Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

David Irving/Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story.

I'm in two minds really. I think if we don't challenge the BNP and the likes of Irving openly we only help them. These people need to be exposed, censoring them and stifling debate doesn't allow that to happen.

But, at the same time you can allow freedom of expression without giving a platform to racist homophobic anti-Semites...
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This argument has been debated numerous times.

    It's pretty obvious, as long as they don't incite any hatred or ask people to go out and kill ethnic minorities and Jews then they can say whatever they want.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    It's pretty obvious, as long as they don't incite any hatred or ask people to go out and kill ethnic minorities and Jews then they can say whatever they want.

    Legally that is 'obvious' and true... but that doesn't make it right for the Oxford Union to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving. The Oxford Union is one of the most prestigious venues someone can speak at; past speakers have included lots of US presidents, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, etc. This isn't about Griffin or Irving and their right to mouth off at Speakers' Corner or on the internet...

    Thinking about the NUS and its policy of 'no platform' for the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir I probably agree with it. To force people who would refuse to share a platform with these people to do so infringes on the freedoms of the former... The BNP/Hizb ut-Tahrir can still hold their views but the NUS and its members should be free to choose not to be in the same room as them...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    J wrote: »
    How did he deny it? Did he say there was no biblical holocaust or that all those people never died? Surely he's within his rights to say that the prophecy of the holocaust hadn't yet occured? I always thought the actual holocaust was supposed to be at the end of the world?

    Mate - he claimed only a few 1000 people were killed by the nazi's and there was no systematic attempt to kill the jewish race. He wasn't arguing about a term but about the event.

    To be honest though I'm happy for this to go ahead. They've said they haven't been given a platform for their ideas but to discuss the issue of free speech and they'll be the opportunity for people to ask questions from the floor that won't be controlled or censored.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Legally that is 'obvious' and true... but that doesn't make it right for the Oxford Union to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving. The Oxford Union is one of the most prestigious venues someone can speak at; past speakers have included lots of US presidents, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, etc. This isn't about Griffin or Irving and their right to mouth off at Speakers' Corner or on the internet...

    It's a Freedom of Speach rally, I'm sure they deliberately picked them to display some sort of emotive message on the issue and show that everyone has a right to free speach.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Legally that is 'obvious' and true... but that doesn't make it right for the Oxford Union to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving. The Oxford Union is one of the most prestigious venues someone can speak at; past speakers have included lots of US presidents, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, etc. This isn't about Griffin or Irving and their right to mouth off at Speakers' Corner or on the internet...

    And to be fair the Oxford Union also had two women, one dressed as Judge Anderson and the other as Durham Red to debate the issues of 'Blond vs. Red-head' on behalf of 2000AD...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Free speech. Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    free speech i say - simply as long as it's an open floor on questions so they can be ripped apart
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Legally that is 'obvious' and true... but that doesn't make it right for the Oxford Union to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving. The Oxford Union is one of the most prestigious venues someone can speak at; past speakers have included lots of US presidents, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, etc. This isn't about Griffin or Irving and their right to mouth off at Speakers' Corner or on the internet...

    Thinking about the NUS and its policy of 'no platform' for the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir I probably agree with it. To force people who would refuse to share a platform with these people to do so infringes on the freedoms of the former... The BNP/Hizb ut-Tahrir can still hold their views but the NUS and its members should be free to choose not to be in the same room as them...

    The Oxofrd Union was created on the back of an attempt to nullify students right to protest etc - it's whole basis is about freedom of speech.

    As I have said so many times, the minute you stard to have exclusions to free speech then you are arguing for your own opinions to be outlawed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Oxofrd Union was created on the back of an attempt to nullify students right to protest etc - it's whole basis is about freedom of speech.

    Say Hitler hadn't commit suicide and ended up in prison. Allowed out for a day, he was invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Would it be alright for him to speak? Free speech and all that?

    What about getting Ian Huntley to speak if he could be allowed out for a day?
    As I have said so many times, the minute you stard to have exclusions to free speech then you are arguing for your own opinions to be outlawed.

    In principle I agree but the fact is that there are limits on free speech - and I suspect you support some of them. Inciting murder or hatred against minorities is a step too far. If a religious extremist starts calling for gay people to be thrown off cliffs and Jews to be blown up they should face legal consequences.

    Irving and Griffin are clever - these days at least, you won't hear either openly inciting murder; they know the law and unlike some extremist Muslim cleric they're better at staying on the right side of the law. I'm not saying that the law should be tightened to get Irving and Griffin. And I don't think we should be denying Irving the right to peddle his books. Tolerating Irving and Griffin is one thing, giving them a platform another. I assume you'd have no problem if a major national newspaper gave Griffin a column? Free speech after all? (I'd accept legally the right of a newspaper to do that - but it would be entirely right to protest against it because it would be promoting him... Griffin should be free to mouth off but he shouldn't be helped).

