You may have heard on the news
about the controversy about the BNP Leader Nick Griffin, and holocaust denier David Irving, being invited to the Oxford Union (a members association not actually linked with the University) to participate in a debate about freedom of speech. Now whatever you think of this, you have to admit that these two individuals have the right to speak (within the confines of the quite justified statutory limitations on racial hatred). I live next to the Union. As I type this, I can hear the sound of hundreds of hysterical protestors shouting "Smash The BNP", a sentiment not wholly in keeping with the numerous signs reading "Peace not Hatred".

These two speakers are being invited to debate, and to be challenged (and they definitely will be). This is not a discussion of whether their views are right or not, there's no question that they're full of crap, it's a debate about where we restrict their freedom of speech. The Oxford Union isn't endorsing them, it isn't supporting them. The only benefit which they gain from this is from the misguided protests which are taking place and drawing a rather large amount of media attention, as well as wasting a lot of police time. I'm not saying that inviting David Irving and Nick Griffin was a good idea, just that it is not something that should be protested, or stifled.

My respect goes out to the few people supporting the lonely banner which read "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

EDIT: A whole parade of people with various anti-BNP signs marched past my window with various annoying chants. The thing is though, this isn't like the Iraq War, showing opposition doesn't mean a damn thing. What you need to do is demonstrate through reasoned debate and clear logic that the BNP are a bunch of racist cunts. They haven't won any council elections in Oxford (as I helpfully pointed out to one protestor), surely the time and effort of these people would be far better used in helping to promote awareness of just how shit the BNP's policies are in places like Dagenham where they actually have some support.


I realise this is all a bit off topic, but it's really starting to piss me off. Also, let's face it, you're probably tired of the whole "War on Christmas" debate.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 21:26, 33 replies)

I agree
with them having the right to say these things, but the Oxford Union also had a right to not invite them - this is not a case of their ideas being restricted.

Also, reasoned debate and clear logic doesn't seem to work with people with such extreme views, on either side of the political spectrum. As shown by the decline of Oswald Mosley in the 1930s, a perfectly viable way of stopping the spread of their poisonous ideas is to restrict their platforms - removing their legitimacy.

This is not an argument for censorship, but people seem to forget that free speech is more that the government should not restrict them expressing their views. The Oxford Union does not have this responsibility; indeed it is arguable that they are restricting my right to free speech by not letting me speak there by this logic.
(jizzools, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 21:49, closed)

Well
no, sorry, but the Oxford Union isn't restricting your right to free speech by not letting you debate there. It has the right to invite who it wants, which is exactly why is should have the right to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving.

There were months of lobbying, meetings, and petitions to stop the Union inviting them, the Union attended meetings with various groups, discussed its position, and even held a vote among its members as to whether they should be invited (it passed). This protest is not an attempt to persuade the Oxford Union not to invite members, it's an attempt to disrupt the debate.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 22:03, closed)

Bravo good sir
this is an interesting post in a QOTW thats fast becoming stale.
(Tip-Top Tomcat but you can call me Tommo, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 22:09, closed)

It has a right to invite them, but
the point of my argument was more the fact that by not inviting them there would be no restriction of free speech. You also say the Union attended meetings with various groups - well, as far as I know, they completely ignored Oxford's Jewish and Muslim groups, along with the student union itself.

And if it wasn't a good idea, as you say, why should we not protest it?

The Oxford Union certainly aren't endorsing their views, but by inviting Nick Griffin and David Irving they are giving them a measure of legitimacy. As I previously said, their views are the sort of rabid belief that simply cannot be swayed by reasoned debate, so it is better to attempt to stop them from pretending they are respectable.
(jizzools, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 22:20, closed)

But this protest
is of a seriously disruptive nature, wasting thousands of police man hours. I think that just because the Union weren't swayed by their meetings with various organisations doesn't mean they just ignored them, and it doesn't mean that they should be subject to such a torrent of protest. Also, the protest wasn't just a demonstration of opinion, it was an active attempt to disrupt and delay the debate, which involved some illegal activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7113984.stm
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 22:50, closed)

Give them enough Rope
I take the view that Nick Griffin and David Irving should be allowed to speak. That way everyone can see what they are and what they smell off rather than the deny a platform argument that means they skulk around in the shadows with their self reinforcing mates.

All the "Smash the BNP" brigade are saying is that we know better than you, so we should be allowed to think on your behalf.

