political views, but on his opinions on terrorism. It was a very interesting speech - you could have heard a pin drop in the Union chamber.

The Union does generally try to attract speakers from a range of political backgrounds, and yes some of these are very extreme. So if there is a debate in which his views could feasibly be involved, then I think it would probably be an excellent idea.

Reply 15

jamesvb

polthegael

1) That would be a tad fascist - and remove the right we are all supposed to have in Britain to freedom of speech, freedom of will and freedom to information.

Not in the slightest. I think you are being a tad naive if you actually think that a restriction on some of your 'rights' equals fascism.

polthegael

2) Your views in the sentence after the one I quoted are EXACTLY the reason why I think that O Bradaigh should be heard. The people of Britain have been drip-fed a series of lies over Iraq (they accept this now), and the same is true of Ireland. There have been countless examples throughout the years of mis-representation and indoctrinating propaganda. It would be good to let the whole country listen to people like O Bradaigh for an afternoon. But for us, the "intellectual elite" of society, it is IMPERATIVE that we do not allow ourselves to be duped like the masses (BY EITHER SIDE, I HASTEN TO ADD!).

I dont think 'the people of Britain' accept that they have been drip-fed lies over Iraq. If you dont like it, vote for the lib-dems or the green party. Governments have been churning out propaganda since the dawn of civilisation in order to pursue the course of action that seems best to those in power. I dont think that we need patronise the 'intellectual elite' of society by attempting to draw a decent analogy between iraq and ireland or to suggest that they need to be sat down and made to listen to a terrorist in order to read between the lines of government spin.

polthegael

3) I accept that O Bradaigh would put across a highly biased view on Ireland. I am not expecting everyone to listen to him and run out to sign themselves up for commissions in the CIRA. What I would expect and like to see is everyone coming away with a "I never thought of it like that", "is that true - I had better look that up", "I never thought of Republicans as nice guys who wanted to be our friends" kind of attitude. They could then arrive at a balanced view. That could be a compassionate unionist view - but it would be balanced all the same.

Although it is good to get a balanced view, having one speaker in for an afternoon is not going to achieve that. Its simply going to give you another slanted piece of propaganda from the other point of view. It is dangerous to think that because you have two stories you necessarily have a 'balanced view' or even the means to arrive at the same.

Personally I think 'society' would be a far safer and better place if we did not release terrorists but took far harsher measures to ensure national security.

Reply 16

Ticki

8

*Swoons* Ooh, I love a man with a firm political stance. :tongue:

Reply 17

NDGAARONDI

16

I see polthegael is up to his usual tricks, hoping to keep a low key in the second class Oxford section :wink:

Reply 18

Poc ar buile

OP

jamesvb

Not in the slightest. I think you are being a tad naive if you actually think that a restriction on some of your 'rights' equals fascism.

No... Having all freedoms curtailed in the advancement of some warped political view shrouded in the guise of legitimate concerns for national secruity could not possibly be viewed as extremist. Silly me..

jamesvb

I dont think 'the people of Britain' accept that they have been drip-fed lies over Iraq. If you dont like it, vote for the lib-dems or the green party. Governments have been churning out propaganda since the dawn of civilisation in order to pursue the course of action that seems best to those in power.

I think that here, as elsewhere, people who jump up and down at my views hold views which are not particularly incompatible with my own. I agree that all goverments in democratic society feed their people with propaganda which suits their cause and objectives. I think the British people do consider that they were lied to about Iraq. I could start up a poll on it, but that would be biased in that extremists have a greater compulsion to make their voices heard than others. This means warped flower-power hippies saying "yeah man, Iraq was not cool. Tony Blair is heavy dude" and rabid Tories screaming how "we went too softly on them - we should have raped their camels and sold their women" will be heard more than the average person. I believe that that average person would agree with me, however (how arrogant is that..?! :rolleyes:

)

jamesvb

I dont think that we need patronise the 'intellectual elite' of society by attempting to draw a decent analogy between iraq and ireland or to suggest that they need to be sat down and made to listen to a terrorist in order to read between the lines of government spin.

