The Oxford Union was accused last night of 'promoting anti-Semitism' after students voted to allow Holocaust revisionist David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address students tomorrow.

Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted by a margin of two to one in favour of permitting the two right-wing figures to speak at a free-speech event, despite demands that they be banned.

 

The decision provoked an immediate backlash. Former Europe minister Denis MacShane condemned the union for 'promoting anti-Semitism', while the university's Muslim and Jewish societies said that principles of freedom of speech were 'overshadowed in this instance'.

 

The union's president, Luke Tryl, defended the invitation by arguing that the pair were not being granted a platform to expound their views, but would discuss the limits of free speech.

 

Tomorrow night's event promises to be one of the most bitter in the 184 years of the union. Police are braced for violent clashes between students and far-right groups. Some students have already received death threats from extremists. A report of racial abuse towards an Asian person campaigning against the appearance of Irving and Griffin has been received by the union.

 

Even before the results of the vote, the prospect of the two men speaking at the union had forced the withdrawal of high-profile figures from other debates, including the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, and television presenter June Sarpong. MacShane, who also recently pulled out of a meeting at the union in protest, said: 'It's very sad. Anti-Semitism is now a growing world ideology and it's regrettable that the Oxford Union will be promoting it.'

 

Others have dismissed the invitations to Irving and Griffin as a publicity stunt by Tryl, who organised the vote following the furore over the possible inclusion of the rightwingers.

 

Recent reports had suggested that the decision to invite the two men by Tryl, chairman of the Halifax branch of Conservative Future, formerly known as the Young Conservatives, had left him increasingly isolated and that the vote would be too close to call. In the event, he won comfortably.

 

More than 1,000 people have signed a petition on the Downing Street website calling on Gordon Brown to condemn the talk.

 

Tryl - who describes himself as a 'very liberal, modern person' - has claimed that it is possible to abhor the views of Griffin and Irving while accepting their right to be heard. 'They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head-to-head manner,' said Tryl.

 

A previous statement by Tryl on the union's website states: 'Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free-speech martyrs, and ... groups like the BNP do well if they look as if they're being censored.'

 

Stephen Altmann-Richer, co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said: 'I don't think these people should be invited to the Oxford Union. By having them speak, it legitimises their views.'

 

Irving has served a prison sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial. Griffin has a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.

 

Source : The Observer

 

Should the right to free speech extend to these two? Or are there some people whose views are so extreme they should be denied a platform?

 

I think the Oxford Union made the right decision. It would be strange if Irving and Griffin (however abhorrent their views) were prevented from attending debate on free speech.

 

 

 

 

The Oxford Union was accused last night of 'promoting anti-Semitism' after students voted to allow Holocaust revisionist David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address students tomorrow.

Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted by a margin of two to one in favour of permitting the two right-wing figures to speak at a free-speech event, despite demands that they be banned.

 

The decision provoked an immediate backlash. Former Europe minister Denis MacShane condemned the union for 'promoting anti-Semitism', while the university's Muslim and Jewish societies said that principles of freedom of speech were 'overshadowed in this instance'.

 

The union's president, Luke Tryl, defended the invitation by arguing that the pair were not being granted a platform to expound their views, but would discuss the limits of free speech.

 

Tomorrow night's event promises to be one of the most bitter in the 184 years of the union. Police are braced for violent clashes between students and far-right groups. Some students have already received death threats from extremists. A report of racial abuse towards an Asian person campaigning against the appearance of Irving and Griffin has been received by the union.

 

Even before the results of the vote, the prospect of the two men speaking at the union had forced the withdrawal of high-profile figures from other debates, including the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, and television presenter June Sarpong. MacShane, who also recently pulled out of a meeting at the union in protest, said: 'It's very sad. Anti-Semitism is now a growing world ideology and it's regrettable that the Oxford Union will be promoting it.'

 

Others have dismissed the invitations to Irving and Griffin as a publicity stunt by Tryl, who organised the vote following the furore over the possible inclusion of the rightwingers.

 

Recent reports had suggested that the decision to invite the two men by Tryl, chairman of the Halifax branch of Conservative Future, formerly known as the Young Conservatives, had left him increasingly isolated and that the vote would be too close to call. In the event, he won comfortably.

 

More than 1,000 people have signed a petition on the Downing Street website calling on Gordon Brown to condemn the talk.

 

Tryl - who describes himself as a 'very liberal, modern person' - has claimed that it is possible to abhor the views of Griffin and Irving while accepting their right to be heard. 'They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head-to-head manner,' said Tryl.

 

A previous statement by Tryl on the union's website states: 'Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free-speech martyrs, and ... groups like the BNP do well if they look as if they're being censored.'