Enough of that crap in this country already
(Sir Tainley Barking Ezekiel 23:20, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:09, closed)

But free speech must have limits
For example - you shouldn't have the right to shout 'Fire' in a crowded cinema, as people may be injured in the ensuing panic, just as you don't have the right to shout 'Bomb' aboard an aeroplane.

I agree with the general idea of free speech, but in practice it's very hard to know where to draw the line. After all, there must be a line somewhere. Unfortunately, no-one can agree where it should be.
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:12, closed)

There is nothing more healthy
Than promoting open debate. So what they may not listen to what they are told by the general people who mostly consider the BNP to be a bunch of racist cocks. Belms is absolutely right, protesting this is just bollocks. I hope Irving and Griffin attend and get their arses handed to them, even if they completely ignore the fact. All people are doing by protesting is handing them an oppertunity to portray themselves as the "repressed".
(Monkeyofspong, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:13, closed)

Swifty,
We have agreed to an extent, in that we have laws governing speech which causes a public disturbance (like yelling "Fire") and speech which incites racial hatred. So there are clear statutory limits on what you can and cannot say. To try and ban or prevent someone from saying anything which doesn't contravene these laws is excessive censorship.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:14, closed)

What..
"free speech must have limits"


Did you REALLY just say that?
Last one to post to B3TA please turn off the lights.

Jesus.
(inflateable, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:20, closed)

But 'speech which incites racial hatred' comes in many forms
And although the BNP have dressed their message up with a pinch of respectable politics, they are still racist hate-mongers. 'Mong' being the operative word.

Also, freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. If people like Nick Griffin and David Irving should be allowed to have their say without being attacked, so should the people who are protesting. As I said, it's difficult to know where to draw the line...

And yes, inflateable, I did say that. Did you read my reply, or just the headline?
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:20, closed)

That's the point.
There IS no line.

You can say what the fuck you want.

The moment there are lines, limits, things you daren't say - we're fucked.

Look at the shit that gets posted on B3TA - many would say, (and do) that crosses the line.

Fuck 'em we say with glee.

Let the BNP twats looks like fools - you don't think the level of debate you'd find at oxford is going to tie them up in knots?

EDIT: Yeah I read it - shouting 'fire' in a theatre isn't free speech, as I suspect you well know - what if there IS a fire?
(inflateable, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:24, closed)

Sorry mate, I'm not trying to be patronising
But there definitely IS a line. You can be arrested for swearing at a copper, you're not allowed to lie in court, you can be sued for libel, the list goes on. 'Free speech' is all well and good, but if you really think about it there do need to be limits. Very lax limits, sure - but still, there should be limits. I'm not saying that David Irving and Nick Griffin should be completely censored, but I'm also not saying they should be allowed to peddle their hate-filled message. It's for smarter people than me to decide.
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:30, closed)

Swifty, again
There are clear definitions as to what inciting racial hatred is, it's been tested in the courts, it's entirely possible to tell under the current legislation what is illegal and what is not. Just because Nick Griffin is racist, not everything he says is "inciting racial hatred". There's no law against saying something racist, only against saying something which will stir up racial hatred. Since it can't be shown that the BNP's manifesto (as an example) stirs up racial hatred, then it doesn't come under the statutory limits. The reason that we say that you can only be prosecuted if it can be proven that you have stirred up racial hatred, and that we impose a consistent and fairly strict interpretation of that, is because in this country we have another very strong principle, just as longstanding as that of freedom of speech, that the courts should be fair and just, and apply the law without prejudice. Unless you're implying that we should lock up BNP members just because they're racist, then I can't see that you have a leg to stand on here.

Also, I never implied that the protestors shouldn't be allowed to protest, just that it was a stupid idea. I never suggested to restrict their freedom of speech. I do however, suggest that those who broke into the Oxford Union and sat on the floor of the chamber should be charged with trespassing.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:30, closed)

Nope..
..I know you're not being patronising, but seriously, this is such a fucking slippery slope it's mental.

Basically, the 'limit' could be thought of as anything you say that could cause imminient danger..i.e. lying. Being dishonest really.

So, no libel, perjury, etc.

Ironically though, you end up with these weird paradoxes like you can't stop the protesters from protesting about stopping the BNP from speaking...

Ah, where's the magenta cocks gone?

