November 27, 2007

The uprising against facism: Students storm Oxford Union debate

The principle that everyone is entitled to their say, however obnoxious their opinions might be, was put to the test at the Oxford Union last night as hundreds of protesters gathered to voice their disapproval of the two men from the extreme right whom the illustrious debating chamber had invited there to speak.

One of the guests, the BNP leader Nick Griffin, heads an organisation that wants to see millions of people deported from the UK because they do not regard them as truly British.

He was due to share a platform with the historian David Irving, who has courted notoriety for decades by claiming that Hitler did not give the order to commit genocide, that there were no gas chambers and that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis.

Scuffles broke out as anti-fascist groups yelled "Shame on you" at members filing into the union building, and the police shut the gates with the chamber only half full. While a handful of students crushed against the main gate to create a diversion, 30 others scaled the wall and barged past the tight security, occupying the area around the debating table until they were persuaded to leave.

"I hope we're not giving Griffin further publicity by doing this," said Peter Simpson, a student at Essex University who stormed the chamber, "but history has shown that you need to draw the line with fascists. I think a lot of people are here because they know what happened in the Second World War and they don't want it to happen again."

Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP due to join the debate, criticised Thames Valley Police for "failing to put a cordon around the Union", allowing the protestors to barge through.

"The failure of the police is outrageous," he said as he told students in the chamber of plans to split the speakers after the university authorities decided it was too dangerous to walk Mr Griffin and Mr Irving across the quadrangle to the debating hall. The police have failed to provide for the safety of this event; failed to provide for the safety of this going ahead as planned. I'm very disappointed. The police imply that they don't have enough resources to move people away from the perimeter or that it is not their job."

In order to get the debate under way, the speakers were split into two groups, with Mr Irving, jailed last year in Austria after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial, speaking in the main chamber, and Mr Griffin, convicted of incitement to racial hatred over material denying the Holocaust in 1998, in a cramped room in the main university building.

Warned to expect a maelstrom of abuse, they had avoided the main demonstration by arriving in separate black cabs, 10 minutes apart and 90 minutes early. The debate – on how far the freedom of speech should extend – finally started more than an hour late at 10pm.

Mr Irving defended accusations that his publications and speeces denied the existence of the Holocaust. "I still refuse to be bowed. I am not going to write what they want me to write. I'm going to write what I find in the archives," he said.

Across the yard, Mr Griffin went head-to-head with two student debaters. "The majority of racist attacks are on white people by members of ethnic minority communities," he said. "Those people outside are a mob and they could kill. Had they grown up in Nazi Germany they would have made splendid Nazis. Any restriction on free speech is dangerous. You start by saying people should not speak and you end up with burning people at the stake. Free speech is an absolute, it is universal."

Mr Irving, reported to have left at 10.45pm to a chorus of jeers from waiting demonstrators, said that disagreeing with some elements of the "whole package" did not make him a Holocaust denier. He had been invited to speak at the Oxford Union seven times, he said, but security fears had put paid to any chance of appearing. Speaking at the Union was something he cherished, he added, saying that the most important thing that any student listening to him could do was to think for themselves.

The president of the Oxford Union, Luke Tryl, was unconvinced. "I think David Irving came out of that looking pathetic," he said "I said in my introduction that I found his view repugnant and abhorrent because I wanted that on record."

Outside, some protesters chanted "Kill Tryl", to which the Union president said: "I don't think they do their cause any favours by inciting violence. That is my only regret."

Last night's meeting breached an unwritten agreement observed for years by the mainstream political parties – not to give the far right a public platform. Instead, it fell back on a much older principle, summed up in a maxim attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Mr Tryl, who has been under intense pressure to cancel the event, defended the decision to go ahead. He said: "David Irving and Nick Griffin have awful and abhorrent views but the best way to defeat those views is through debate.

"I remain committed to the principle that free speech has to prevail. I really worry about how the far right has been able to portray themselves as free-speech martyrs and I hope that this sort of debate will help dispel that myth – to show that the liberal mainstream are prepared to take them on and beat them in debate."

A minority of the students gathered outside the building agreed with Mr Tryl. Kudzh Ranga, a black law graduate living in the city, said he supported the right of Mr Griffin and Mr Irving to speak. "Though I don't agree with [Mr Irving's] stance on racism and the Holocaust I think it is only proper to let him come and address the general public," he said.

