In isolation I'd agree that a legal political party should be able to spout their views however abhorrent - so that they can be knocked down and dealt with by rational thought - which is entirely the argument that the oxford union is putting forward.

But I don't think this is the reason the Oxford Union have invited Griffin and Irving. My main concern is the real reason they've done this is for the publicity - the rest of the argument is justification after the event.

I do have a problem with the Oxford Union trying to get publicity by courting such extremists - that is tacky... Would they have even bothered with the debate if this years speakers were reasonable people with a sensible point of view? Seems as though that would never be considered 'cos it's all about bums on seats, publicity, protests, publicity about the protests and then acting like the victims when the main speakers are asked not to turn up, finally being replaced by a much more moderate bunch of speakers

but hey, I'm not part of the intellectual elite, so maybe I'm not intelligent to work out their motives... Them, with their fancy book learning ways

I think the biggest issue with free speech is everyone forgets there are consequences. In this example Oxford did not have to give this lunatic the platform which to speak, they should have just told him to go spout his mouth off somewhere else. Still freedom of speech. However large or small, Oxford will probably pay a price for allowing this to happen. People tend to forget responsibility also goes along with freedom of speech.

This is just like listening to the radio, if you don't like what is playing you change the channel. Who says anyone has to listen to the garbage this guy says.

Personally, I feel we all have freedom of speech. I feel the biggest problem is that some people need to chose their audiences more wisely i.e. We can say anything we want to the right audience!!!

The Oxford Union ( that coven of the privileged, that closed shop of future Cabinet Ministers, leading civil servants and High Court Judges, the one's that govern. Those people, their country not mine. You'll have to forgive the chip on the shoulder, justified by the way, I have a moody on today ) are holding a meeting where two of the guest speakers are David Irving, the notorious Holocaust denier and Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. There's been a bit of a furore over whether these two people should be given a public platform. Well what do they believe. David Irving once denied the Holocaust ever occurred, he has since revised that and now insists that its scale has been greatly exaggerated and that Hitler was unaware of it. Nick Griffin leads a Party that claims it wants to put Briton's first and advocates the 'voluntary' repatriation of immigrants. One is a historian who manipulates his research to prove his point of view ( what historian has never done that ). The other is the leader of a perfectly legal political party that stands in General Elections and has numerous council seats. So neither is in breach of the law as it stands. If their views are so erroneous why should we be frightened of allowing them to be expressed. Should we prevent them for speaking simply because we disagree with them. Who exactly is the fascist here. Just how far does free speech go? And shouldn't free speech mean just that?

Porscha:

I agree with you completely. I'm a bit of a free speech absolutist myself. My feeling is that it is only through the open exchange of ideas that we can find something close to the truth, expose hypocrisy and dishonesty, and make any sort of progress in this sorry world. That often means listening to the very worst sometimes, as in the case you cite. But what free speech allows us to challenge hateful ideas.
Speech that is popular or innocuous needs no protection: it is only provocative speech that does. Without free speech in the USA, civil rights would have lagged for decades and unjust wars would go unchallenged. The Stonewall riots in 1969 that were the birth the gay and transgender rights movement in the US started in violence, but freedom of expression enabled so many of the gains we have seen. Even having freedom to speak, write, or assemble is no guarantee of progress though: it takes a great deal of courage, too. Having rights and having the courage to express unpopular ideas are very different things. Thus, early opponents of the war in Iraq here were labeled traitors, weak on terrorism, or worse. I applaud those who had the temerity to express their rights in a just cause.
It is no coincidence that the first thing authoritarians do is shutter the free press and ban books. They know that knowledge is power and that the free exchange of ideas is their enemy.

Abigail

Indeed, if freedom of speech does not apply to all, it applies to none. I strayed briefly a few years ago from the Libertarian Party, and registered with the ultra liberal Green Party to express my support for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election. I believed that if any third party candidate had ever had a shot, it would be Ralph. Not a shot at the White House, but a shot at showing that the two party system is obsolete.

Not long thereafter, a racist extremist called David Icke was out on a speaking tour, promoting the latest of his books containing the convoluted, borderline schizophrenic philosophy he promotes. The Green Party approached the operators of the venues where these speaking engagements were scheduled and began threatening them with all manner of heinous things, and they actually sponsored book burnings to demonstrate their view of Icke's philosophy.

Not so long ago there was a group that employed the identical tactics in the promotion of a philosophy that tore the whole western world asunder, but the books they were burning and the people they were threatening just happened to be espousing ideas that most rational people today agree with, though in the political climate in Germany at the time, maybe this could not be said. Does this mean that people like Icke deserve to be treated in the same way as the victims of National Socialism simply because we disagree with them?

Surely the views of these people are largely abhorrent, and should never be permitted to become the policy of any sane governing body. However, maybe it is just that sort of extreme manner of expression that can open a dialogue on such topics as immigration, for instance. Certainly, we all have very strong opinions on this subject, but to express a negative or even slightly intolerant opinion of these huddled masses yearning to breathe free at the expense of working naturalized citizens is considered to be insensitive at best, and racist at worst, but this issue is one of many that needs to be aired and discussed without being affected by emotion or sentiment, and those who express such an extreme negative view might leave it open for more rational minds to examine these kinds of issues realistically, and without fear of being painted with the same brush as Icke, the BNP and David Irving.

Perhaps we owe these people a great debt of gratitude for making it possible for us to examine and discuss these issues in this way, thanks to the enforcement of freedom of speech without restriction of any kind.

