Freedom of speech doesn’t mean a right to speak
Peter Tatchell in saying something sensible shocker:
“I don’t believe the defence of free speech requires the Oxford Union to proactively offer these hate-mongers a prestigious platform to secure respectability for their odious views”
Those with long memories will sigh as they realise that the egotistical buffoons of the Oxford Union Society have decided, once again, that their Oxford-educated brains can defeat Nick Griffin and David Irving in debate.
PS: Peter Tatchell is someone for whom I have great respect for his record of activism for lesbian and gay and human rights. Since deciding to stand for the the Green Party in Oxford East at the next election, though, he has come out with some considerable nonsense, so it’s good to see him back on form.
His coming out a 9/11 ‘truther’ was a bit sad as well.
As usual Peter comes to the correct conclusion albeit circuitously. He’s a brave man - he is still suffering from being beaten up in Moscow.
He makes the absolutely correct point that quite apart from any other considerations, the Union is being inconsistent in not giving Finkelstein a platform but offering Irving one. I believe the charge of ‘inconsistency’ will be the killer argument in getting the Irving decision reversed.
I don’t think the invitation has anything to do with the Union’s views on free speech. The Oxford Union always makes these controversial invitations in October, just when the new freshers are up and some free publicity will help with their membership drive.
It’s also a clever way of making the act of forking over £150 to the most establishment of Oxford institutions seem like an act of rebellion (which appeals nicely to new freshers).
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean a right to speak
A contradition in terms
Those with long memories will sigh as they realise that the egotistical buffoons of the Oxford Union Society have decided, once again, that their Oxford-educated brains can defeat Nick Griffin and David Irving in debate.
Maybe they can defeat the fascist in a free and fair debate. Unlike cowardly so-called ‘anti-facsists’ such as yourself, they are right to feel confident that they can expose the hypocracy, inconsistancies and sheer inhumanity of Griffin and Irving.
If we banned BNP and Irving as you clearly want, all that will be accomplished is:
a) A cult of martyrdom for the BNP, who’ll be able to claim that mainstream politicans haven’t got the bottle to deal with Britain’s real problems because of their ideogical dogma.
b) We will be no better than the BNP and Irving themselves because we are resorting to their tactics, their methods and their ideology.
Antonia, you are the very mirror image of the BNP and Irving. You use and abuse freedom of speech in order to destroy it. That’s fascist! Your hatred of the rich and successful mirrors the Nazis hatred of everything ‘non-Ayran’. That’s also fascist!
The truth must hurt you Antonia because if you were a REAL anti-fascist, you would stop trying ban BNP and Irving from expressing their views (no matter how repungant they are in my opinion), you would stop bullying, dictating to and infantilising the Oxford Union and instead provide your total support to OU debating team.
The best way to dealing with fascist is not to ban them or restrict their actions, but to allow themselves to state their case, before demolishing them with reasoned arguements that expose them for the lieing, prejudiced, irrational morons that they truly are, or to put another way, embrass them, not ban them.
Here we go again.
“Maybe they can defeat the fascist in a free and fair debate.”
But they’ve invited him to talk in a debate on free speech, not on fascism, so they’ll be on the same side as him. Tell me, c4, how do you ‘demolish someone with reasoned arguments’ when you’re on the same side as them?
That aside - “The best way to dealing with fascist is not to ban them or restrict their actions, but to allow themselves to state their case, before demolishing them with reasoned arguements” - so do you think the BNP vote would go up or down if they were funded to have an A4 leaflet to every house in the country, with an anti-BNP leaflet on the reverse side? Would that be a good or a bad way of beating the BNP?
As it happens, I think the case for and against inviting Griffin to speak about the BNP is a close one, depending largely on whether the police can guarantee the safety of ethnic minority students (they probably can’t, given central Oxford’s geography). The analogy to the invitation to Gerry Adams in the 80s is not completely nonsensical - the BNP are a significant political force in England, and a number of students might reasonably be interested in hearing how he believes that has come to pass, and what he really thinks, in a safe environment.
Inviting him to speak in a debate on free speech, however, is both worthless, and the usual publicity-grab stunt the union pulls in Freshers’ week. The case for inviting Irving is absolutely nil, the man being a proven liar, knowing nothing about the field, and an opponent of free speech when it suits him so to be.
The case for inviting both of them, Finkelstein, and David Icke in the same term, suggests something along the lines of the current President having won their position in a closely fought and personal contest against a Jewish candidate and is really really bitter. But I’m speculating.
Decline and Fall or Vile Bodies?
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean a right to speak
Unless you’re an MP, eh, Antonia?
Here via DK, just dropping in to tell you that you are complete cretin.
Freedom of speech means the right to say whatever you like. The fact that you or I may not like anything that Griffin or Irving have to say is by the by.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean a right to speak - Er, well actually it does.
That is why they call it freedom of speech.
Think you might need a sit down & a nice cuppa whilst thinking that one out.
Lovely. Linked from DK, and the insults appear. Allow me to remind you of the rules.
To answer your points: what, exactly, gives anyone the right to speak *on the floor of the Oxford Union*? Freedom of speech doesn’t, unless you remove the right of any members’ club to invite or disinvite whoever they want.
What’s the Oxford Union? Who said that they would remove the right of any private members’ club to invite or disinvite people? I am confused.
if you want to see the results of freedom of speech go to:
http://antimisandry.com/search.php?searchid=47418
it is the best of the “fathers rights movement” in action.
My expartner was a proud follower of theirs so if you want a laugh have a look.
That’s okay, Mark. You usually read DK, where swearing replaces argument.
I’ll explain. My point is this: the Oxford Union is a private members’ club which you have to pay about £150 to join. Griffin and Irving have been invited to speak there. Does the Oxford Union, in order to preserve and uphold freedom of speech, have to invite everyone who might like to speak there? Or is it in fact the case that whether or not someone is invited or disinvited from a debate at a private members’ club has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech?
“You usually read DK, where swearing replaces argument.”
You should get together with Sunny; you’d get on like a house of fire.
But, just a quick note to chaps and chapesses visiting here from The Kitchen: please do respect other people’s rules. I don’t swear in other people’s comments (usually) so please give Antonia you views without swearing.
Amongst other things, it’s less likely that she’ll delete your comment.
DK
P.S. Antonia, since the government has interfered with private member clubs over the issue of smoking, I could easily forsee a time when you would do so over free speech. Does, for instance, the new homophobia hate law cover private clubs?
If the OU is a private members’ club then there is all the less reason for interfering with their internal workings.
I also don’t like the implication that Peter Tatchell seldom says anything sensible. He is, AFAICS, Top Man.
If we had followed up on his citizen’s arrest of Mugabe all those years ago, think of all the suffering that this might have prevented
jdc #5
your last para is intriguing to say the least. I think you need to say more. Is this pure speculation? thanks
Jonathan, yup, it’s absolutely pure speculation. I haven’t lived in Oxford for five years now. When I was around the Union there was often a strong vote for candidates who were active in JSoc, and this was sometimes resented in less than PC terms by those who lost out because of it, eg “I lost by a nose”. There are, however, plenty of other possible explanations for the present situation.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_reports/?content_id=7659
jdc - thanks for the clarification. I had a column about this in Jewish News yesterday. Let’s hope the Union referendum yesterday went the right way. I heard it was close - and the length of time they are taking to announce the result adds strength to this view.
“I may disagree with you with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it.”
(atributed to Voltaire)
Free speech for Unpopular People with Unpopular Views! (This might be you, one day.)
Should David Irving and Nick Griffin be allowed to participate in a debate on free speech at the Oxford Union?