    The idea that free speech is always a free for all isn't true - in practice few accept that. There are general limits on taste (that would stop Ian Huntley speaking) and there are limits on inciting murder - and it's right that there's a limit on promoting hate (which is what the NUS do and the Oxford Union are not doing).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Say Hitler hadn't commit suicide and ended up in prison. Allowed out for a day, he was invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Would it be alright for him to speak? Free speech and all that?

    What about getting Ian Huntley to speak if he could be allowed out for a day?



    In principle I agree but the fact is that there are limits on free speech - and I suspect you support some of them. Inciting murder or hatred against minorities is a step too far. If a religious extremist starts calling for gay people to be thrown off cliffs and Jews to be blown up they should face legal consequences.

    Irving and Griffin are clever - these days at least, you won't hear either openly inciting murder; they know the law and unlike some extremist Muslim cleric they're better at staying on the right side of the law. I'm not saying that the law should be tightened to get Irving and Griffin. And I don't think we should be denying Irving the right to peddle his books. Tolerating Irving and Griffin is one thing, giving them a platform another. I assume you'd have no problem if a major national newspaper gave Griffin a column? Free speech after all? (I'd accept legally the right of a newspaper to do that - but it would be entirely right to protest against it because it would be promoting him... Griffin should be free to mouth off but he shouldn't be helped).

    The idea that free speech is always a free for all isn't true - in practice few accept that. There are general limits on taste (that would stop Ian Huntley speaking) and there are limits on inciting murder - and it's right that there's a limit on promoting hate (which is what the NUS do and the Oxford Union are not doing).

    Actually I would quite like to have heard Hitler speak. Reports suggest that as an orator, he was exceptionally gifted so maybe would have been quite riveting.

    Doubt Ian Huntley would have anything remotely interesting to say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i dont get how the BNP keep getting all these platforms to spout there crap and everyone screams abouts free speach and all that,but if your muslim you betta watch what you say or you'll be on the next boat to quatanamo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cassidy04 wrote: »
    i dont get how the BNP keep getting all these platforms to spout there crap and everyone screams abouts free speach and all that,but if your muslim you betta watch what you say or you'll be on the next boat to quatanamo.

    But Muslims ARE allowed free speech. As was posted above :
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    It's pretty obvious, as long as they don't incite any hatred or ask people to go out and kill ethnic minorities and Jews then they can say whatever they want.

    The BNP are capable of having some debate without including blatant racial hatred, as are (militant) Muslims. As long as neither incites violence or racial hatred, then both are free to speak.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Freedom of speech trumps any personal quarms you may have about either speaker.

    MOK: I'd certainly want to listen to Hitler or Ian Huntley speak, and i defy anybody to try take my right to hear them away from me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Say Hitler hadn't commit suicide and ended up in prison. Allowed out for a day, he was invited to speak at the Oxford Union. Would it be alright for him to speak? Free speech and all that?

    What about getting Ian Huntley to speak if he could be allowed out for a day?
    If Hitler hadn't committed suicide, he would have almost certainly been executed. Even if he hadn't been, as a war criminal, he wouldn't have got many speaking engagements. Ian Huntley has nothing to say that would interest anyone that isn't related to his crime, and he can't profit from that. If either Griffin or Irving had been convicted for trying to restrict free speech, you might have had a point.
    In principle I agree but the fact is that there are limits on free speech - and I suspect you support some of them. Inciting murder or hatred against minorities is a step too far. If a religious extremist starts calling for gay people to be thrown off cliffs and Jews to be blown up they should face legal consequences.
    There may be some limits to free speech, but you haven't come close to giving us any valid examples that apply to Griffin and Irving. They aren't 'inciting murder', even covertly. You might find that your own arguments about being allowed to say whatever you want apply much more forcefully against yourself than them in this case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Hitler/Huntley analogy is flawed. As prisoners they loose some rights - including the right to free association and free speech. Griffiths and Irvine aren't in jail, so those rights should remain the same as the rest of us.

    It's easy to agree freedom of speech for those you agree with. But it is ultimately worthless if it doesn't cover those who we think are mad, bad or dangerous to know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Hitler/Huntley analogy is flawed. As prisoners they loose some rights - including the right to free association and free speech. Griffiths and Irvine aren't in jail, so those rights should remain the same as the rest of us.

    I thought the theoretical situation was them speaking after they'd been let out of jail?
    It's easy to agree freedom of speech for those you agree with. But it is ultimately worthless if it doesn't cover those who we think are mad, bad or dangerous to know.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought the theoretical situation was them speaking after they'd been let out of jail?

    I thought it was day release - but if they'd been let free, they'd have served their time and I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to speak (though I suspect that if Hitler had been captured alive he'd have been in jail up to the morning he had his appointment with the hangman's noose...)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Oxford Union is one of the most prestigious venues someone can speak at; past speakers have included lots of US presidents, Mother Teresa, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, etc.

