Freedom of speech.

Mp quits Oxford Union because they've invited David Irving (historical revisionist) and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) to speak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm


Is he right to do so? Should they be allowed to air their views, however repellent they are?

Thoughts, opinions and debate?

Difficult area.

My instincts say they shouldn't be able to air their views.

I'm for free speech until people abuse that into inciting hatred.

My heart says NO, because the views of those people are based on prejudice, not fact. In the case of Irving it's a case of rewriting history to support his own views.

On the other hand, if you do supress people with far-right politics surely those with far left politics should also be silenced? I doubt that is the case, so perhaps allowing the far-right to voice their opinions is a means of restoring some parity.

Tricky.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Mp quits Oxford Union because they've invited David Irving (historical revisionist) and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) to speak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm


Is he right to do so? Should they be allowed to air their views, however repellent they are?

Thoughts, opinions and debate?

This reminds me of the Watson furore, when the Science Museum, in London, cancelled the Noble prize winner's scheduled talk in October. I feel, he, Watson should have been allowed to defend his views (intelligence and colour of skin), through robust questioning. In the same way, Irving and Griffin should be allowed to speak.

Stopping people from speaking will not stop them thinking what they do . Allowing them to, publicly, expose themselves can assist in challenging their opinions and warn of how distorted they may be/ are.

It's a tough call, but on balance - I am opposed to any ban. Extremists on the right need to have their beliefs exposed to continual scruitiny so that they can be seen for what they are - the politics of hatred.

Going back to my political philosophy days,

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, writes something like:

If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he would be silencing mankind.

He gave two reasons for this position:

a) If the one person happens to be right, mankind is missing out because they are suppressing truth.

b) If the person is wrong, mankind is still missing out because it is losing the chance to verify and clarify the truth by comparing it with the opposite opinion.
[/i]

filosofee wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Mp quits Oxford Union because they've invited David Irving (historical revisionist) and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) to speak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm


Is he right to do so? Should they be allowed to air their views, however repellent they are?

Thoughts, opinions and debate?

Stopping people from speaking will not stop them thinking what they do . Allowing them to, publicly, expose themselves can assist in challenging their opinions and warn of how distorted they may be/ are.

Just like the Darryl Hair thread . . .

tac wrote:

filosofee wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Mp quits Oxford Union because they've invited David Irving (historical revisionist) and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) to speak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm


Is he right to do so? Should they be allowed to air their views, however repellent they are?

Thoughts, opinions and debate?

Stopping people from speaking will not stop them thinking what they do . Allowing them to, publicly, expose themselves can assist in challenging their opinions and warn of how distorted they may be/ are.

Just like the Darryl Hair thread . . .

And getting people banned from PP.

They should be allowed to talk. It will only reflect badly on them.

It is an inherent fear within the politically correct liberal minded "protectors" of mankind from evil that finds them vehemently opposed to letting extremists (particularly right wing) speak openly of their views.

One of the fundemental beliefs of a democracy is the tolerance of free speech - yet said fear seemingly only extends to protesting at the rightist freaks whilst the polarised leftists are considered less threatening and are thus allowed a broader platform to express themselves.

Both extremes espouse hatred - and if one is tolerated, then so should the other.

The Oxford Union are right to allow both speakers - whereafter the Members will have the opportunity to expose the pair for the misguided prats they are in an 'open question' time.

I bet you wouldn't get away with a thread like this on C4.

Zat wrote:I bet you wouldn't get away with a thread like this on C4.

Precisely.
The mods on C4 were of the prattish "liberal minded" , politically correct, "we decide who speaks and what is said" bunch of parasites who are currently choking society with their pseudo-pious and self righteous ways.

Yet their counterparts on TV C4 think nothing of igniting debate with programmes supporting extreme behaviour, porn and pseudo cultural topics which prompt viewers to complain!!.

Ironic that!

tac wrote:

filosofee wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Mp quits Oxford Union because they've invited David Irving (historical revisionist) and Nick Griffin (BNP leader) to speak:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7111933.stm


Is he right to do so? Should they be allowed to air their views, however repellent they are?

Thoughts, opinions and debate?

Stopping people from speaking will not stop them thinking what they do . Allowing them to, publicly, expose themselves can assist in challenging their opinions and warn of how distorted they may be/ are.

Just like the Darryl Hair thread . . .

Yep, you've exposed yourself again. I was right in that thread - it was the way Hair did his job that was wrong

taipan wrote: And getting people banned from PP.

Have you been banned from PakPassion? No doubt, for being a boring old git!

Merlin wrote:It is an inherent fear within the politically correct liberal minded "protectors" of mankind from evil that finds them vehemently opposed to letting extremists (particularly right wing) speak openly of their views.

It isn't that Merlin, it's the stamp of credibility that such people, those with any kind of extreme views, will claim through the esteemed platform.