But most students and protesters in the street vehemently disagreed. They included Jean Kaigamba, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide. He said: "I'm flabbergasted that people who claim to be intellectuals invite extremists in the name of free speech to give them a platform and let them air their perverted view."

David Green, a former committee member of the Oxford Union, said he had resigned from the organisation in protest. "What the union is doing today is extremely irresponsible – namely giving prominence to Holocaust deniers, people who are completely discredited," he said.

Independent

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am beginning to wonder if Nick Griffin has scored a massive own goal here. When we look at the facts, despite both sides claiming victory, every news report on TV , radio and through the papers have included the words, holocost denial, extreme right and fascist whenever they mention Griffin or the BNP.
Respected students regardless whether they were for or against the no platform policy spoke of how abhorrent the views of the BNP were.

How any BNP members can claim victory baffles me.
The old adage all publicity is good publicity did,nt really work here. The average person who heard any news will now conclude that the BNP are fascist, holocost deniers and vile.

People wont remember the protests in a weeks time, they wont remember who stormed the building they will remember to associate the words fascist, extreme right etc etc whenever they hear of the BNP

In my opinion this was an egotistical publicity cock up by Griffin which can only further damage the reputation of such a repugnant party .
In a way it reminds me of the damage nazi boy Collett did.

feckin spellcheck!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I think the UAF, and the left in general, are a bit misguied on this issue if they really believe the majority of the country think they same as them. Have a look at every internet Forum discussing this subject and listen to the numerous radio debates. Overwhelmingly, the public have supported Griffin’s and Irving’s right to speak. The majority don’t agree with either man’s ideas - same here - but they have a right to say them. Why are the UAF so at odds with public opinion?

By the way, I totally agree with the post above that Griffin has scored an own goal. He should never have agreed to attend the debate with Irving. Whilst Griffin will never shake off his Holocaust-denying past, although he has made attempts to, sharing a debate - and the publicity - with Irving, has further entwined Griffin with Holocaust denial.

A spectacular own-goal for the BNP and its so-called publicity department. And as the apparent head of publicity, Mark Collett has shown yet again his utter incompetence in the 'job' he holds.

Anonymous said...

Excellent points and very well made.

Thats Irish Tony isn't it (judging by the 'feckin spellcheck' remark)? You should join the team here as a writer.

Anonymous said...

"anti-fascist groups yelled "Shame on you" at members filing into the union building"

And shame on Evan Harris appearing alongside these anti-Semitic scum.

Anonymous said...

Next time, if unfortunately they are invited to a university to speak, the protestors should litter the place with dozens of stink bombs - they don't cause actual harm, but they would make the air as intollerable as Holocaust deniers Griffin and Irving's rabid racism.

Anonymous said...

I once asked MP Harris to intervene in making a request to the newspaper in Oxford about the racist coverage about Asylum Seekers in the local newspaper, as the newspaper proprieters didn't seem to give a damn, and he didn't even bother replying.

Me thinks Mr Harris is a far right supporter himself.

Anonymous said...

"Overwhelmingly, the public have supported Griffin’s and Irving’s right to speak."

Where do you get that from? As far as I can see there is no evidence to support that statement at all unless you've been looking at the comments section of the Oxford Mail and that has been padded out by repeated calls on Stormfront to get over there and post in support of Griffin.

Frankly I don't think the vast majority of the general public give a toss either way. Griffin may be attempting to be populist in all he and his party says and does but the BNP still has less than fifty councillors out of over twenty thousand, not a sign that the BNP is grabbing the public's imagination.

Anonymous said...

Watch out, trolls are about, and they are getting more devious than ever. The poster who criticised the UAF's call for free speech and yet said he didn't agree with the BNP, adding a remark about MArk Collett for good measure doesn't fool anyone. This is actually the work of "your misinformation-friendly BNP".

No platform works, and no prestige must be given to racist neo-nazi groups like the BNP.

However much the crafty neo-nazi trolls try to divide us, it will not work.

Anonymous said...

"Next time, if unfortunately they are invited to a university to speak, the protestors should litter the place with dozens of stink bombs - they don't cause actual harm, but they would make the air as intollerable as Holocaust deniers Griffin and Irving's rabid racism."

Great idea!