I don't think there are many analogies that can be drawn between Ireland and Iraq. Granted, the British Government screwed both places over (and continues to do so). That aside - it's a case of "join the club" as the British Establishment is doing that the world over - by no means in Ireland and Iraq alone.

jamesvb

Although it is good to get a balanced view, having one speaker in for an afternoon is not going to achieve that. Its simply going to give you another slanted piece of propaganda from the other point of view. It is dangerous to think that because you have two stories you necessarily have a 'balanced view' or even the means to arrive at the same.

Personally I think 'society' would be a far safer and better place if we did not release terrorists but took far harsher measures to ensure national security.

Are you really postulating that it is better to have one biased view from one camp in a war and arrive at a balanced view, than to hear both sides (albeit only for an afternoon)? I feel that O Bradaigh could enlighten people as to some lies the British tell about Ireland. I also feel he could end up being guilty of telling lies himself. That is what happens in wars. Both side give out conflicting views.

I have listened to the British case (I have no option, British propaganda is all around me). Why should English people not get the opportunity to hear both sides as well?

If you want to see an example of the relative merits of the two sides, let's look at neutral countries. America would be unfair, as so many Irish people live there and Iran would be unfair due to the "your enemy's enemy being your friend" syndrome, - but what of France? Do you accept France as neutral?

Why did the French Government ask the Free State if it should refuse to send a representative to Charlie's 1981 wedding? Why did it offer military aid to force a fellow EU state out of Ireland? (The reasons Dublin said no are beyond the scope of this thread, but it is fair to state that no major Free State party wants a united Ireland). Why did French citizens burn down the British Embassy in 1981?

Could it be that Britain doesn't have such control over the French media? Could it be that, having a more objective slant on things, the French media gave a fairer representation of events in Ireland (both in 1981 and at other times)? Could it be that average people, unafflicted by propaganda, will always side with Irish Republicans over the British State? Could it be that people like yourself know this fact, and are prepared to do things you should fundamentally disagree with (curtail free speech, etc) in order to perpetuate the illegal British claim to sovereignty over any part of Ireland?

Just a few thoughts...

Reply 19

christ's-boy

jamesvb

Personally I think 'society' would be a far safer and better place if we did not release terrorists but took far harsher measures to ensure national security.

"Far safer"? Sorry, "far safer AND better"!?

The last time I read a newspaper (yesterday), Britain wasn't currently experiencing a spate of terrorist attacks. Perhaps I've missed something overnight, but I doubt it.

The right-wing media in this country, which claim to so vehemently criticise the government, dance exactly to its tune. It's in the interests of any government to have its citizens living in a state of fear. It lets the government get away with things it wouldn't normally (imprisonment without trial, say) and it takes people's minds off the fact that their health service is bad and getting worse, the education system is on the brink of collapse and the privatised transport system is a disaster zone. People complain less. People vote less. "Keep us in office or be blown up" is a powerful message, and certainly cuts more with the fickle electorate than banging on about taxation, or actually doing something to improve the country.

No, the government needs an easy way for people to think it's working. And there it is! By taking away the rights of ordinary citizens so they can pretend to fight a terrorist threat they're making the country better! Lets all vote Labour!

Is it really making the country safer? Or better?

Well, you could argue it makes us slightly safer. Terrorists are slightly less likely to get through. But there's no precautions you can take to make sure no terrorist would ever get through; Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens has admitted this. You can make it harder and harder, and so reduce the incidence of terrorist attacks. But wait; the incidence of terrorist attacks is currently zero in the UK, thanks in part to our already powerful and experienced security services. But let's take away some rights anyway, just to be on the safe side.

As for better, stop and take a long hard think about it. Do you really think it's better to live in a supposedly free and democratic country that unnecessarily curtails the freedoms of its citizens in order to secure a tiny, tiny improvement in security? I don't. I'm more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow than be killed by a terrorist attack.

Debating Society query (genuine!)

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending