BNP to speak to Oxford students

[Solaris]

The Oxford Union has voted to let the British National Party (BNP) leader and a controversial historian speak at a free speech event on Monday. Despite opposition, the Oxford Union Debating Society members voted by a margin of 2 to 1 to continue to extend an invite to the BNP's Nick Griffin.
David Irving, who was jailed for Holocaust denial, will also be invited.
The move was opposed by the Oxford Student Union and the university's Muslim and Jewish societies.
The Oxford Union Debating Society said it was important to give people of all views a platform.
Luke Tryl, president of the society, said: "The men were not being given a platform to extol their views, but were coming to talk about the limits for free speech.
"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."

Source

I think this is terrible. I hope Sulkdodds will be outside placards in hand.

Whilst I do think people such as Nick Griffin and David Irving should be able to say what they say, it is important that we do not give them a platform that make's their views look legitimate.

The BNP should not be allowed to participate in any debate or speak at any event becuase it legitimizes them. Whilst they try and claim they are respectable, we all know secretly they are racist bigots and if elected they would create another holocaust.

 

[Asknoone]

It's not going to be a smooth ride for the speakers.

 

[jondy]

Sulkdodds lives in/goes to Oxford?

 

[Solaris]

Yes Yes

 

[Gray Fox]

What does he study exactly?

 

[Crushenator 500]

Public speaking

 

[lePobz]

Why is it terrible? Let them say what they have to say. Just because you don't agree with what they say doesnt mean they shouldnt have a right to say it - that's how dictatorships are formed. And having a platform that makes their views look legitimate? It's a free speech event ... I guess the whole point of it is to get controversial speakers... It's not making them look any more legitimate - If you want to piss on that bonfire, go and talk of your love for the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Solaris]

Why is it terrible? Let them say what they have to say. Just because you don't agree with what they say doesnt mean they shouldnt have a right to say it - that's how dictatorships are formed. And having a platform that makes their views look legitimate? It's a free speech event ... I guess the whole point of it is to get controversial speakers... It's not making them look any more legitimate - If you want to piss on that bonfire, go and talk of your love for the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm not saying they should be illegal. Just groups should boycott them completely give them no platform to spread their hate.

I would never share a platform with a Nazi, it legitimizes them.

Will they let me attend and shout out "I hate pakis!!!". If so then I say let the BNP attend, but if not, they're just making the BNP look respectable, when we all know every vile word they spout is just a cover for "we hate pakis"!!

 

[Crushenator 500]

I hate pakis!!!

Someone should sig that ;p

 

[Evo]

Why is it terrible? Let them say what they have to say. Just because you don't agree with what they say doesnt mean they shouldnt have a right to say it - that's how dictatorships are formed. And having a platform that makes their views look legitimate? It's a free speech event ... I guess the whole point of it is to get controversial speakers... It's not making them look any more legitimate - If you want to piss on that bonfire, go and talk of your love for the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm with Pobzy here

And to say that the BNP would start a holocaust is just bullcrap, the British public wouldn't let something like that occcur, and even if it was kept 'secret' someone would let it out.

Now i personally would love something like this to occur in UWIC so I could have a proper listen to what they have to say and debate with them.

Would you be saying the same thing if this was UKIP Solaris?

 

[nurizeko]

I would never share a platform with a Nazi, it legitimizes them.

Facists don't need a platform, they'll just preach to the proles who will listen.

I think the lesson is that, an ideology doesn't need a pedestal and loudspeaker to spread its hate.

All it needs is one ear, and the rolling stone is set lose.

On the other hand allowing them to speak at such events give others a chance to pick holes in their opinion and beliefs until all but the most plank headed of individuals can see them and their ideas for what they are.


Taking all that into account the only real valid objection is the potential to cause severe offense, but some would argue that freedom of speech is to have the right to offend.


Oh well.

 

[Evo]

I would never share a platform with a Nazi, it legitimizes them.

Are you comparing the BNP to the Nazi's? Can you explain why?

The BNP is extreme is some of its views yes, but if you are comparing them to the Nazi's

 

[Solaris]

Are you comparing the BNP to the Nazi's? Can you explain why?

The BNP is extreme is some of its views yes, but if you are comparing them to the Nazi's

Then you've simply fallen for their masque as a respectable party. If you meet a grass roots BNP supporter you'd see what I mean. BNP high figures have been documented as admiring hitler, Nick Griffin refers to the holocaust as the 'holo-hoax'.

