Oxford Anti-Nazi protests

[lancelot]

Was watching the BBC news last night re- the students at oxford uni protesting at allowing the BNP leader and a alleged anti-holocaust denier the platform to speak- on free speech issue not political canvassing apparently.

So aside from the supreme irony of the anti-nazi supporters opposing free speech when it suits them and physically breaking into the lecture hall (requiring police to remove them), what do people think about this issue?

My view- This protest (aside from the aforementioned hypocrisy) is at base level a complete and utter waste of time that is a) vilifying the 'right wing' as evil, racist blah blah blah- ironically enough before they have made any speech!

I certainly feel that there is a definite right wing = bad, left wing = good mentality present in the popular national psyche. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...hello?? but I digress.

Back on topic- so as I was saying- complete waste of time... last big election the BNP got less than -thats- less than 1% of the popular vote. Like the BNP or not, Nick Griffin could tour the country singing the Horst Wessel Song for the next 100 years and it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference, so why do people get so bent out of shape about these things? Granted I have zero time for holocaust denial but the BNP is such a non-entity that I really fail to see what all the fuss is about.

If these supposed 'educated' Oxford students actually took a look at a history book they might realise that even back in the 1930s the original British Union of Fascists were a party that did not do that well at all- and this was a period in which fascism was a big deal- hence why I dont see what the fuss is!

And what really bothers me is that this country has suffered an Islamist terrorist attack, god knows how many more attempted terrorist attacks and people who hold placards calling for violence against those who insult Islam...so where are all these protesters then?

Im not saying people should not be aware of the dangers of Nazism- far from it but a little perspective on current affairs would not go amiss...some political protest about issues that have, and most likely will have again such serious implications for this country would be a lot better use of these student's time.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Opinions?

[Tribesman]

what do people think about this issue?

I think that they could have got someone better to speak , the union has a history of inviting contravertial speakers to debates , it makes for an interesting debate , but why did they bother with these two non-entities , surely they could have done better than dragging in a rather stupid racist gobshite and a thoroughly de-bunked "historian" .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Students will protest about anything even if they no nothing about the matter. In one debate at my Uni's forums someone was arguing the IRA are not a terrorist organisation!:wall:

Still I'm glad to see that action is being taken against the BNP, they are not at all reasonable. It is hypocritical for people who wish to remove others rights to complain about their own being breached.

Also the extreme left is villified just the same as the extreme right, I don't see many people standing up for Stalin or Pol Pot.

[Tribesman]

In one debate at my Uni's forums someone was arguing the IRA are not a terrorist organisation!
Well there is a rather elderly poster on this forum who also made that claim , though he did try to limit it after a while to one specific IRA , before he eventually had to drop that aswell , it all falls down to the old "what is a terrorist ?" question, and he fell by his own definition .

[Fragony]

Don't like nazi's but 'anti-facists' are much worse. Hitler was a leftie simple as that, and nazi's are racist socialists with a razor.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I certainly feel that there is a definite right wing = bad, left wing = good mentality present in the popular national psyche. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...hello?? but I digress.

...

And what really bothers me is that this country has suffered an Islamist terrorist attack, god knows how many more attempted terrorist attacks and people who hold placards calling for violence against those who insult Islam...so where are all these protesters then?


They're hypocrites. Filthy hypocrites, and you outlined the reason. Right wing bad, left wing good. And the big thing on the left is multiculturalism, and celebration of non-Christian religions and non-western cultures (since they dominated Europe and America and represent the old, evil conservative values, the enemy of progressive liberal ideals).

CR

[IrishArmenian]

Financial conservatives and liberals have both been incredibly evil.
Socially, not so much, but I think we're talking financials. Anyway, I think it is stupid to call in a facist for a Free Speech issue for two reasons: never get the extremes to represent everyone and why debate free speech? Don't you already have it?
I am an Armenian Apostolic Christian and I believe people should be free to worship whatever they want. Why? I am to respect the beliefs of others no matter how much I may disagree with them--which is sometimes a bit challenging. Also, the Soviet Union saw to it that many religious monuments/buildings/etc were destroyed, presenting CR's distopia, only that instead of multiculturalism--isn't this like America, where multiple ethnicities live side by side?--it tried to create one culture. That was terrible and I shall never lose my culture to some ignoramus who wants me to talk like him, pray like him and live like him.

[HoreTore]

They're hypocrites. Filthy hypocrites, and you outlined the reason. Right wing bad, left wing good. And the big thing on the left is multiculturalism, and celebration of non-Christian religions and non-western cultures (since they dominated Europe and America and represent the old, evil conservative values, the enemy of progressive liberal ideals).

CR

Liberals are right-wing. Djeez, get your labels right CR :whip:

[Adrian II]

I must be getting old because I find this whole thread totally predictable and boring. Can anyone knowledgeable please inform me why the Oxford Union would invite two disreputable gentlemen to discuss the issue of free speech? Dont give me leftie or student stereotypes, I can find those in our own tabloid press when I need them thank you very much. This is surely a wider issue. After all it's students who invited Irving and Griffin, and it's a Tory (shadow defense secretary Julian Lewis) who resigned from the Union over the Irving/Griffin debate.

Cut the crap and say something smart, anyone? I'm in a foul mood this morning, I haven't had my bucket of coffee yet, and I have a feeling this is just going to be one of those days.
Humour me. :stare:

[Fragony]

Dont give me leftie or student stereotypes, I can find those in our own tabloid press when I need them thank you very much.

Recommend me some?

[macsen rufus]

say something smart, anyone?

I'm really not sure there is anything smart to say about these two reprobates, unles the OU were just trying to underline Voltaire's point about abhorring what someone says, yet defending to the death his right to say it.

It was either a publicity stunt from the outset, or someone was doing some meta-debating. Who better, after all, to use to highlight issues of freedom of speech than a couple of people whose opinions 99.99% of the population find utterly repellant? There's little point debating free speech if everyone is all warm and cuddly and not saying anything controversial, it's EASY to grant freedom of speech to people you agree with. So easy that it's meaningless as a right. Any fundamental rights (which I believe freedom of speech should be) has to be tested on HARD cases.

Personally I tend towards reciprocation as a test - any "right" or freedom I claim, I must also grant to everyone else. If I'm uneasy doing that, then I need to examine my own claim.

[HoreTore]

To say that they should not be allowed to speak is ridiculous.

However, saying that we should listen is equally ridiculous...

[ICantSpellDawg]

To say that they should not be allowed to speak is ridiculous.

However, saying that we should listen is equally ridiculous...

correct. WWII revisionism is not a crime in the UK. Is belittling the holocaust?

[Vladimir]

I think this post applies here as well:


It's because they're cowards (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2896431.ece).

It's normal and healthy to feel fear. It's how you react to it which makes you brave or a coward. That's why I can't stand the political Left.

Why take on the elephant in the room when it's much easier to pick on the little old man?

[KukriKhan]

Here's the Link to the BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/7112480.stm) about the debate and protests, briefly covering the pro- and con- positions.


The Oxford Union says it is important to give people of all views a platform.


"...It's not an issue of free speech to offer someone a privileged platform from a prestige organisation."

[JR-]

most youthful students are just dieing for a cause to give meaning to their empty and vacuous lives, it's traditional, and most of them grow out of it in a decade or so.

still, no reason to put blinkers on debate.

[Meneldil]

Back on topic- so as I was saying- complete waste of time... last big election the BNP got less than -thats- less than 1% of the popular vote. Like the BNP or not, Nick Griffin could tour the country singing the Horst Wessel Song for the next 100 years and it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference, so why do people get so bent out of shape about these things? Granted I have zero time for holocaust denial but the BNP is such a non-entity that I really fail to see what all the fuss is about.


First off all, the fact a party get little to no vote doesn't mean it has no weight.
The far right was almost inexistant politically in France in the 30's. Yet in 1940 they were given the keys of the country.

Furthermore, it's weight doesn't really mean anything. Even if the BNP got only 0.00000000000001%, it wouldn't make it less racist.


Right wing bad, left wing good. And the big thing on the left is multiculturalism, and celebration of non-Christian religions and non-western cultures (since they dominated Europe and America and represent the old, evil conservative values, the enemy of progressive liberal ideals).

Wut ? I didn't know that Left = multiculturalism. It would make France a quite right-winged country, as we seriously hate multiculturalism. Oh, and we have this "Never forget the Lights and the French Revolution" thing. Probably some old and evil conservative values.

[Fragony]

Wut ? I didn't know that Left = multiculturalism. It would make France a quite right-winged country, as we seriously hate multiculturalism. Oh, and we have this "Never forget the Lights and the French Revolution" thing. Probably some old and evil conservative values.

Multiculturalism isn't a thing the people want after all, it's just opium for the elite. Yeah left is blind multiculturism, a new religion, and raising taxes to support their hobby is their policy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Liberals are right-wing. Djeez, get your labels right CR :whip:

Not in the US. Perhaps you should try to expand your worldview a bit.
~;p


I didn't know that Left = multiculturalism. It would make France a quite right-winged country, as we seriously hate multiculturalism.