Anonymous said...

Stormfront distorts democracy and preaches Odin worship.

What's with all the Norse mythology shit, you get on there from BNP members?

So much for the BNP's supposed belief in Christianity when they pray to dead Norse deities for racial tension and strife.

Anonymous said...

"And shame on Evan Harris appearing alongside these anti-Semitic scum."

Absolutely. What the hell are the Lib-Dems up to allowing this idiot to debate with fascists?

Anonymous said...

SOrry, correction: "the UAF's call for free speech should have read "the UAF's caution over free speech".

You've got the jist. Whether on here, or on the comments page of the Oxford Mail, racist trolls are increasingly using a bevvy of subterfuge and fake identities to distort genuine opinion.

Anonymous said...

The president of the Oxford Union, Luke Tryl, was unconvinced. "I think David Irving came out of that looking pathetic," he said "I said in my introduction that I found his view repugnant and abhorrent because I wanted that on record."


Then why the hell invite him? Jeez, this guy's dim.

Anonymous said...

"When we look at the facts, despite both sides claiming victory, every news report on TV , radio and through the papers have included the words, holocost denial, extreme right and fascist whenever they mention Griffin or the BNP."

You're right. Griffin has committed a pretty large faux pas by doing this - not that he'll see it that way of course. If the whole thing really was orchestrated by Mark Collett, i shouldn't imagine his comrades will be too pleased with him this morning.

Antifascist said...

We've had an extremely interesting email from Jonathan Hoffman, one of the speakers at last night's demonstration, containing a copy of an email sent to him by the celebrated Deborah Lipstadt. who successfully defended herself in court against a claim of libel from David Irving, that led to him being branded racist and anti-Semitic. Our thanks to Jonathan for forwarding this to us. The email is below.

Here is the statement I received from Deborah Lipstadt that I read out at tonight's protest. Well done to UAF and the other organisers, well done to all who came, well done to the students who worked so hard to counter this event.

To the students at Oxford: may next term be more tranquil.

"In 2000 I spent 12 weeks in court defending myself against charges of libel brought against me by David Irving. My defense team proved that David Irving, in the words of the judgment issued against Irving, "perverts," "distorts," "falsifies," "misrepresents" the facts, and, simply put, lies. The judge found his writings to be racist and antisemitic. In the end we defeated David Irving by using facts and demonstrating that nothing this man has said about the Holocaust - and many other things -- can be taken at face value.

Why should the Oxford Union give one of its coveted places to a man such as this or a man such as Nick Griffin, who spews hatred and racial prejudice? I am firm believer in free speech. In my country the much maligned First Amendment gives everyone a chance to make a complete "arse" of themselves. However, the right to free speech does not mean that everyone is deserving of a platform at the Oxford Union. If the Union wanted to debate the issue of free speech and laws against expressions of Holocaust denial and racism, there are many good people with severely opposing views who could have been invited to do so. Inviting these two men smacks of a stunt which gives them what they most need to survive: publicity.

The President of the Union has claimed that they are not being invited to spout their views. What then is there for them to say? That they have been denied the right to speak? Griffin has a platform anytime he wants it and David Irving used and abused your courts as a platform to spew his distortions of history.

Some of those who have defended the Oxford Union have called for open minds. The problem with people with open minds is that sometimes their minds are so open their brains fall out. And that is the best that can be said of the organizers of this evening's debate."

Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.
Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga

Anonymous said...

An excellent letter and yes, well done to UAF and the other organisers and to everyone who turned out to protest against these two fascists and the stupidity of the Oxford Union to invite them to a debate on 'free speech'. As if Nick Griffin would allow any of us free speech if, God help us, he ever got into a position of power.

Anonymous said...

No platform works, and no prestige must be given to racist neo-nazi groups like the BNP.

I agree with that absolutely and unconditionally.

Anonymous said...

"The President of the Union has claimed that they are not being invited to spout their views. What then is there for them to say? That they have been denied the right to speak?"

Good point.

Anonymous said...

Well spotted on the "feckin spellcheck"
As a matter of curiosity I asked a number of people this morning if they heard about the protests at Oxford University,I expressed no opinions but was most surprised with the answers
Almost everyone remarked about how it was a protest against holocost DENIERS, it was a protest about Nazis,it was a protest against the BNP

I asked about 15 people , nothing scientific here, but perhaps the media have done more damage to the BNP than we realise. Perhaps the ego of the welsh farmer has gone a step too far (again).