    Ah, the woman-hating, poverty loving Mother Teresa herself? I guess they're in quite good company then? ;)

    Maybe the reason it is such a prestigious venue is that it allows people of all different opinions and worldviews to talk?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Irving and Griffin are creatures of the gutter, but they must be allowed to speak. They must be given a platform to spout their poison. Similarly, we shall also have a platform so we can laugh our heads off at these morons and their stupid ideas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought the theoretical situation was them speaking after they'd been let out of jail?
    In Huntley's case, it's more his 'convicted' status than his 'prisoner' status that counts. He can't profit from his crime, and he has nothing else to offer a debating society. You may argue that he could offer to speak for free, but to what end? To defend the practise of killing young girls? That's illegal, and rightly so. The law is clear on this.

    Ditto for Hitler. The fact remains that using people who have clearly committed crimes, or died before they were brought to book, let alone booked to speak, to argue against free speech is logically invalid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder if there will be a live webcast of this event? It would be fun to watch Griffin and Irving getting their heads handed to them, if things turn out as I would expect, and they don't actually get a propaganda victory handed to them by anti-free speech agitators.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Irving and Griffin are creatures of the gutter, but they must be allowed to speak. They must be given a platform to spout their poison. Similarly, we shall also have a platform so we can laugh our heads off at these morons and their stupid ideas.

    Given your views on immigration and that you have advocated torture for convicted criminals I'm surprised you disagree so much with the BNP.

    As for them being given a platform - yes definately, they should be pushed into far more hard debate and hopefully people will notice what crap they're talking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nick griffin and David Irvine 1 - Democracy and Free Speech 0

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When i worked at Waterstone's David irving tried to sue a couple of booksellers for refusing to stock his books. Actually it may have been that they refused to order in his book for a customer. That I think is wrong. it's one thing to make a decision about what you are prepared to put on your shelves but another to try and censor someonelses choice to order certain reading material. Or is it?

    Not that I think he was right to Hound the booksellers (He tried to sue them personally I believe) but that they were wrong to deny someone else an opportunity to make a choice.

    Anyway - I still think he is an idiot, I still think his books are pushing lies and corrupting minds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nick Griffin and David Irving are both Holocaust deniers. Would a debate on freedom of speech, (or any other basic human right), not be better off inviting Holocaust survivors, rather than these two chancers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cheeta wrote: »
    Nick Griffin and David Irving are both Holocaust deniers. Would a debate on freedom of speech, (or any other basic human right), not be better off inviting Holocaust survivors, rather than these two chancers?

    or both?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    byny wrote: »
    or both?

    Yes, good point, I didn't think of that. Let's see how well David Irving's self pitying crap about being persecuted for supposedly examining history without pre-conceptions stands up in front of people who really do know that history, because they had to live through it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cheeta wrote: »
    Yes, good point, I didn't think of that. Let's see how well David Irving's self pitying crap about being persecuted for supposedly examining history without pre-conceptions stands up in front of people who really do know that history, because they had to live through it.

    exactly. Though I wouldn't like to see holocaust survivors subjected to the kind of abuse they may experience in front of your typical BNP Rally. Hopefully there would be some people there capable of some serious thought and discussion.

    I guess (I hope) that at the Oxford union there would be a reasonably intelligent audience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They weren't being given a platform to speak without any comments, there were others attending who would give them a hard time.

    In fact the oxygen of publicity doesn't work very well for Nick griffin at least - a few years ago he was being interviewed by Dimbledy during the election night coverage and got well and truly pwned.

    Irving's a bit more dangerous, but that because when i saw him interviewed the TV interviewer seemed unprepared.

    At the same time, don't write him off, some of his early books were pretty revlatory - he was one of first British WW2 historians who looked at German sources. Up until irving came along there was a tendency to see Rommel as a 'good German'. Irving was one of the first to show his links with the nazis and his personal support and admiration for Hitler.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    byny wrote: »
    exactly. Though I wouldn't like to see holocaust survivors subjected to the kind of abuse they may experience in front of your typical BNP Rally. Hopefully there would be some people there capable of some serious thought and discussion.

    I guess (I hope) that at the Oxford union there would be a reasonably intelligent audience.

    I think Nick Griffin is too desparate to paint himself as Mr. Respectable at the moment to allow the true face of his followers to reveal themselves in any such debate. That would soon change if they won any significant measure of power, so maybe now is the right time to show him up for what he is. Pitting him and Irving against Holocaust survivors, and indeed survivors of other attempted genocides, like Rwanda and Bosnia, would wipe away the mask of supressed anti-hero that both like to cultivate, and show them up as a pair of dangerous and immoral nutcases.

    I'd love to see people like them widely ignored, really. They shouldn't even be seen as controversial, just ignored.
Sign In or Register to comment.