They are utter scumbags, their supporters go around stabbing asian young men and throwing bricks through asians windows. My town Burnley used to have the BNP as the opposition on it's town council I know what these people are like.

 

[Evo]

Then you've simply fallen for their masque as a respectable party. If you meet a grass roots BNP supporter you'd see what I mean. BNP high figures have been documented as admiring hitler, Nick Griffin refers to the holocaust as the 'holo-hoax'.

They are utter scumbags, their supporters go around stabbing asian young men and throwing bricks through asians windows. My town Burnley used to have the BNP as the opposition on it's town council I know what these people are like.

Have they? Ah didn't know they had been documented as admiring Hitler or that violence against Asians had been directly attributed to the BNP membership.

 

[Solaris]

Have they? Ah didn't know they had been documented as admiring Hitler or that violence against Asians had been directly attributed to the BNP membership.

In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions".[59]

Just read the wikipage on them, they are disgusting.

 

[Evo]

Just read the wikipage on them, they are disgusting.

No point reading a Wiki page on a party like the BNP as it would either be full of pro- or anti-BNP crap, won't find the truth to save your soul in it.

 

[Mr Stabby]

They should be allowed to speak

 

[repiV]

What makes anyone the judge of whether or not someone's views are legitimate?
The whole basis of democracy is that everyone decides for themselves who is legitimate and who isn't.
The only reason the BNP are managing to gain support is because the major political parties are so completely inept and afraid to even discuss the real issues, let alone tackle them. The BNP offer SOME kind of solution, which is why they have followers.
A rise in support for the BNP is only the natural result of having free and open debate being stifled by political correctness and authoritarianism for years.
There's a much more serious problem here than whether or not the BNP get to speak, and that's the fact that the abject failure of our political system has given parties like the BNP a monopoly on addressing certain key issues.

 

[Gray Fox]

Public speaking

But they don't have any courses in public speaking.

 

[Solaris]

He studies English.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Sadly, thats the price of free speech.
BNP are a bunch of racist wankers who need to be slapped with a fish IMO.

 

[Asknoone]

Tada!

 

[Evo]

Tada!

Tada!

:imu:

 

[Gray Fox]

He studies English.

Thank you.

 

[Eejit]

Luke Tryl, president of the society, said: "The men were not being given a platform to extol their views, but were coming to talk about the limits for free speech.
"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."

AKA "We want to rip them apart."?

 

[Solaris]

MP quits union over BNP speaker

A Tory MP has resigned from The Oxford Union in protest at its decision to invite two controversial figures to a free speech event on Monday.

Shadow defence minister and MP for New Forest East Dr Julian Lewis said the students should be "ashamed".


The MP, who studied at Balliol and St Antony's colleges, said the right to free speech should not guarantee access to privileged platforms.
"Nothing which happens in Monday's debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored," he said.
"It is sheer vanity on your part to imagine that any argument you deploy, or any vote you carry will succeed in causing them damage.

Nick Griffin and David Irving are due to speak at the Oxford Union


"They have been exposed and discredited time and again by people vastly more qualified than you in arenas hugely more suited to the task than an undergraduate talking-shop, however venerable."
Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "I think it is an absolute disgrace.
"As a former president of the National Union of Students I'm ashamed that this has happened.
"This is not a question of freedom of speech, this is a juvenile provocation."

source
I applaud this man. Read what he said, that's exactly how I feel.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Exactly how I feel. The BNP need to be raped. By immigrants.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Letting Irving and Griffin speak, is no different than letting Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad speak, which should all be allowed.

They will benefit very little from this, if at all.

 

[Solaris]

Letting Irving and Griffin speak, is no different than letting Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad speak, which should all be allowed.

They will benefit very little from this, if at all.

They will benefit massively from this. It's generated loads of publicity and it gives them a platform to put forward their hate. It benifits them becuase it supports the image they would like to put forward of themselves as a respectable party who can have reasoned discussions when in fact they are nothing more than bigoted thugs who's views have been discredited by people of far more esteem than the Oxford students they will be debating against.

The BNP are not worthy of such a platform and it is a disgrace to treat them as if they were.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That's how freedom works, people are allowed to express their opinions.

 

[Solaris]

That's how freedom works, people are allowed to express their opinions.

Yes they are.

But as the MP said:

the right to free speech should not guarantee access to privileged platforms. "Nothing which happens in Monday's debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored,

 

[Mr Stabby]

Your objection to them being there is due to what they will say, is it not? Regardless of how speech is defined by law, that's still opposing their freedom of speech.

They don't have the right to the venue, they were invited.