In that respect only, maybe.

@Adrian - I can only assume Oxford was inspired by Columbia's hosting Imadinnerjacket for a speech. Except the Pres of Iran is a big figure worldwide, and someone to listen to (even if not one to invite to your university) in a know what the nutjob representing Iran thinks kind of way.

It strikes me that the people Oxford is having, though, are really just pathetic, small potatoes individuals, who have no impact on the world.

As for representing all views, I wonder how many reasonable conservative people they've invited to speak. Here in the US you get shouted down more at universities if you're spouting conservative viewpoints than if you're the pres of a murderous regime.

CR

[Fragony]

Not in the US. Perhaps you should try to expand your worldview a bit.
~;p

They are here, but european liberalism is pretty close to america mercentalism. Can't really compare european and american liberalism, completily different.

[lancelot]

First off all, the fact a party get little to no vote doesn't mean it has no weight.
The far right was almost inexistant politically in France in the 30's. Yet in 1940 they were given the keys of the country.


That is a really bad analogy- the Far right getting the keys to the country had something to do with Nazi Germany methinks...and besides it got the keys to part of the country.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Liberals are right-wing. Djeez, get your labels right CR :whip:

Not sure about continental Europe but the Liberal Democracts are left-leaning here in the UK, more left-wing than the Labour Party anyway.

Also I do not believe that the left hates everything western and Christian. For a start, you would hardly call the west conservative compared to fundamentalists elsewhere, the west has been the forefront of liberalism. And left-wing ideas were established in the west, in Christian countries, often by practicing Christian people, Marx's plan just got a little bit de-railed with events in Russia and China etc.

Some students, mostly from well enough off families, hardly represent the left-wing movement. They would argue any cause if they thought it made them revolutionaries.

[HoreTore]

Not in the US. Perhaps you should try to expand your worldview a bit.
~;p

Nah, just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean you don't have socialists in your country ~;)

But liberal means capitalist, there's no way I'm going to accept that "leftie" means "capitalist". Lefties are anti-capitalist.

@Caledonrogjnilg: That would be social liberals, the 'left' and 'right' terms refer to economics.

And I hope you're not referring to Marx' christian commie buddies btw... They were so few in number that they're not worth bothering with... The commies were atheists.


Multiculturalism isn't a thing the people want after all, it's just opium for the elite.

Huh, I'm "elite"? Nice!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gee, Horetore, perhaps you shouldn't be so imperialistic about forcing your culture and worldview on other peoples.

CR
(Yes, I know leftist is technically more correct, but it also means the same thing as liberal here in the US. Interesting factoid; libera - leftists here in the US now insist on being called progressives, since they've ruined the word liberal for themselves. Conservatives are still fine with being called conservatives. Maybe something to do with which view is closer to what America was founded on. )

[Fragony]

Huh, I'm "elite"? Nice!

You come from a white family, somewhere between middle and upper class, your parents are a on the moderate right or possibly moderate left, and you are a student, probaby social scienes. Am I right so far?

[HoreTore]

You come from a white family, somewhere between middle and upper class, your parents are a on the moderate right or possibly moderate left, and you are a student, probaby social scienes. Am I right so far?

Completely wrong, fortunately :laugh4:

White family, yes, but definitely working class. My mother is a chef and my father is a mechanic/farmer/lumberjack. My mother is a socialist, my father is....well, he thinks they're all idiots, but probably somewhere around Labour.

As for myself, I'm currently working as a security guard. I'll go back to school sometime though, I'll probably just get a bachelor degree in whatever and see where it goes.

[Vladimir]

Nah, just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean you don't have socialists in your country ~;)

But liberal means capitalist, there's no way I'm going to accept that "leftie" means "capitalist". Lefties are anti-capitalist.

@Caledonrogjnilg: That would be social liberals, the 'left' and 'right' terms refer to economics.

And I hope you're not referring to Marx' christian commie buddies btw... They were so few in number that they're not worth bothering with... The commies were atheists.





I know how it works but whenever one contrasts American and European political labels, I always imagine a bird trying to fly forward and backwards at the same time. It makes me dizzy. :dizzy2:

[HoreTore]

I know how it works but whenever one contrasts American and European political labels, I always imagine a bird trying to fly forward and backwards at the same time. It makes me dizzy. :dizzy2:

Well I'll give you a nice way to tell them apart:

Those middle-aged white guys in a suit belong on the right, while the long-haired and smelly stoned guy living in your dumpster is a leftie.