 

Stephen Altmann-Richer, co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said: 'I don't think these people should be invited to the Oxford Union. By having them speak, it legitimises their views.'

 

Irving has served a prison sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial. Griffin has a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.

 

Source : The Observer

 

Should the right to free speech extend to these two? Or are there some people whose views are so extreme they should be denied a platform?

 

I think the Oxford Union made the right decision. It would be strange if Irving and Griffin (however abhorrent their views) were prevented from attending debate on free speech.

 

Frankly, I put the likes of Griffin and Irvine in the same category as Abu Hamza and all these other "hate preachers".... Irvine dresses up his anti-semitic bullsh!t in the clothes of flowery, academic language, but he's just as bad as any other Nazi who would expound the ridiculous theory that the Holocaust never happened, and Griffin is just a racist w/anker who should be sharing a cell with Hamza.... Hopefully that will happen some day and both these maggots might just kill each other...... <_<

 

difficult one this.... surely in the case for free speech and intelligent debate does it matter if these people are allowed a platform? surely all the intelligent people there will understand their view point and reject it. wouldnt the intelligent way be to allow this and the debate? is there any difference between hearing the person in real time and reading about their viewpoint? because everyone will either accept their viewpoint, or reject it.

 

i dont think it will help the jewish or muslims if these people are 'hushed up' and gagged, i think everyone would want to make up their own minds.

 

did the christians throw a hissy fit when richard dawkins gave a speech there?...

difficult one this.... surely in the case for free speech and intelligent debate does it matter if these people are allowed a platform? surely all the intelligent people there will understand their view point and reject it. wouldnt the intelligent way be to allow this and the debate? is there any difference between hearing the person in real time and reading about their viewpoint? because everyone will either accept their viewpoint, or reject it.

 

i dont think it will help the jewish or muslims if these people are 'hushed up' and gagged, i think everyone would want to make up their own minds.

 

did the christians throw a hissy fit when richard dawkins gave a speech there?...

 

I dunno man, I take your point that (hopefully) the intelligent people there will shoot down their arguments in flames, but given the fact that Oxford Uni is sorta full of right-wing Hooray Henry types, I aint so sure., and there's the point that with it being Oxford it might lend a bit of totally unwarranted, undeserved respectability to these scummy individuals...

 

I'd just LOVE to see Griffin give a speech somewhere like MY old Uni - London Met with students of over 100 different nationalities, that would be an interesting thing to see.... :lol: :lol:

 

 

i dont think though that they will recruit anyone that isnt half fascist anyway! lol..

difficult one this.... surely in the case for free speech and intelligent debate does it matter if these people are allowed a platform? surely all the intelligent people there will understand their view point and reject it. wouldnt the intelligent way be to allow this and the debate? is there any difference between hearing the person in real time and reading about their viewpoint? because everyone will either accept their viewpoint, or reject it.

 

i dont think it will help the jewish or muslims if these people are 'hushed up' and gagged, i think everyone would want to make up their own minds.

 

did the christians throw a hissy fit when richard dawkins gave a speech there?...

I agree that it's difficult. Back in my student days, I suspect I would have voted against allowing people like Irving and Griffin to speak. However, now I would agree with you in saying that the students would have the nous to see through their puerile arguments.

As a jew while I would love to see Irving and Griffin tortured to within an inch of their lives and then tortured again it is not up to us to play censor regardless of their repugnant views. The BNP is vile racist scum but are a legalised political party so they are entitled their opinion as much as tories, labour, lib dems are and Irvine while he is beneath a cockroach in terms of value to this planet again I think he is entitled to his views

I suppose it depends where you draw the line as to what's "free speech" and what is just wrong. I mean can a pedophile claim "free speech" when they publicly express their sexual desires for young children? Of course not. Is racism as socially-unacceptable as pedophilia? Well there's some debate as to that now evidently.

 

I despise this notion that everything should be allowed to be debated in the name of "free speech" and protecting this right to "free speech" and letting people air their extremist views just so people can hear what "pillocks" they are. Its all a bit too politically correct for my taste. :/

well actually paedos can voice their opinions, they have on jeremy kyle recently, they dont often do it though because theyd get beaten up! lol.

 

if we live in a free country then free speech must be allowed, no matter how abhorrent their views may be.

I suppose it depends where you draw the line as to what's "free speech" and what is just wrong. I mean can a pedophile claim "free speech" when they publicly express their sexual desires for young children? Of course not. Is racism as socially-unacceptable as pedophilia? Well there's some debate as to that now evidently.