EDITL Ooops, Belms being far more eloquent than me there - time for bed I think.
(inflateable, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:39, closed)

Another problem
You say you give them enough rope to hang themselves - do you really think they're stupid enough to do that in front of a hostile audience? It is far better to have them in front of an audience that they already generally agree with, in front of whom they are far more likely to say what they think, and catch them unawares.
(jizzools, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:52, closed)

I enjoyed this bit:
"Yhis isn't like the Iraq War, showing opposition doesn't mean a damn thing." I think you missed the result of that protest. 2 million people marching through London didn't mean a damn thing, and we're still in Iraq.

But I agree with your sentiment, and I'm surprised at some of the replies. A post further up says "So David Irving should be allowed to have his say, and the protesters shouldn't?" No. His post says he thinks both parties are idiots. He's not attempting to stop either party from speaking, he just thinks both are misguided.

And you can, apparently, tell a policeman to fuck off, as long as it's not agressive. There's a legal precedent, though I don't know where.
(sabre-tooth monkey, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 23:53, closed)

Thanks for the support
and I perhaps didn't express myself clearly on the Iraq issue. The protest marches there could conceivably have had an effect, although in the end they didn't. In this case, the only way to dissuade the Union from inviting the speakers would have been to show them valid reasons why they shouldn't, not just to wave banners. In the event, there were reasoned attempts before these protests, but obviously the Union, acting perfectly within its rights, decided that these reasons weren't sufficiently convincing.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 0:03, closed)

Hmmm
Isn't it that thing where you ask them if you can call them a cunt? Then ask if you can think they're a cunt? Then say you think they're a cunt?
(jizzools, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 0:13, closed)

Yes
although I'm not entirely sure if those were the facts of the case that ended up setting this precedent.

Excellent, back to profanity and insults, apologies for the brief intermission of seriousness.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 0:17, closed)

I 'oppressed' one of Griffin's mates, at my local
he's quite big in the BNP, I think - there are certainly pictures of him on their website, holding hands with the Dear Leader.

I listened to his bollocks, nodded my head, and then quietly needled him until he stood up and started shouting the odds.

I live in Somerset, which is not the most tolerant of places - but nevertheless, his outburst was greeted with universal, and very vocal hostility. And he got himself banned.

Encourage these people show themselves up for what they are - they're more dangerous when allowed the illusion of being a viable party.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 0:34, closed)

It's a similar issue
when the leader of the Nation of Islam isn't allowed to come to this country because of his well-publicised anti-semetic / homophobic views.

There are - hence the point of this QOTW - lots of laws which enforce certain elements of what we think of as PC.

So my feeling is that anyone should be allowed to talk subject to the law of the land. This would mitigate any risk of Nuremburg Rally-style incitements to racial hatred / racially-based attacks - and so restrict the BNP or whoever to make purely factual arguments to justify their position on race.

If outside the restrictions of the law we ban free speech, we are censoring outside the law and thus are no better than Zimbabwe for example or any country that denies freedom of speech.

If the members of the Union - or in fact, any group of intelligent people - can't listen to fallacious arguments and dismiss them as such, then something is going horribly wrong.

I hate the BNP and anything of that ilk - but denying them a platform if they keep to within legal limits is just grist to the mill of people who need to see themselves as persecuted as part of their insane creed. Any creed loves persecution as it makes them feel important and united. Deny them this, expose their shite to the oxygen of free thought and rational arguments, and it shrivels to the (thankfully, in the UK at any rate) insignificant place it does and should occupy.
( I_Was_Mordred, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 1:23, closed)

lets have a live TV debate
A lot of people who vote BNP do so because of local issues, immigration etc, and to them it appears that the BNP is the party willing to tackle the issue. The main parties are so close now in terms of policies that voting for either of them will not effect change, so people naturally turn to what they think is a viable alternative.

Now, the more politically aware know that the BNP is not a simple solution to these issues. But the average person doesn't realise what the BNP's loathsome policies actually are, because there is no public debate on them, no direct challenge. If you want to squash the BNP, you need to rip them apart and show the people what they are really like in a live, unedited public debate.

If you ban or prohibit anything, you give it popularity beacause people want to kick against the establishment. Just release a record with a devaint sexual practice in the lyrics, get the BBC to ban it, and then watch it go to No 1.
( calibrax loves teh hamsters (not in that way), Tue 27 Nov 2007, 1:29, closed)

BNP= bunch of wankers.
They're entitled to their views though. No matter how shitty.
(Bear Pookie The Frankly Challenged. Halloween is coming to town., Tue 27 Nov 2007, 8:07, closed)

Free speech
means freedom to say whatever you please, but you must also accept the consequences.

If I advertise an opinion that has weak grounds for support, it will eventually be debated and I will very probably be made to look a fool. I can deal with that. If, on the other hand, my opinion has widespread support, it will be encouraged and reinforced.

