The Oxford Union Debate Fiasco

[Largest of Als]

OK, incase anyone missed this in the news..

A debate at the Oxford Union was disrupted when protesters forced their way into a building.
BNP leader Nick Griffin and controversial historian David Irving were invited to talk about free speech.

Thirty protesters pushed their way into the debating chamber to stage a protest about the inclusion of the two men.

Between 800 and 1,000 protestors held a demonstration outside the gates of the building but the debate eventually began about one-and-a-half hours late.

Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/7113984.stm


So, here's the question..

In a debate on free speach, arent the protestors, using intimidation and physical tactics to try and prevent the debate from happening, worse than the people they are trying to stop talking?

Whether you agree that Nick Griffin is a facist idiot or not, surely he has the right, in the society in which we live, to be able to speak his mind as long as he's not actually directly inciting violence.

Wasnt it the protestors, who tried to prevent free speach by stopping the debate, who were employing the tactics of a dictatorship by now letting their opponents have their say?

I may be simplifying this a little, but you get my point..


Al

[MarkMono]

Little more complex than that, the whole things a rather sad publicity stunt by a student union woefully short on funds.

No-one should be denied their right to freedom of speech, but that really isn't the issue here.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

In a debate on free speach, arent the protestors, using intimidation and physical tactics to try and prevent the debate from happening, worse than the people they are trying to stop talking?

Yes, but I'm in no hurry to give them a platform; the point you make is best left as a theoretical one.

Doubt there are too many people who would have been allowed access to the debate who are likely to have their opinions altered by listening to nick griffin but even the reports on the news give him some prominence which we'd be better off denying him I think.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by djtoast

Doubt there are too many people who would have been allowed access to the debate who are likely to have their opinions altered by listening to nick griffin but even the reports on the news give him some prominence which we'd be better off denying him I think.

But surely, if there hadnt been the huge protest, most of the country wouldnt have heard anything about this debate, so the protesters have actually given him the prominence they were protesting against him being given in the first place, defeating their own purpose?


Al

[MarkMono]

It was mentioned in the guardian last week, prior to the protest.

If you want to blame anyone for giving prominence to the individuals in question, blame the organisers.

[Addy]

These people attempting to get their voices heard is one thing - because they are indefensible, people will ignore them for the most part provided they aren't given a large platform on which to give them. As they have been here. The protestors have undoubtedly made things worse by giving more prominence to it, but the original mistake was on the part of the Union.

[Largest of Als]

The protests and all the coveage on the TV gave them much more attention that they would have recieved from a piece in The Guardian.

I dont care much for Mr Griffin, or his politics, but I still think he has the right to free speach.. i just dont have to listen.

If it had been BNP members mobbing a supposedly free debate, heckling and getting physical, then everyone would have been up in arms about their 'facist bully boy' tactics.


Al

[JennyPiccolo]

Had a very similar situation with the bnp wishing to speak at Strathclyde Union a few years ago. It was decided that to allow them to speak would be in breach of the Students' Association Equal Opportunities Policy. As students' unions are government funded, they really need to stick to the rules in place, otherwise they are liable to prosecution and/or a lack of funding.

It's only a matter of time before the BNP are caught in the act and charged under the incitement of racial hatred, in my opinion. Find me an institution who wants to be able to say they let that happen.

[¡Punk!]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

OK, incase anyone missed this in the news..



Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/7113984.stm


So, here's the question..

In a debate on free speach, arent the protestors, using intimidation and physical tactics to try and prevent the debate from happening, worse than the people they are trying to stop talking?

Al

But aren't the protesters using their right to free speech and right to protest as they see fit?

[JennyPiccolo]

Well, precisely.

[Cat]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

Little more complex than that, the whole things a rather sad publicity stunt by a student union woefully short on funds.

No-one should be denied their right to freedom of speech, but that really isn't the issue here.

Mark has nailed it.

Incidentally, the Oxford Union is a private members debating society, not the official student union. The student union, OUSU, has a no platform policy for Nick Griffin and David Irving, although it's been questioned recently. There's mainly anger towards Luke Tryll for extending the invitation in the first place, which seems to have been motivation by personal ambition and desire for publicity, like Mark said. Unsurprising for the Oxford Union, which is largely comprised of self-congratulatory careerist twats.

[Dec]

Everyone that goes to Universities like these is a racist anyway.

[Kenny Everett]

Dec, you should apply for a lecturing post.

Learn motherfuckers tha' hist'ry