[Vladimir]

Well I'll give you a nice way to tell them apart:

Those middle-aged white guys in a suit belong on the right, while the long-haired and smelly stoned guy living in your dumpster is a leftie.

Thanks but I've seen too many homeless guys wearing (what used to be) business suits.

[HoreTore]

Thanks but I've seen too many homeless guys wearing (what used to be) business suits.

Yes, that would be lefties trying to put their ideas into practice, resulting in them switching their house for a nice dumpster :yes:

[Geoffrey S]

Well, they got their publicity. Again.

[Adrian II]

@Adrian - I can only assume Oxford was inspired by Columbia's hosting Imadinnerjacket for a speech. Except the Pres of Iran is a big figure worldwide, and someone to listen to (even if not one to invite to your university) in a know what the nutjob representing Iran thinks kind of way.

It strikes me that the people Oxford is having, though, are really just pathetic, small potatoes individuals, who have no impact on the world.Rabbit me heartie, thanks for trying.

However, I don't believe Imadinnerschmuck's right to free speech is endangered, whereas that of Messrs Irving and Griffin clearly is. The Presidents of this world hardly suffer from such impositions, nor do the Galileos and Voltaires. It is always the right to free speech of the small potatoes that is threatened first, and most, of all. Hence the use of this debate, if any, as a test-case of free speech more than a brilliant display of same. Some nutjob imams from Bradford would have served the same purpose.

Freedom is untidy by nature.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rabbit me heartie, thanks for trying.

However, I don't believe Imadinnerschmuck's right to free speech is endangered, whereas that of Messrs Irving and Griffin clearly is. The Presidents of this world hardly suffer from such impositions, nor do the Galileos and Voltaires. It is always the right to free speech of the small potatoes that is threatened first, and most, of all. Hence the use of this debate, if any, as a test-case of free speech more than a brilliant display of same. Some nutjob imams from Bradford would have served the same purpose.

Freedom is untidy by nature.

AGREED

[Crazed Rabbit]

I suppose I do not equate the privilege of speaking at a university with the right to free speech.

I see your point that inviting these BNP fellows makes an important point about the freedom of speech being open to all. But to me, the ability of anyone to start giving a speech on a corner or some public place, or rent a hall and start talking is more fundamental, though the universities could be regarded as a sort of canary.

I think one important thing is how people react to such speakers - rallying or protesting such that you don't hinder the speaker is all fine by me, but it seems to me the trend in the US is to go to the speeches of people you don't like and shout at them until they give up trying to speak, and then claim that you are exercising free speech rights.

CR

[Adrian II]

I believe the Rabbit is right when he states that universities are a canary. The OU president, Luke Tryl, certainly intended the debate to serve this function. In this interesting tv debate with Tryl, Sp!ked editor in chief Brendan O'Neill claims that the left has practically 'given up' on free speech and that people like Griffin and Irving have now become martyrs instead of ordinary idiots.

Linky (http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=05d4c71ddc2f70ec3093e94e9777c83f)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I googled around a bit to read up on this case. Am to lazy to share my thoughts to any extent, but I'll share the links: :book:

Oxford Union Press statement: (http://www.oxford-union.org/press/free_speech_forum_-_presidents_message_to_members)

A Message to all Members of the Oxford Union regarding the Free Speech Forum entitled 'A Night of Discussion on the Limits of Free Speech', to be held November 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Members

I hope that you are well and had a good First Week. I'm just writing to respond to some of the coverage of the Union's Free Speech Forum in the Press this week. Many of you will have heard by now that David Irving and Nick Griffin are possible speakers for the forum. However the Press failed to point out a number of key facts. .

These people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech. What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner and with the opportunity for students to challenge them from the floor. It is my belief that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing. The best way to deal with these views was summed up by Home Office Minister Tony McNulty on Thursday and that is 'to crush these people in debate'. Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free speech martyrs, and from my own experience back in Halifax, which has suffered from race relation problems in the past, groups like the BNP do well if they look like they're being censored. Unlike OUSU, I think it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people and I do have great faith in the ability of Oxford students to challenge them.

I should also point out that because this is a forum rather than a standard debate or speaker meeting no Union funds will be going toward entertaining the speakers and hence none of your membership fee will be spent 'wining and dining the speakers' as the Press suggests.

If any of you have any further concerns about this forum please do come and contact me at any time. Or come along to my open office session on Tuesdays at 2pm. I realise that this is a difficult and controversial area but the Union was particularly founded to discuss and promote free speech. I hope that as many of you as possible will come to the forum on the 26th of November and prove that Oxford students can take these people on in reasoned debate and win.