I suspect a major own goal scored here and I for one am delighted

irishtony

Anonymous said...

Great article (and excellent headline to it)

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the ego of the welsh farmer has gone a step too far


His ego, his arrogance and his belief that the BNP is his personal toy and bank account will end up destroying both the party and the pig farmer before long. Good riddance to both!

Anonymous said...

Millions watched this on TV Millions will now associate griffin and the BNP with fascism and holocost denial

I agree with irish tony

This is a spectacular PR disaster by the BNP

Anonymous said...

Can't say that I agree. Smacks a bit of not being able to get it stopped, so trying to make the most of it by saying that it going ahead was a good thing anyway (similar to football teams being knocked out of the cup saying that they are now pleased to be able to concentrate on the league).
Yes, the public will get an image of the BNP as being linked to fascism and holocause denial - as they are in very nearly every report they receive in the media - and it hasn't done them that much harm so far. Most people have only very vague ideas of what fascism and the holocaust wre all about anyway. It is, unfortunately, a piece of history and so something most just don't associate with at all. The majority of voters would probably think of Fascism as just another term of political abuse and, if we are honest, that is how it is used by most on the left, including those at Oxford and in UAF. Even the name UAF smacks of this; if truly against Fascism (an economic political position, not necessarily tied to race at all. Before 1933 there were large Chinese and Japonese Fawscist parties, as well as Fascist-led groups fighting for indepenance in Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia and Nigeria, as well as pro-Eusorpean (well, pro-Italian) Fascist groups amongst native Ethiopians and Abyssinians). If UAF was against Fascism, not racism, it would be aiming its gunbs at New Labour, who hold more pure Fascist policies than do the BNP.
And yes, I do realise that UAF is not arguing for controls on economic policies, only those of hatred, but their use of Fascism as a term of abuse is typical of how most people see it.
From what I have seen and heard (mainly people at work looking through the papers) the main reaction is 'why can't these lazy bastards get a job and stop wasting our taxes?' - meaning the students. Sorry, but outside of political circles, most people are seeing this as silly children throwing a strop and acting silly.
Will the BNP gain from this? Yes, of course they will. Their name has been given bigger and more prominant publicity at a national level than it has had for several years. They have, in Webster's famous words, kicked their way into the headlines again. And this time they have been able to portray themselves as the underdog, fighting against great odds and so on (yes, Fascist and holocaust dening underdogs, but still underdogs).
It has given a massive boost to the morale of their supporters, has given them the moral high ground (not nice to admit, but it is still true), has given them a veneer of intellect by the simple fact that it was at Oxford, and has brought them to the attention of potential voters on a massive scale.
I do not believe that in six months people will still be linking this event with BNP=fascist. More likely, it will be linked with bloody students=trouble. In fact, most people will not even have read the articles, just seen the headlines with slogans like BNP Attacked and pictures of groups of people starting fires, including one I have seen of a group of mostly non-white youths burning a Union Jack outside the hall.
These images are more likely to play to the advantage of the BNP.
Sorry, the own goal and dropped bollock is from Searchlight and uAF. BNP have gained publicity, possibly kick-starting their momentum once again. If the debate had been ignored, total publicity would have been about two column inches in the local Oxford weekly newspaper.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, the public will get an image of the BNP as being linked to fascism and holocause denial - as they are in very nearly every report they receive in the media - and it hasn't done them that much harm so far..."

Hasn't done them that much harm? What are you on about? If they hadn't been publicly linked with fascism and Holocaust-denial relentlessly in the media, how many councillors do you reckon they'd have by now - 200? 500? - It's only because organisations like Searchlight, UAF (both national and local), trades unions and the media keep banging away with the truth that the BNP isn't allowed to deceive the public and get away with it by hiding the worst aspects of their politics.

Anonymous said...

"Will the BNP gain from this? Yes, of course they will."

Well we're going to have to differ on this one - and I suspect your views will be at odds with virtually everyone here. Nick Griffin's repeated claims that his Holocaust-denial is all in the past will be laughed at now that he deliberately sought to share a platform with the most notorious Holocaust-denier in this country. About the only thing that has been achieved by this mess, is that it has focused a lot of minds on the demo - particularly the more pro-active aspect of it - and it has proven what anti-fascist have been stating as fact for years - that Griffin is a Holocaust denier. Face facts - the BNP have fucked up.

