Griffin and Irving in Oxford
So, it’s now pretty clear that this evening I and thousands of others will be sharing our city with a pair of Holocaust deniers. The Oxford Union debating society have invited Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak, despite the concerns of our local police and the city council, the student union and the Jewish and Muslim societies. I fully intend to be joining the demonstration outside the Union on St Michael’s Street from 7pm this evening.
Doubtless there are some who won’t agree with me (I fully expect to be featured on Tim Worstall’s or the Devil’s Kitchen blogs later today, which will inevitably be followed by an onslaught of disagreeable comments). But I would just point out that having the right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean having the right to be invited to speak at a private members’ club. It’s not even as if Irving and Griffin get to expound their vile views and be challenged: they have been invited to speak instead on freedom of speech. And even if they were to, is it not breathtakingly arrogant that Oxford undergraduates believe that in a five minute debating speech they could somehow defeat either, when it took a Cambridge Professor of Modern History weeks on the stand to rebut Irving’s assertions?
More here from Deborah Lipstadt.
“I would just point out that having the right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean having the right to be invited to speak at a private members’ club.”
If you did then you’d be wrong.
[...] She is indeed featured here. [...]
[...] Via Tim, Antonia Bance on Griffin and Irving’s appearance at the Oxford Union: “And even if they were to, is it not breathtakingly arrogant that Oxford undergraduates believe that in a five minute debating speech they could somehow defeat either, when it took a Cambridge Professor of Modern History weeks on the stand to rebut Irving’s assertions?” [...]
[...] Antonia Bance is another who seems to have gotten the highly confusing idea of free speech and not free speech mixed up. [...]
I’m sure you’re correct. Like most fascists, they are huge intellects, and could out argue even the nation’s brightest minds. Well, you certainly.
I think it is “breathtakingly arrogant” that you appear to be advocating arbitrary limits to fundamental human rights on the basis that you do not agree with the opinions previously expressed by these men. We have adequate statutory provisions which curtail racist speech, or prevent incitement of racial hatred for example. It is for Parliament and the courts, with regard to the public interest, and not individuals, to impose these limits. It is for the members of this “private members club” to decide whether a platform should be given to these men to speak on the subject of free speech, a decision which members have overwhelmingly voted to support.
I abhor the views of these men, however their point of view on freedom of speech is extremely relevant to tonights discussion, and as long as they remain within the law, their human rights should be protected as much as anyone else’s.
I read on BBC News that the debate has sadly begun; but congratulations on delaying it and being committed to preventing it as far as possible.
Many people will now have a view of the politics and the naivety of the average Oxford undergraduate, which may or may not be right. The President responsible for this comes, I believe, from Magdalen- a college with an imperialist and Unionist record hidden under a privileged, dilettante cloak.
I hope that the part of the Union and of the University in this is not forgotten in the short or the long term by real progressives and by committed anti-racists.
The only way to have a useful debate on freedom of speech is to test the extremes. It’s no point getting e.g. pro-democracy campaigners who’ve spent years locked up, because obviously everyone will agree freedom of speech is worth having. The aim is to challenge our views on free speech- do we believe that everyone has the right? What are the limits? Are those limits fair- if we set those limits, can they be turned around and used against us?
“PooterGeek | 26 November 2007 2:42 pm
“I would just point out that having the right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean having the right to be invited to speak at a private members’ club.”
If you did then you’d be wrong”
The Union haven’t invited me to speak. Do I have freedom of speech or not?
I found last night’s news very nostalgic. Lots of the great unwashed shouting and hollering and waving banners and breaking doors and locks, all in the cause of stopping free speech as far as I could make out.
“Those were the days, my friend, we thought they’d never end”. Apparently they didn’t after all.
I know pooter geek has hit this one already but
“But I would just point out that having the right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean having the right to be invited to speak at a private members’ club.”
This is a non-sequitur. The private club has the right to invite, nobody has the “right to be invited”. What you are actually trying to say, but hiding it in the way you mis-say it (for that would actually reveal the unpleasant truth of the stance), is you want to have the right to disinvite against the wishes of both the speaker and the club.
Epsilon:
“The President responsible for this comes, I believe, from Magdalen- a college with an imperialist and Unionist record hidden under a privileged, dilettante cloak.”
What a beautiful example of both:
1) Genetic fallcy
2) Enduring properties fallacy
Magdalen has no current imperialist and Unionist agenda, and even if it did, there is no reason to think Tryl is that sort of character anyway.
The amount of garbage spewed about Oxford and Oxford students I have seen surrounding this issue has been breathtaking.
“The Union haven’t invited me to speak. Do I have freedom of speech or not?”
If the Union (or any other private club) wanted to invite you to speak, but Antonia denied your right to be invited to speak (as above) then you wouldn’t have freedom of speech—unless “freedom of speech” meant “freedom to say things Antonia approves of in places where Antonia permits you to say them”.
“If the Union (or any other private club) wanted to invite you to speak, but Antonia denied your right to be invited to speak”
The word you are looking for is not ‘denied’ (Antonia doesn’t have the power to deny people the opportunity to speak at the Oxford Union), but ‘oppose’.
“then you wouldn’t have freedom of speech—unless “freedom of speech” meant “freedom to say things Antonia approves of in places where Antonia permits you to say them”.”
Again, this suggests Antonia has powers which she (unfortunately
does not have.
If you believe, as I do, in a right to freedom of speech, then you should also support the right to protest, which is what Antonia and others were doing. Otherwise, you end up in the position where Griffin and Irving have a right to speak wherever they are invited to do so, but other people don’t have the right to protest against this.
Which is a somewhat less than absolute commitment to free expression.
Yes, it should also be noted that those protesting against the speeches just had a sit in and a little shout and so on. Those opposing the protest have already put photos of the protesters on RedWatch, so that the far right can seek them out and ‘persuade them with the force of their arguments’ or whatever exactly they do.
[...] Luke Tryl, the current Union president, has more courage. He stuck to his guns through media pressure and invited David Irving and Nick Griffin to a forum on free speech on Monday. The professional outrage and protest groups – lovingly known in my day as trotgimps – were out in force. As you would expect, the loudest bleaters were the self-appointed leaders of the black and Jewish ’student communities’, militant lesbians, communists of OUSU and the regional TUC. I hear that Conservative MP Julian Lewis has resigned his Union membership over the affair – the opportunist. Thankfully, some people still stick up for free speech: Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, Jewish journalists and Muslim students among them. [...]
I read elsewhere that the Union has banned the academic Norman Finklestein from an Israel-Palestine debate; which has had the effect of most of the other speakers duly withdrawing from it.
Antonia doesn’t set guidelines as to what is ‘freedom of speech’ apart from recognising, as most sane individuals do, that pure freedom needs restraint and equity. But it appears that the Union thinks that it can.