Yours

LUKE TRYL , Magdalen College

PRESIDENT


The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,,2217120,00.html) has a comprehensive story about it:
'Awful, abhorrent' - but Oxford insists the debate must go on


Hundreds of protesters are expected to gather outside the Oxford Union today to demand that the convicted Holocaust denier David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin are excluded from a debate on free speech.
Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, yesterday branded the invitation a disgrace, and anti-fascism campaigners, who fear members of the far right will also come to the city, claimed the safety of students could be at risk.

With the union under pressure to rethink its decision, a senior Tory MP resigned his life membership of the 184-year-old debating society, accusing organisers of "naive publicity seeking".
"This is the business of ambitious young wannabes and would-bes who really don't think about the depth of the offence and outrage that these things cause," Julian Lewis, a shadow defence minister, said. "It is a misunderstanding of the concept of free speech and a naive vanity about their ability to confront and defeat people who have been exposed time and time again. And at the bottom it's about the irresistible temptation of being at the centre of the media storm."

Ten coachloads of anti-fascism campaigners are expected to converge on Oxford to join hundreds of local students and trade union members at the rally outside the union. The event has been discussed on several far-right websites and blogs.

The union has hired extra security and will lock one of its two entrances. Admission to the event has been limited to 450 ticket holders. At nearby Balliol College the main doors will be closed and any student who takes a taxi after dark will have two-thirds of the cost reimbursed.

The union's president, Luke Tryl, said the forum, which has prompted several speakers to withdraw from other union events, including defence secretary Des Browne, MP Chris Bryant and TV presenter June Sarpong, would go ahead. "I find the views of the BNP and David Irving awful and abhorrent but my members agreed that the best way to beat extremism is through debate," he said.

He denied the event was a publicity stunt. "It's absolutely not. It would have been much easier for me to have a term as president in which I didn't try to uphold this principle."

Irving, who was jailed in Austria for Holocaust denial, said on his website that he has been invited to speak at the Union seven times, and each time the invitation was cancelled.

This year members of the union were balloted on the decision and on Friday voted two to one in favour of Irving and Griffin attending the forum, which will debate the limits of free speech.

Oxford West and Abingdon Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris is also billed to speak. He said: "It is the views of these extremists which are a disgrace, not their right to hold their views nor their right to express them within the law, and attempts to stop them speaking - through childish student union 'no platform' policies - are illiberal and counter-productive, and risk turning bigots into martyrs."

Phillips told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "As a former president of the National Union of Students, I'm ashamed that this has happened. This is not a question of freedom of speech, this is a juvenile provocation. What I would say to students at Oxford is: You're supposed to be brilliant. Put your brains back in your head.

"People fought and died for freedom of expression and freedom of speech. They didn't fight and die for it so it could be used as a sort of silly parlour game. This is just a piece of silly pranksterism and the issues are too serious to be left to that."

Irving wrote on his website last week: "The traditional enemy are piling on the agony over Oxford Union's invitation to me to speak ... Today I must drive into London for a haircut, and to get some balls. I shall need them for Monday."

BNP press officer Simon Darby said Griffin would attend with his personal security team, but the organisation did not plan to mobilise large numbers of supporters. He said: "Should there really be so much fuss about a man who is basically a mainstream politician speaking in a mainstream university?"

More from the Oxford Union:
At the Cutting Edge of Controversy

Unlike other student unions, the Oxford Union holds no political views. Instead, the Union is a forum for debate and the discussion of controversial issues. For example; in the 1960s, Malcolm X came to the Union and demanded black empowerment "by any means necessary". In the 1970s, Richard Nixon in his first public speech after Watergate admitted, "I screwed up - and I paid the price. In the 1980s, Gerry Adams, still under his television ban, addressed the Union's members. In Michaelmas 1996, O. J. Simpson made his only public speech in Britain after the controversial "not guilty" verdict in his criminal trial. The Oxford Union believes first and foremost in freedom of speech: nothing more, nothing less.

[Tribesman]

As for representing all views, I wonder how many reasonable conservative people they've invited to speak.
Well it depends on what you call reasonable conservative , there is a bloke who speaks there quite often and has done so for many years , he would definately fit your view of a conservative , the thing is (as Adrian mentioned) he has left because of the invitation to Irving and griffin .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, the fact that they're going to have a debate and not just a speech ala Imadinnerjacket is better.

Indeed, makes me think of the whole thing is a more positive light.

CR

[IrishArmenian]

Does anyone else find it comically sad that this thread has seen the writing of of Anti-Nazi protests as a trivial fad?