If I say something suspected of being illegal, I can expect to be prosecuted for saying it. The law is based on precedent, which means that if something is illegal, it's because it's already been tested in the courts. If what I say is not illegal, but suspected of being so, I get the chance to prove my point in a court and if I'm right, I should win the case (maybe a little optimistic, but that's the foundations of case law).

Freedom of speech is a self-regulating concept as long as the law continues to be based on testable cases, and as long as intelligent, reasonable people stand up in the face of their obnoxious opponents. With that in mind, the BNP doesn't really stand a chance.

I would hope that Oxford is capable of producing formidable opponents for the likes of Griffin and Irving and so I'd encourage the hate-mongering twats to participate in a debate in that unforgiving arena. If the students of Oxford can't rise to the occasion and defeat such worthless adversaries in a public debate, then the British education system should be ashamed of itself.
( chart cat has an itch, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 9:16, closed)

BNP
Why should we censor Nick Griffin? It would just serve to drive his rhetoric underground. He's not the cause of right wing extremism, but merely a mouthpiece. The fact that his arguements don't stack up to reasoned debate should be reason enough to discuss openly.

Personally, I'd have invited Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza to speak. That would be worth watching.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 27 Nov 2007, 9:37, closed)

That
would have been brilliant. I'd hope people would dress up as pirates for that.
(jizzools, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 11:38, closed)

Ooooh, it's all got a bit intellectual hasn't it...
I am going to unlurk (a rare event) and chip in my two pennies.

It's easy to see why the Oxford students are upset, if these two prize fuckwits were going to turn up at my student's union and spread their hatemongering, racist, filth I would be just a little annoyed with those who allowed it to happen.

On the other hand, now it's all arranged and they have been invited whinging about it is kind of counter productive. If the students weren't complaining and demonstrating, no one outside of Oxford would even know that these two little fuckers were appearing. The only people who would know what they said would be the 100 or so political science students who gave enough of a damn to turn up. But now, through their complaining, the Oxford students have made sure that everyone in the country knows about the event, they have effectively handed this pair of cunts a platform to reach hundreds if not thousands of times the number of people they would ever have been able to talk to at the debate.

I can’t remember where I read it but I saw someone say recently that these two can stand anything except being ignored, and it seems to be very true. Whilst their opinions are stupid I don’t think either Griffin or Irving is, what with the students demonstrating and all the media attention they are getting this couldn’t have gone any better for them if they planned it (which it’s quite possible that they did!)

Right, rant over, rest assured my next post will feature significantly more crudely drawn magenta cocks!

**relurks**
(Lord of Marzipan Fact: Clouds are worse than Hitler, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 11:52, closed)

Here's a thing
Irving says the Holocaust didn't happen and has provided 'proof'. He's been imprisoned for denying what most people say is true.

Richard Dawkins has written numerous books debunking religion, upon which most civilisations have been based and which millions of people continue to put their faith in to this day. But I don't see him locked up for blasphemy.

What gives?

Even here on 'no-limits' b3ta - where rape, paedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia are topics of humour - I don't think I've ever seen an outright racist comment. Except from me, obviously.

What gives?

Censorship works in curious ways.
(frankspencer, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 12:53, closed)

Two things,
firstly, the majority of the protestors weren't students, they were people bused in, who were aggressive and abusive towards those who wanted to get in and see the debate.

Also, the Holocaust is a historical event not more than 70 years ago, within living memory. The existence of god has been a topic of uncertainty for more than two millenia. There is a huge difference. In addition, David Irving has claimed to be the victim of a Jewish conspiracy to discredit him, Richard Dawkins hasn't. Also, Irving was arrested in Austria, denying the Holocaust is not necessarily a crime over here.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 14:21, closed)

In the US of A
where free speech is constitutionally protected (unlike here) I walked past a woman calling a police officer every motherfucker under the sun. The cop was doing his best to remain calm, but at no point did he attempt to arrest her for swearing.

Free speech means exactly that. If the left can have their say, so can the right. I personally find it distateful that Griffin can speak in public, but if he's not allowed to say what he thinks because some people find it distateful then there's no telling where the line eventuallly gets drawn.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 19:51, closed)

Can
Someone get me a bicuit and a comfy chair please?

OK.

Carry on chaps
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 10:46, closed)

emvee
I would draw your attention to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Free speech is constitutionally protected over here.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Thu 29 Nov 2007, 9:14, closed)