As I recall, Kermit was there to answer allegations that his finger smelled of bacon.

But Kermit was only invited because his nephew, Robin, had a seat at Oxford already. it wasn't quite at the bottom, nor was it at the top.

i'll have my 2 pennyworth - while being all for free speech and people's entitlement to express whatever views they hold it is unfortunate such abhorant views are allowed to be given dignity and credence in such a prestigeous forum at which such people as mother therasa have previously spoken.

call me an old cynic but the i feel the view that "we shall beat them down with our righteous arguements" a little naive for these people aren't going to say "oh yeah your right after all silly us"



not the oxford unions finest hour....

vikki - not wishing to be controversial

Vikki and others raise a valid point: While those who espouse the very worst ignoble ideas have a right to express them, institutions like the Oxford Union have no obligation to provide them with a venue. And certainly, no single debate will cause the hatemongers to change their minds.
But still, it is the free exchange of ideas that one hopes slowly leads toward truth, whatever that may be.
It can be a slow and painful process. Look at Burma to see how slowly power yields. And talk radio here in the US has become not the center of civic debate, but a format for No Nothings and the worst sort of xenophobes. As someone once said, freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. The power of the Internet may change that over time. And I like to think this exchange shows in some small way the power of ideas.

I actually used to live and work in Oxford and union have talks from everyone, the students have the right to say wat they think after all they are humans with feelings. If I'm getting this wrong I'm sorry but I used to live there and my family still do.

Freedom of Speech.
You either have or you don't. Freedom of Speech means having to fight for the right for ANYONE to Say Anything even though you don't agree with them. This can be very difficult but any type of Freedom comes with a cost.
Should this guy be shut up and his freedom of speech taken away because he has a different opinion of the Holocaust? No. Let him talk, if what he is saying is wrong, give him enough rope to hang himself. The facts can be proven.
Would it be worse to have the government shout him up because he doesn't toe the government line?
Yes it would be far worse, First it would be the holocaust that would be taboo, then what would be the next subject put on the government taboo list?
No matter how you look at it. "where does freedom of speech begin and end?" It begins with your right to question all things without the risk of jail, it ends the first time the government says you can't talk about.
Freedom of Speech is the Same as Freedom of thought and no one should tell you what to think.

The old saying is " I disagree with what he says but I will fight for his right to say it."

Here here Sandi. Well said.

Actually are rights are being quite seriously eroded. The fact is that over 400 public bodies ( I didn't know there were that many ) now have legal access to all your phone calls, text messages and emails. The phone companies and internet providers have provide this information upon request. If I was to express support or sympathy for the Palestinian cause, say how I can understand the motives of suicide bombers and why they commit terrorist outrages, I can be arrested and detained for up to 28 days without charge and they want to increase this to 56 days. I'm not a Muslim and I don't advocate or sympathise with terrorists but if someone overheard me saying this I could be arrested. But what would I have done except express an opinion. Rights are very easily taken away. As indeed they were in Nazi Germany, very quickly and with little protest. As the German theologian, Friedrich Bonhoeffer remarked, they arrested the Jews, the Communists, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses, and I didn't care because it didn't impinge upon my life. Then they came to arrest me.

i apreciate what you are saying porscha. but it is my opinion that if you were to talk on the phone about blowing yourself up in a public place or in support of these people then i feel you should be locked up for 28 days. i think 56 days is too much. on this discourse, whos rights do we need to be concerned about, the terrorist on the phone explaining what they are going to do, or familiy and loved ones being blown up in public places?

and about invasion of privacy, I am sure MA talking about her really expensive tights is not going to make front page news. sorry MA, didnt mean to upset you there!

at end of day, if it wasnt for these terrorists the government would have no reason to impose these laws. anyway, i think there are bigger issues a foot...

the way imigration is at the mo i believe in 50 years time british muslim voters will out number non-muslim british - who will they vote in? will UK become a muslim state? will our children's children's females get their heads chopped off for being disobedient? will the government provide a pamphlet on how to name our pets, teedy bears etc?

oh, i hope i am not being too controversial!

Freedom of Speech is a Right, However, there is no Right that protects us from being offended.

Now Immigration is a whole different problem. Both in Europe and the United States immigration is changing the demographics of the countries involved. Just look what is happening in France today!

I am shocked and apalled that Maryanne's need for 74 quid designer tights is not worthy of the front page, and would remind you all that it has been some time since my body was public.

I would fight my all to ensure nick griffin and david irving got the right to free speech and had the opportunity to speak publicly. And when they took the stand i would excercise my right to walk away and leave! so i wouldnt have to listen to their drivel.

" Didst thou forget that men prefer peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge
of good and evil?

The Grand Inquisitor; The Brother's Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

OK.....so the BNP are a legal political party, but why is their leader nick griffin being ALLOWED to air
his parties bigoted, almost racist views by the oxford union. Its giving the likes of himself & this David Irving what amounts to free publicity, but who really wants to hear them spout their virtriolic garbage in the first case because THATS all it is. If any ordinary person said things like nick griffin does,he'd had up for racial abuse.

SHAME on oxford union!


Anna-Marie

I'm not the least bit bothered by such people being allowed to speak in public. Mum built Wellingtons and had bombs and V-rockets dropped on her, and her house destroyed. I can't believe anyone seriously thinks the British people are stupid enough to let Nazi's take power in the UK. Who dropped all those bombs on the UK? I saw the bomb shelters at my school when I was a child. I know what Nazi's are about. Let them speak. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Those who will give up their rights in the pursuit of security will lose both and deserve neither.