 

[Solaris]

Your objection to them being there is due to what they will say, is it not? Regardless of how speech is defined by law, that's still opposing their freedom of speech.

They don't have the right to the venue, they were invited.

No it isn't at all.

My objection is not what they will say, it is the credibility it will lend to them by the mere fact that they will be there at all. In the UAF (Unite against Facism) we try and expose the BNP for the thugs they are. Along with the national union of students and other groups UAF advocate a 'no platform' policy. Whilst respecting their rights to say what they want, they are not invited to any debate or discussion becuase it legitimizes them as a political party. When in reality they are racist bigoted thugs who try and put on a veil of respectability. The Oxford Union are helping them acheive this by inviting them to speak, no matter how trashed they are in the debate, they will still have benefited from it becuase it legitimizes them.

 

[repiV]

No it isn't at all.

My objection is not what they will say, it is the credibility it will lend to them by the mere fact that they will be there at all. In the UAF (Unite against Facism) we try and expose the BNP for the thugs they are. Along with the national union of students and other groups UAF advocate a 'no platform' policy. Whilst respecting their rights to say what they want, they are not invited to any debate or discussion becuase it legitimizes them as a political party. When in reality they are racist bigoted thugs who try and put on a veil of respectability. The Oxford Union are helping them acheive this by inviting them to speak, no matter how trashed they are in the debate, they will still have benefited from it becuase it legitimizes them.

Yet you'd be sitting there complaining if Fidel Castro was barred from speaking at an event. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Solaris]

Yet you'd be sitting there complaining if Fidel Castro was barred from speaking at an event. You can't have your cake and eat it.

He's not motivated by bigotry and hate. At worst, he's motivated by a misguided dream for a more equal world for all.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Legitimizes them to who? The people that don't know the BNP are a far-right party are the same people that are entirely unaware of Oxford debates. They're already becoming a legitimate political party, they have council seats, they are popular among working class whites in some areas, which implies there is an underlying problem in working class areas, that an Oxford debate will have little impact on.

Freedom of speech requires a platform from which to speak, freedom to speak only in private, is not freedom at all. Blocking them from a platform, they were invited too, is blocking their freedom of speech.

 

[Mr Stabby]

He's not motivated by bigotry and hate. At worst, he's motivated by a misguided dream for a more equal world for all.

So you admit you want them blocked from expressing their views, because you don't agree with them?

 

[Nemesis6]

He's not motivated by bigotry and hate. At worst, he's motivated by a misguided dream for a more equal world for all.

That's an interesting point of view - Because the BNP, no matter their political beliefs, have not killed people. Fidel has.

 

[repiV]

He's not motivated by bigotry and hate. At worst, he's motivated by a misguided dream for a more equal world for all.

What he's "motivated by" is extremely irrelevant. He's a tyrant, and no amount of your bullshit will change that. The BNP would do a far better job of governing this country than ****ing Castro.

Besides which, do you have any actual evidence to demonstrate that the BNP really are motivated by bigotry and hate, other than your suspicions or your "common sense"?

You whine about one breed of tyrant and support another (hey, it's cool when Ken Livingstone visits his best buddy Chavez but how dare Thatcher speak with Pinochet). You support people far worse than a political party that has no hope in hell of ever being elected. And by the way, you're also motivated by bigotry and hate - you just don't realise it or you justify your bigotry to yourself.

 

[Solaris]

Legitimizes them to who? The people that don't know the BNP are a far-right party are the same people that are entirely unaware of Oxford debates. They're already becoming a legitimate political party, they have council seats, they are popular among working class whites in some areas, which implies there is an underlying problem in working class areas, that an Oxford debate will have little impact on.

Freedom of speech requires a platform from which to speak, freedom to speak only in private, is not freedom at all. Blocking them from a platform, they were invited too, is blocking their freedom of speech.

My issue is that they should never have been invited to it.

Imagine if they didn't put up this respectable facade, instead whenever asked about anything they said the most vile, racist filth imaginable. Do you think they would even have been invited? Would that not be blocking their freedom of speech?

Of course, if they were invited, it wouldn't matter, no-one would think "Well he's a blatent racist anti-semite who would like to gass asian children to death... but he spoke at oxford so must be respectable". Whereas with their respectable facade, inviting them to Oxford means the sort of person with the "I'm not a racist but..." mentality is more likely to vote for them.

It's a disgrace to the university that they are there too, cleary if they did just shout racist filth undressed, no-one would object to them not being invited. But with their facade, by inviting them, the University are accepting the facade as truth.