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.
Options

David Irving/Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union

13»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And some of you are deluded if you think constructive debate is either going to see them the error of their ways or expose them and their arguments as rubbish.

    1. You are deulded if you think that this was about getting them to change their views.

    2. You are also deluded if you think that their arguments cannot be exposed as weks. Unless, that is, you believe that the majority held view (like ours) has no foundation and is easily challenged.
    You simply cannot convince some people of something, no matter how overwhelming the evidence or devastating the argument

    Clearly you can otherwise no one would hold any views at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. I'm unhappy with insitutions that should know better giving platform to such people.

    Whereas I see that as their greatest strength.

    You want to choose where and when someone can exercise their right, I say that is censorship.
    Griffin already expresses his freedom of speech fully on interviews, articles, books, websites, leaflets, manifestos or political broadcasts amongst other things. More platforms and exposure than 99.99% of people in the country ever get to. So let's not pretend that by demanding certain people don't get invitations to certain venerable institutions such people are suddenly denied to express themselves.

    Indeed he does. But the whole point about free speech is that there should be no place where such rights should be withheld. Certainly not on the basis that it might upset someone else - especially if that person won't even attend the event.

    A single denial of the right, at any time in any place, shows that this country does not tolerate opposing views and consequently it citizens do not have the right to free speech. It's a country of censorship.
    Can I get invited to express my views on a variety of subjects at the Oxford Union? If my request for an invitation is declined, would I be the victim of an outrageous attack on freedom of speech then?

    If your invitation is decline on the basis of what you might say then it is an outrageous attack on free speech. If it denied on the basis that you have nothing of interest to debate then it isn't.

    The very debate we are having here is the one which should be taking place at the OU.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People love freedom of speech so long as sit goes their own way.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A single denial of the right, at any time in any place, shows that this country does not tolerate opposing views and consequently it citizens do not have the right to free speech. It's a country of censorship.
    A far more pleasant and civilised country to live, in my opinion, to one in which discredited naziboys and fascist thugs are invited to peddle their filth in the mainstream.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    But you come across as whole-heartedly against immigration, given that is the stance that the BNP has I thought you would at least agree with them on that issue. I should also point out that I have never accused you of racism, I?ve certainly said that I think your views on law and order have sometimes come across as barbaric but that?s another issue
    Don't lie, Budda. You know what I've said on immigration. Perhaps you're getting forgetful in your old age, so I shall remind you. I've said there are too many people coming to the UK. I've said the numbers need to be carefully managed. If you just let everyone in, it's gonna cause problems - they're going to need places to live, they're going to need to use the public services etc. My views on immigration (or anything else, before you get ideas) have nothing whatsoever to do with the BNP, and I don't appreciate you attempting to slander me in that way.
    Namaste wrote: »
    People love freedom of speech so long as sit goes their own way.
    It's certainly what Aladdin believes.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    It's certainly what Aladdin believes.
    Not quite. I have never suggested that people with opinions contrary to mine should be silenced.

    However fascism/racism/nazism is a stand-alone case. It is an abomination that should and must not be allowed to contaminate the rest of us. It falls outside society and humanity and should be treated like the malignant tumour it is rather than just another opinion or belief. NOTHING else on earth compares with it. And that is why we can draw a line between fascism/racism/nazism and everything else and ensure the latter still enjoys from full freedom of speech.

    It does not need to be a slippery slope if we were to restrict the one ideology which is separate and different to every other belief, and infinitely more harmful and repulsive.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Until someone comes along and argues that we should restrict another ideology, on the grounds that it is separate and different from every other belief.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Not quite. I have never suggested that people with opinions contrary to mine should be silenced.

    However fascism/racism/nazism is a stand-alone case. It is an abomination that should and must not be allowed to contaminate the rest of us. It falls outside society and humanity and should be treated like the malignant tumour it is rather than just another opinion or belief. NOTHING else on earth compares with it. And that is why we can draw a line between fascism/racism/nazism and everything else and ensure the latter still enjoys from full freedom of speech.

    It does not need to be a slippery slope if we were to restrict the one ideology which is separate and different to every other belief, and infinitely more harmful and repulsive.