 

I despise this notion that everything should be allowed to be debated in the name of "free speech" and protecting this right to "free speech" and letting people air their extremist views just so people can hear what "pillocks" they are. Its all a bit too politically correct for my taste. :/

I'm confuesd by your use of the term "politically correct". Surely if these two ghastly people had ben prevented from expressing their odious views, that would have been denounced by some as "politically correct".

 

Of course free speech has its limits (the standard example is the one about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre) but censoring these people will only encourage them to portray themselves as martyrs.

^ By "politically correct" I mean this rising, silly notion that these people should be allowed to talk so we can 'defeat them with our correct non-racist ways'. It's all very silly imo.

 

Well portray themselves as martyrs they will but what difference will that make in the grand scheme of people's thinking. Do you suggest that through their martyrdom people will be drawn to them and become racist bigots?

As a jew while I would love to see Irving and Griffin tortured to within an inch of their lives and then tortured again it is not up to us to play censor regardless of their repugnant views. The BNP is vile racist scum but are a legalised political party so they are entitled their opinion as much as tories, labour, lib dems are and Irvine while he is beneath a cockroach in terms of value to this planet again I think he is entitled to his views

 

Well, presumably that means you believe that the likes of Abu Hamza and those other "hate preachers" are entitled to their views as well mate.... In which case, why is Hamza in prison while Griffin walks free as a bird....? Both of these individuals are as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly do NOT share your rather liberal view that the BNP should be treated as a "legitimate" political party.... They're a bunch of hatemongers, just because they wear nice tailored suits instead of bovver boots and combat jackets does NOT make them any more respectable than a skinhead with a swastika tatooed on his forehead as far as I'm concerned..... <_<

 

I was in the Anti-Nazi League when I was younger, I was on demos against this lot, I KNOW who these people really are...

Well, presumably that means you believe that the likes of Abu Hamza and those other "hate preachers" are entitled to their views as well mate.... In which case, why is Hamza in prison while Griffin walks free as a bird....? Both of these individuals are as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly do NOT share your rather liberal view that the BNP should be treated as a "legitimate" political party.... They're a bunch of hatemongers, just because they wear nice tailored suits instead of bovver boots and combat jackets does NOT make them any more respectable than a skinhead with a swastika tatooed on his forehead as far as I'm concerned..... <_<

 

I was in the Anti-Nazi League when I was younger, I was on demos against this lot, I KNOW who these people really are...

 

They are not a BANNED party Scott so as long as that is the case then they are entitled to voice their view, whether I think the BNP should be banned is a different matter but in the eyes of the law they are entitled even to take out party political broadcasts on tv and campaign like any other party so I don't sit comfortably with the idea of silencing a totally legal party however vile and abhorrent their views

 

Hamza is an individual who was preaching hate from a mosque he was not a political party or political leader, Griffin heads a legalised political party albeit a vile one so as long as the BNP is a legal party then Griffin should be allowed to say what he wants

Edited November 29, 200717 yr by Vic Vega

Hamza is an individual who was preaching hate from a mosque he was not a political party or political leader, Griffin heads a legalised political party albeit a vile one so as long as the BNP is a legal party then Griffin should be allowed to say what he wants

 

I'm afraid this is where you and I beg to differ my friend... I dont regard the BNP as being "legit" in the slightest.. A bunch of fukkin' Neo-Nazi mutherfukkers get together, call themselves a "political party" or whatever, does NOT make them any different to what they were before they formed the party.... So, basically what you;re saying is if Hamza had formed a "political party" and gone a "bit respectable", albeit still pukeing out the same hate-filled spite, that'd be perfectly legal and above board by you....? It's simply double standards in my book, and I can totally see why a young, radicalised British muslim would be inclined to believe that the system is anti-muslim and pro-nazi if it lets the likes of Griffin off the hook....

 

Man, the Nazis were a "legit" political party too at one point...... <_<

It is up to the courts and parliament to ban the BNP, if they did I would fully support it as such views of Griffin have no place in a civilised society but until such time as the BNP is banned they should have the same rights as any other party do, ban the BNP and membership of the BNP ? great idea, but until it is done then Griffin should be entitled to the same freedom of speech as Brown, Cameron and so on

It is up to the courts and parliament to ban the BNP, if they did I would fully support it as such views of Griffin have no place in a civilised society but until such time as the BNP is banned they should have the same rights as any other party do, ban the BNP and membership of the BNP ? great idea, but until it is done then Griffin should be entitled to the same freedom of speech as Brown, Cameron and so on

 

I think in the interests of balance, the BNP should be a banned organisation....

 

I think in the interests of balance, the BNP should be a banned organisation....

 

then you WOULD see riots.... whilst most level headed english do not support the bnp's extreme views i reckon theres a large percentage of the population who do support SOME of there policies, and their right to exist.

