Do you think Holocaust denier David Irving and the BNP leader Nick Griffin should of been invited to Speak.?

Question

Protest were held outside and inside Oxford University Student Union debate?

Answer 1

Yes they should, as much as I disagree with what they have to say and there arguments for saying it. In a democratic society that cherishes free speech its the right thing to do, then you would be able to answer there propaganda with facts and be able to see them for what they are.

Just like watching a bad TV program if you don't like it you turn the Chanel over, you don't protest outside the TV studio complaining about it.

the power is in your hands, as not ever one you meet will like what you say, does that mean you should not say it? or have someone stopping you from talking on the off chance you might offend them!

better yet lets not talk at all then no-one would be able to offend anyone... and that's not going to happen...

it's one of the side affects of free speech, you will not like everything that people say or how they say it but they have the right to say it so long as it does not incite racial or religious hatred or bigotry. that's the law

Answer 2

A) He ought to have been legitimatly invited. yet Griffin lied. It became into no longer all of the hoo haa from Johnson, this got here till now, because of the fact the London assembly member went to the clicking and informed them. Griffin is employing the full sufferer element to attempt and win votes. he's not a sufferer. i'm getting the full time that there is a media conspiracy. Erm, if the writers and the readers all hate the BNP, then it extremely is not suprising is it? Plus, they self sell themselves employing the QUEEN, the non-political queen who should not be used for such issues. that's so unbritish that's superb. B) CHurch leaders are in touch because of the fact the BNP is making an attempt to apply the church, besides because of the fact the queen. that's hypocracy. C) Tolerance and braveness. Hmm, no person says this with reference to the leaders of alternative events that have a hundred circumstances greater of this than Griffin gets. Brown is ridiculed all of the time for a fashion he looks, does he come out and visit the newspaper's point? D) ethical fortitude? there is not any longer something ethical in racism, anti-semitism of xenaphobia. that's noted as lack of expertise! yet, as quickly as you have end moaning and whining, endure in ideas this. The greater fulfillment the BNP has, the greater they are going to be interior the media spotlight, the greater they would be afflicted by this. Get used to it. the clicking would be throughout them on the standard election if the BNP get a single seat on the ecu election. then you definately can whine your heart out approximately how hard that's to be a racist interior the united kingdom, it is so unfair that your acceptable to declare terrible issues approximately black human beings is being taken away by employing those dastardly politicians.

Answer 3

Who do you fear most .. the exercise of free speech from a person whose views you are freely able to reject or ignore if they do not coincide with your own
or
those who use violence, force, throw missiles and damage other peoples property to enforce 'their right' to deny free speech by demonstrating, seemingly forgetting that demonstrations should be peaceful and within the law.
Although I think I know the views of Irving & Griffin I have never actually heard what they have to say or why and therefore would find it very difficult to explain to other open minded people the weaknesses or failings in their words and why I ( presumably ) disagree with them.

Answer 4

Oxygen of publicity?

I think they should be denied the oxygen of oxygen. (Stolen from the much missed Linda Smith)

This is a difficult one. My belief in free speech is probably stronger than my loathing for this odious pair. Personally, I wouldn't have invited them to speak at any function I was organising, and had I been a member, I would have resigned from the Oxford Union in protest at their invitation. But refusing to let them speak is anti-democratic and counter-productive. Better to let them speak then challenge their hate politics publicly.

Leaving them to speak to an empty room would have been far more effective

Answer 5

why not?.....I'm not afraid of debate. its healthy, its informative IF! you are prepared to listen. if your not prepared to listen then surely you forgo the right to ask this question. and why do you call the man holocaust denier? most muslim leaders deny the holocaust. so why give him! the title?.......there are millions of people around the world that deny the holocaust. to be honest i wouldnt mind hearing the mans reasoning at all. and i would be very interested to listen to Nick Griffin taking on the oxford debating society. why is every one so afraid open debate? its quite sad.....and a little bit unnerving.

Answer 6

I'm for Freedom of Speech. End of.

I'm not scared of debate. Best way to counteract views you find offensive is to argue them down.

Answer 7

yes or course they should. We either have free speech or we don't. Nick Griffin is the only politician who speaks up for English people at the moment, and for that he's got my vote.

Answer 8

i find the situation unreal all this fuss about bnp s beliefs, and yet are government has allowed us to become the biggest terrorists on this war on terrorism, plus are poor troops sent like lambs to the slaughter. i can only imagine what they are gonna say way ahead in the future about our government

Answer 9

Yes they should, that's whats free speech is all about , otherwise how would anyone ever get to know opposing views. besides why should a mob be allowed to say who speaks,,.

Answer 10

They should be given more right to speak than any politician in government.. cos the BNP is on Britains side and are trying to stop britain becoming the worlds doormat..

and also don`t forget, our own government are denying the existence of World War 1 and 2, by removing it from the schools syllabus..