    Fascism, Nazism and racism are distinct phenomena in their own right. I'm afraid you've totally let your disgust of bigotry and xenophobia cloud your rational thinking on this one Aladdin.

    I could argue equally as vehemently that paedophiles, or child-abusers in general, are the stand-alone case where a perpetrator shouldn't be allowed public forum, but i'd be wrong.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with Aladdin...and 'no platform' - there's a difference between tolerating Irving/Griffin and their right to publish books, blog, speak to their supporters, etc and inviting them to a prestigious venue, promoting them - giving them free publicity and raising their profile...

    To force people to share a platform with the BNP or to allow them into a students space is itself an infringement of many other people's freedoms.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with Aladdin...and 'no platform' - there's a difference between tolerating Irving/Griffin and their right to publish books, blog, speak to their supporters, etc and inviting them to a prestigious venue, promoting them - giving them free publicity and raising their profile...

    To force people to share a platform with the BNP or to allow them into a students space is itself an infringement of many other people's freedoms.

    I think this has been thoroughly refuted earlier. What you're doing is deciding which platform i should be allowed to hear Irving/Griffin speak from - that's censorship and stifling of free speech, and it's wrong.

    The notion that you are protecting people's fragile little minds from the big-bad-monster is incredibly patronising, and quite frankly, rather insulting.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Conditional free speech is not free speech. It's as simple as that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A far more pleasant and civilised country to live, in my opinion, to one in which discredited naziboys and fascist thugs are invited to peddle their filth in the mainstream.

    Chosing which platform someone is able to espouse their filth is the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shout "na-na-na I can't hear you" :p

    Since when was it civilised to deny someone the right to say what they thought - whnever they want to? How is censorship civilised?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To force people to share a platform with the BNP or to allow them into a students space is itself an infringement of many other people's freedoms.


    Since when has anyone been "forced" to share a platform?

    Why isn't it more odious to force people to conform to a certain viewpoint before being allowed a platform?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. I'm unhappy with insitutions that should know better giving platform to such people.

    Griffin already expresses his freedom of speech fully on interviews, articles, books, websites, leaflets, manifestos or political broadcasts amongst other things. More platforms and exposure than 99.99% of people in the country ever get to. So let's not pretend that by demanding certain people don't get invitations to certain venerable institutions such people are suddenly denied to express themselves.
    This wasn't just about his freedom of speech, though. 'No platform'? Even if it's a scaffold? Just because the topic of the debate was free speech didn't mean that they would be allowed to disseminate their views unchallenged. Unfortunately, the 'debate' part of the schedule was completely kyboshed by the frothing-at-the-mouth brigade. Those of us who do see the likes of Griffin in the media, and wish that someone would put them in their place with a well made observation, will have to wait a while longer. Meantime, the BNP's support grows in the shadows.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Chosing which platform someone is able to espouse their filth is the political equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shout "na-na-na I can't hear you" :p

    Since when was it civilised to deny someone the right to say what they thought - whnever they want to? How is censorship civilised?
    I know most of you don't share my beliefs but I see a society with minimal censorhip of a specific group or ideology (and lines can be drawn without going down a slippery slope) far preferable to a society that allows absolutely anything to be said regardless of what it is.

    A very minor loss of total freedom of speech to a bunch of cunts who should count themselves lucky they don't end up hanging from lampposts is far a lesser evil that a society that allows fascists and nazis not only to spout their bile freely but actually to participate in mainstream activities and debate as if they were normal people and part of society.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A very minor loss of total freedom of speech

    There is no such thing as a minor loss.

    Today it is people who spout racist shite. Tomorrow it's people who are anti-this Govt or anti-Iraq.

    Freedom of speech is an absolute.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I just can't see myself sharing a 'platform' with Edwina Currie...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no such thing as a minor loss.

    Today it is people who spout racist shite. Tomorrow it's people who are anti-this Govt or anti-Iraq.

    Freedom of speech is an absolute.
    If I were a benelovent dictator in power, there would be such thing as a minor loss :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But how many 'benevolent dictators' can you name in history, and how did that turn out?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If I were a benelovent dictator in power..
    There you go, getting grandiose visions again. Aladdin, it's not going to happen... :p
Sign In or Register to comment.