 

just watch the next election and see how many protest votes the bnp gets.

 

id suggest that if a party was formed based on 'toned down' bnp policies.... theyd p*** the next election, trust me, theres growing discontent over the riddiculous number of immigants here and the main parties seem totaly incapeable of controling immigration. bottom line.... we CANNOT continue having an open door policy, this little island just isnt able to cope with the sudden rise in population..... and yes i think its also high time birth control amongst our chav community in particular was tackled.

then you WOULD see riots.... whilst most level headed english do not support the bnp's extreme views i reckon theres a large percentage of the population who do support SOME of there policies, and their right to exist.

 

id suggest that if a party was formed based on 'toned down' bnp policies....

 

I've been on protests against the NF/BNP, they're evil Rob, pure evil, as bad as Hook boy Hamza and the Jihadi Hate Crew, anyone who defends them or votes for them is scum, simple as...

 

The Tory or UKIP parties pretty much has "toned down" BNP policies though surely.... :unsure:

 

then you WOULD see riots.... whilst most level headed english do not support the bnp's extreme views i reckon theres a large percentage of the population who do support SOME of there policies, and their right to exist.

 

just watch the next election and see how many protest votes the bnp gets.

 

id suggest that if a party was formed based on 'toned down' bnp policies.... theyd p*** the next election, trust me, theres growing discontent over the riddiculous number of immigants here and the main parties seem totaly incapeable of controling immigration. bottom line.... we CANNOT continue having an open door policy, this little island just isnt able to cope with the sudden rise in population..... and yes i think its also high time birth control amongst our chav community in particular was tackled.

 

I totally agree.

 

It really says something when UK university educated & nationalised first generation immigrants Katie Melua & Myleene Klass make the same points on BBC1 The Politics Show & Radio5 Live respectively within the last few days.

 

As Myleene Klass rightly pointed out in reference to a certain vilification of Stephen Patrick Morrissey, if a white person expressed that opinion they'd be labelled a racist by the politically correct left-wing media.

 

Whilst Katie Melua expressed her amazement at the way the majority christian caucasian population are oppressed from expressing their opinions, such as celebrating St George's day for fear of being accused of being Nationalistic and hence a step away from the BNP. She also sited the current numbers of immigrants coming into the UK is unsustainable on the already over stretched infrastructure, where the UK has the highest levels of taxation, the most congested roads, the highest cost of public transport, the highest cost of houses in the Western World and now the fastest growing population largely thanks to the influx of Eastern European immigrants post 2004.

 

She also expressed her amazement at the hypocrisy of the British left wing media who think the BNP should be banned, whilst being utterly apologetic for Islamic Fundamentalism such as Sharia law where males are regarded as having the same say as two females; adult males can have sex with minors (if you are a Christian you'd be labelled a paedophile); homosexuality is illegal & those who practise it should be executed; a no tolerance of any other religious denominations; rape victims have little to no right and are often blamed & further punished for encouraging males to violate them......

 

In short if it was the choice between the BNP's beliefs & Islamic Fundamentalism, then the BNP (although clearly racist & vile) is the lesser of two evils.

and yes i think its also high time birth control amongst our chav community in particular was tackled.

 

 

Well, I'd rather see that than hard working immigrants being turfed out.. And if you were to ask me if I'd rather have the chavs or the immigrants chucked out the country, I'd choose the former option for definite.... It's Chav/Ned "culture" regardless of whatever race or creed these maggost are that's grown to an increase in criminality and a lack of respect than it is the hard working immigrant community....

 

And you couldn't realistically do anything to stop French, Germans, Poles, Scandinavians or other EU citizens coming here anyway, we've signed the Treaty of Rome, and I for one am glad of that (as I suspect Morrissey is in reality also..), I like having the freedom of choice where I want to live and work within Europe.. I am European after all.... You could only really stop the folks from outside the EU from getting in, and yeah, that would include Americans, Aussies, South Africans, Canadians, Israelis etc, they may speak English, but they are NOT Europeans, therefore should have to meet whatever criteria that would be set for Asians, Africans or Arabs..... So long as the policy and criteria is fair for ALL those from outwith the EU, then I have no problems with that, I would only have problems if favouratism was shown to white Americans, Aussies, Canadians or South Africans..... You dont actually realise the amount of "invisible" immigration that there is from those particular countries because they're white and predominately speak English, but, trust me, there are MANY thousands of Americans, Australians, etc emigrating here, you just dont notice it, but if you went to the centre of, say, Edinburgh, about every second person you'd hear talking would be an Aussie or Kiwi.... A national newspaper actually placed the numbers of US and Australian immigration for the past five years ahead of countries like Pakistan....