However, even if not one of their (Griffin, Irving) supporters, upon hearing their leaders/heroes' views challenged effectively, alters their thinking, it's still worth allowing them to speak, just to learn how full of hatred they are. Best to know exactly what your enemy thinks rather than guess.

Merlin wrote:It is an inherent fear within the politically correct liberal minded "protectors" of mankind from evil that finds them vehemently opposed to letting extremists (particularly right wing) speak openly of their views.

One of the fundemental beliefs of a democracy is the tolerance of free speech - yet said fear seemingly only extends to protesting at the rightist freaks whilst the polarised leftists are considered less threatening and are thus allowed a broader platform to express themselves.

Both extremes espouse hatred - and if one is tolerated, then so should the other.

The Oxford Union are right to allow both speakers - whereafter the Members will have the opportunity to expose the pair for the misguided prats they are in an 'open question' time.

And if Griffin's speech causes a racially motivated attack? If someone is stabbed and killed because of his right to speak? What will you say to their family?

Of course they should be allowed to air their views when they have been invited to do so by one of the world's most prestigious Universities. Just airing your view is one thing, but when people know of your opinion on issues beforehand and then invite you to say them, you should do so.

The fact that that view is extreme doesn't matter - what do you want Irving and Griffin to do, lie about what they believe in?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Merlin wrote:It is an inherent fear within the politically correct liberal minded "protectors" of mankind from evil that finds them vehemently opposed to letting extremists (particularly right wing) speak openly of their views.

One of the fundemental beliefs of a democracy is the tolerance of free speech - yet said fear seemingly only extends to protesting at the rightist freaks whilst the polarised leftists are considered less threatening and are thus allowed a broader platform to express themselves.

Both extremes espouse hatred - and if one is tolerated, then so should the other.

The Oxford Union are right to allow both speakers - whereafter the Members will have the opportunity to expose the pair for the misguided prats they are in an 'open question' time.

And if Griffin's speech causes a racially motivated attack? If someone is stabbed and killed because of his right to speak? What will you say to their family?

Are you suggesting that Merlin would be in some way accountable if some pebble-headed maniac went on a killing spree after listening to a moron spout drivel?

No, I'm asking whether he would still hold the same vehement opinions if someone was killed as a result of a moron spouting drivel in the name of freedom of speech. How would he argue his case to the victim's family?

LLL -
There were attacks tonight!
The forum was forcibly interrupted with violent clashes.

And guess who the perpetrators were?
Busloads of "protestors" driven in to disrupt the said "free speech" from as many as 100 miles away from Oxford!

Long live democracy!

Had Griffin been a religious militant, pray tell, how many TV stwould have been covering the event

Hypothetically - I emphasize hypothetically - let's just say that a couple of these protesting thugs struck Griffin - as seemed quite likely according to ITV's newsman on the scene (who had to drive to the city limts to interview said lunatic for his own safety) - and Griffin died as a direct result.

I put your question to you : How would you argue the case to the Griffin's family?

And before I am accused of being a BNP/Griffin supporter ... let me make it quite clear - this is a debate on whether there is, indeed, free speech in a democracy. Is such a thing selective or just a figment of imagination?

Obviously, peaceful protest is the way to go, but you haven't answered my question.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Obviously, peaceful protest is the way to go, but you haven't answered my question.

Glib answer LLL - but you miss the point.
My answer is this - we live in a democracy.
To claim a democracy affords free speech needs proof.

To subsequently hypothsise on life or death (as we both did) as a direct result of what is said - or as a result of actions taken against what is being said - is to question the fundemental basis of said democracy.

I could not begin to answer your question.

One could say Blair incited actions in both Iraq and Afganistan with misleading war mongering innuendo.
So how does he confront the familes of men who have given their lives unnecessarily?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:No, I'm asking whether he would still hold the same vehement opinions if someone was killed as a result of a moron spouting drivel in the name of freedom of speech. How would he argue his case to the victim's family?

Yes I would.

And no, it would not be down to me to answer to the victims family.
They too live in the same democracy that allows free speech.

I'm playing devil's advocate by the way but I think you miss the point.

It's perfectly possible that Griffin speaking and inciting racial hatred will cause a racially motivated attack. It does not have to result in death, it may just result in destroying a person's life. In fact, I read an article yesterday that said:

Ms Guthrie - National Campaigner for the group Unite Against Fascism - said there had also been a rise in racial attacks whenever Nick Griffin's BNP party gained seats on local councils.

So there is a link between the BNP and racially motivated violence. It's not purely speculative. Whereas someone campaigning against the BNP attacking and killing Griffin is highly unlikely.

From Newsnight's report tonight, it appears that Griffin was in one room, Irving in another at Oxford Union's buildings. It's not clear what, exactly was debated/challenged, that wasn't reported on. What was, was the opinions of demonstrators outside.

LLL: I do understand your point, that hearing anti-black/gay/Jewish/trade union talk may incite some vile people to go out and cause harm, but these sorts would do so anyway.