Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Re: Oxford Union Debate Postponed!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7110758.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7100753,00.html
http://survivalordeath14.blogspot.com/2007/11/protect-free-speech-26th-november-in.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Tryl

Methinks this is going to get very, very violent.

Surprised it's going ahead, Shahpur Kabraji at Cambridge got a right *******ing when he tried.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Speedbird2008

Lol, I watched "Question Time" a few weeks back (the Oxford Union one), and I remember Luke Tryl asking a question, he seemed quite controversial.

Should be interesting, even though I am not an Oxford student... (though I have debated in the finals of an international competition at the OU :cool:

)

Reply 2

King_Duncan

I really wanted to go to that debate, but 1) it's the Jesus College Dinner Dance that evening and 2) getting a ticket would have meant queueing really early outside the Union on Friday morning.

It will indeed be interesting to see how events pan out though. Already on Thursday at the 'War on Terror' debate which I decided to attend at the last minute the speakers and members of the Floor ended up hijacking the motion and lots of controversial stuff was said about Irving and Griffin.

I'm sitting on the fence in terms of whether it should be allowed or not, but it's nice to see the Union get a lot of media exposure for being controversial; it means it's still living up to its legacy.

Reply 3

thomasjtl

I loved how in the student press last week the jewish society put out a statement saying student safety is at risk because some fascist website put out a statement saying that they weren't going to resort to violence.

But yeah, there's gonna be loads of irritating activists running around tomorrow, on both sides. At least it makes a change from the animal rights monkeys.

Reply 4

Levhead

Hi everyone,

I thought it'd be good to hear everyone's opinions on the decision to allow these two right wingers to be included in a debate on freedom of speech at the Oxford University Union.

According the Guardian, this will (and probably has - i'll have to wait for tomorrow's paper) cause a bit of a rucus in old Oxford. Many commentators, such as Julian Lewis (the shadow defence minister) seem to think we should not give these racists media attention or a public stage on which to express their divisive and poorly informed views. The irony, i suppose, is that the debate on who to allow to a debate about freedom of speech opens up a debate about the fundamental idea of freedom of speech!

Others, such as the University Union's president seem to think that we need to enagage in debate with these extremists, despite the abhorrence of their views, as the best means of defeating extremism. The Oxford West Lib Dem MP Evan Harris said "It is the views of these extremists which are a disgrace, not their right to express them within the law, and attempts to stop them speaking.... risk turning bigots into martyrs". It seems that he thinks the denial of presence at the debate to these two individuals would be counterproductive and in fact undermine the principle of free speech.

Personally, I agree with what Max Hastings (WWII historian) has to say - basically that we should not be so afraid of these people that we deny them the public stage on which to express their views to a wide audience. Indeed, we need to be aware of the threat posed by extraordinary and dangerous ideas and people. I suppose that the intellecutals at the debating society will be amply able to crush these racists naive views by any means.

Just another thing, I think's its imperative that a distinction is made between Griffin and Irving. While the former is, ultimately, a politician who represents the views of a sizeable (and growing) group of people, the latter is an overtly racist Holocaust denying historian. I would say that the politician ought to be involved in public debate because of the people he represents. The historian, conversely, is simply a racially tolerant and dare i say intellectually challenged individual who perhaps has less of a place in the public arena. Why provide an outlet for what are conceivably views amounting to racist propaganda?

Tell us what you think,
Levhead.

Reply 5

hobnob

Levhead

Tell us what you think,
Levhead.

I think there's been a thread on this already: link.

Reply 6

Chruchill

I'm pretty sure the debate is on free speech, therefore not a chance for them to spread their xenophobic propaganda. These two people have probably the most suppressed views in the country - one being a racist and the other a holocaust denier. In a debate on free speech people like these are ideal for seeing the other side of the argument. The Tory MP who resigned his membership seemed to me to be overly hysterical.

Also, by storming into the debate the protesters aren't doing themselves any favours.

(Link)

Wasn't there already a thread on this?

Reply 7

Speedbird2008

Many on here said it would happen, and just came across it on BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm

I'm sure you actual Oxford students will have something to say on this. :biggrin:

Reply 8

Derek_the_Sheep

Not really, as the union has ****-all relevance or interest for a large fraction of oxford students.

DtS

Reply 9

Davetherave

Derek_the_Sheep

Not really, as the union has ****-all relevance or interest for a large fraction of oxford students.

DtS

Intentionally so, it seems, given the extortionate membership fee.

Reply 10

surreal

Students protesting against freedom of speech? It's a debate not a recruiting ground for Neo Nazi's.

Reply 11

Democracy

No but you're giving a platform for their views

Reply 12

FoeGeddaBowDeet

There are a surprising number of stupid people at Oxford aren't there?

Reply 13

Barry Scott

repressing someones freedom of speech (no matter what it is). now, what does that sound like?...

Reply 14

FoeGeddaBowDeet

Democracy

No but you're giving a platform for their views

So? What makes one view more valid than another? Popular opinion?

Reply 15

Democracy

matt54

repressing someones freedom of speech (no matter what it is). now, what does that sound like?...

Hmm if you think about it, the BNP itself wants to repress free speech too (in a manner of speaking), so what you're doing, is giving free speech to someone who wants to remove free speech.

Reply 16

Budgie

Democracy

Hmm if you think about it, the BNP itself wants to repress free speech too (in a manner of speaking), so what you're doing, is giving free speech to someone who wants to remove free speech.

And what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't free speech extend to those who oppose it?

We don't administer corporal punishment to those who favour its use on others.

Reply 17

Collingwood

And our society's incapacity to mind its own business triumphs once again...

Reply 18

Barry Scott

Democracy

Hmm if you think about it, the BNP itself wants to repress free speech too (in a manner of speaking), so what you're doing, is giving free speech to someone who wants to remove free speech.

so basically, if you remove their ability to free speech (personally i think its ******** because if immigrants are better than benefit scrounging brits, let them in), you are equating yourself to them. the way of sorting it out is through debate.

Reply 19

Wangers

Democracy

No but you're giving a platform for their views

So? Its a private members club, free to do as it sees fit. You should not stop people from speaking just because you don't agree with them. It tells me that all those protesters are pathetic - they can disagree, but are unable to muster any reasoned argument against whatever it is Griffth and Irving are going to say. It is not a platform for expousing BNP or Holocaust denial viewpoints - it is a debate about free speech.

If they stay they'll be chucked off for Trespass surely?