Do you feel the two speakers should have been invited to air their views at the Oxford debate last night?

Question

I believe in free speech, but I can't understand why they were invited to speak, one of them said he had been invited seven times previously and it was scrapped seven times. Who keeps inviting him? Being given this distinguished platform is an honour that should not have been bestowed on them, IMO.

Nick W - they can say what they like in their own time and palce, but not be invited to such a prominent stage, these people are our future leaders and heads of industry etc, being influenced by the likes of these discredited, vile men.

No need to 'deny' them anything, do you consider yourself 'denied' because you have not been invited to speak there (I'm making an assumption here)?

Answer 1

No I don't think they should have been invited. Free speech does not give you a right to speak at the Union, otherwise we would have flat-earthers and geocentrics there. And it should have been obvious from the start that this was going to be turned into a circus. Wherever Nick Griffin goes, his thugs follow him, and many students were terrified to go out last night lest they be attacked by racists (as some were). There seems to be little in the newspapers about the students who have received death threats or been attacked by BNP supporters, but plenty of hyperbole about the actions of protesters. The far-right have once again portrayed themselves as victims when in fact the levels of aggression from the protesters (many of whom were not Oxford students) was far less than the level of aggression shown by many of the far right supporting the event. Student safety from the BNP is one of the main reasons many opposed the debate.

As for your second question, the people who keep inviting them are people from the Union who want to get their names in the newspapers. Nothing to do with free speech. Both Irving and the BNP have showed they have no interest in that by trying to sue those criticising them and, in the case of the BNP, sending death threats to students who dare to call them what they are - ridiculous.

Answer 2

Then it shows what you think already of our future leaders if you believe that these two people would influence the listeners so easily!!

People should be heard - like you wish to be here - if people dislike that then they can either debate or turn away. There is no point in turning away debate on this scale because by doing so simply stiffles and by doing this would *then* influence others simply on the grounds that they to, one day, may want to speak out about issues that some may have a problem hearing - what a dangerous game to play.

Answer 3

I too wonder who invites them, though it is true that they will continue their campaign in pubs and clubs and on the street. Decent folks will not take notice of them where ever they speak. Free speech should mean just that. If we pick and choose what we can or cannot say then free speech suffers yet another blow. We only have to consider the banning of the innocent word: blackboard; is the word Chrismas to follow? But it is a fact that free speech also means that many people's feelings will be hurt every day for whatever reason.
Ps. I've got news for Kamram: the two follows, or anyone else for that matter, will not be gassed if you send them to Germany.

Answer 4

Let them speak their rubbish all they want. We live in a democratic, free speech society. The key point is that the 'future leaders' et al would surely be intelligent enough to understand that this brand of racism should not influence them. If it does, then they're not the kind of person I want as a future leader! Personally, I'd happily let them speak, then shoot them down verbally in the debate, which would do far more to destroy any credibility they might have had than to deny them the opportunity to speak. Denying them would only result in causing the curious to seek out the message and try to see what it's all about. Get it out in the open and then demonstrate that their policies and thoughts have no place in a civilised society.

Answer 5

Besides Freedom of Speech, there is also freedom of academic studies. As long as it doesn't cross the line of moral, researchers can do their research and present their views. Even though they may cross the line of moral, they may get permit from senate and get their research under-control.

I think the problem is mainly about Nazism. Many people believed that Nazism is insane. It is no values to open the discussion anymore. However, the academic side is still interesting in this topic. looking at the work by the late Prof. Isaiah Berlin (Fellow of All Souls College in Oxford), he labelled Nazism as a branch of Puralism and was amazing on the magic of progressive misleading peoples to the desired. His work is continuing by Prof. Henry Hardy, a Fellow of Wolfson College in Oxford.

The power of speech by Hitler should be studied. Then, you would rethink the freedom of speech. Even GW Bush has learnt well after Hitler in progressively misleading American.

Although Hitler is bad, he gave us a good negative example so that we can be wise.

Answer 6

The Oxford debates are supposed to present opportunities for subjects that are generally contentious, to be discussed by highly educated people who are skilled in the art of polemics. Sadly such people seem to be only a tiny minority amongst the students at Oxford University nowadays.

Can these protesting buffoons not understand that they are there to learn through reading and listening to differing points of view, and then come to conclusions based hopefully on the basis of evidence unearthed or produced during the discussion that follows.

If people whose views are not popular, are not allowed to speak in such debates, how are we to know what their views and opinions really are, and by that token how can they ever be proved to be wrong!

Whilst those students who object to the two speakers concerned, should of course have the right to make a peaceful protest, they should not have the right to prevent legitimate debate by the use of force and bullying tactics. Such tactics are more usually associated with the far right protagonists who are the very people the students are stupidly protesting against!!!

Answer 7

Yes they should have been invited.
However what I would like to say is that debates take place all over the country,
peoples houses, pubs, cafes. What is so important about the Oxford Union debate anyway. Just because it is Oxford does it give it any more validity than the other debates that I have mentioned. If so why?

Answer 8

What about the Muslim extremists that spew their crap at speakers corner in London and the East London mosque to name just a couple? That is a public forum and has a wider audience than the Oxford toffs. Anyway, I think you'll find that anyone intelligent enough to get into Oxford is capable of making their own mind up and will support whatever they choose. You obviously DON'T believe in free speech or you wouldn't have asked this question.

Answer 9

Yeah I think it was wise to invite them.No good pretending people with extreme views can just be ignored.Makes more sense to hear them out,find out what makes them tick and then you'll know what you're up against and can prepare better to deal with them if they become a problem.
See no evil,hear no evil......bad idea.

Answer 10

Free speech either exists or it doesn't.

The moment the right-on protesters start to quash people from debating they become as bad as the governments they spend all their time berating.

You don't have to agree... you don't even have to listen... But you DO have to allow these people their say