Anonymous said...

When French President Sarkozy takes on the rioting thugs and comes down hard on them, then they'll label him a fascist.

Then the naive public will really be confused!

Anonymous said...

"BNP have gained publicity, possibly kick-starting their momentum once again".

Now I have read your piece very carefully and understand your logic despite disagreeing with you.

However regarding the above statement the only kick the BNP can possibly get from this negative publicity is a firm kick up the arse.

Lets see how this one pans out shall we. No doubt there will be some cringing puerile gloating comments on stormfront and various right wing blogs but I firmly believe even in their tiny wisdom they will realise that the welsh farmer has yet again got himself associated with holocost denial
Bejaysus and bejabbers

Anonymous said...

as a regular visitor to this site im amazed today at the number of not very well disgused troll postings.......but its right that they have been let through so we get a good idea just where 'they' think they are going with this one.

Myself im rather flattered as a grandmother to be labled a thug and a potential killer. If thats what fighting nazis means then bring it on.

Unknown said...

In many ways this was a long-term own goal for the BNP, but I really don't think Griffin could care less about that.

His planet-sized ego notwithstanding, Griffin's motives were probably short-term, and more to do with cementing him in his lucrative position as leader.

The "free speech" and "brave Nick" line was always going to appeal to the BNP minion-at-large, but his appearance alongside Irving might well either be a signal to the hardliners that Nick still keeps the "holohoax" faith, or at least to conjure doubts in their minds as to his true position.

Did you ever see Stormfront so united?

Anonymous said...

The extremely long troll post was probably the work of green arrow, a philosophically-challenged loser who is still mortally reeling from being made fun of.

Me thinks Green Arsehole's extreme loyalty to Griffin won't be rewarded by the egotist Griffin. One day, in-fact, as he does with anyone else, the pig farmer from Welshpool will rub "the Arsehole" the wrong way, and fall out with him too.

How much will this idiot regret his unwavering support of Herr Griffin... ???

Anonymous said...

The BNP's American paymasters like Don Black are unreconstructed racists, especially anti-semities, (more so than British-style Islamophobes, indeed, many support the remarks of the Iranian president) so yes, indeed, Griffin knows where the bread can be buttered, in returning to old-fashioned holocaust denial.

Anonymous said...

Griffin obviously knows anti-Semitism and holocaust denial will booster his support amongst neo-nazis worldwide far more than other forms of racism. Obviously his main aim is to get groups such as the Klan to make significant donations so he can finish renovating his house in Croatia.

Pat Richardson might one day wake up and smell the coffee, but in Griffin's scheme of disloyalty, she can go to hell, like mixed-race former candidate Sharon Ebanks.

Anonymous said...

Anti-Semitism (along with anti-black racism), is still the main currency of hate in America, so I guess this is indeed a calculated plan of Griffin's to put the rabid Islamophobia on hold, and return to his Holocaust-denying roots, especially as the BNP are losing large sums of money through Griffin's theft of party funds.

Anonymous said...

'Denise G said...
Did you ever see Stormfront so united?'

No, but isn't that a bit worrying?

Anonymous said...

Interesting line of thought. It's probably true to say that by associating with Irving Griffin is sending out a signal to the "hardliners" but that's probably to divide them.

Unknown said...

No, but isn't that a bit worrying?

I don't think so - fair-weather alliances never last long, and will probably have a shorter than usual shelf life in the witches brew of Stormfront.

@ rej

Agreed.

Jeffrey Marshall said...

'Then why the hell invite him? Jeez, this guy's dim.'

Not so dim if you agree with previous posts on this thread that yoking together David Irving and Nick Griffin has produced mainly bad publicity for the BNP.

The party has worked extremely hard over recent years to appear more moderate. Why? Because there are massive concerns over immigration which are not being properly addressed by the major parties. This causes a genuine dilemma. If the BNP can appear less extreme, then a lot of people might vote for them. But Irving is notorious only for Holocaust denial - he was ruined in the UK by the Penguin Books court victory in 2000, then later imprisoned in Austria for his beliefs. Now there may be some who are prepared to defend Irving. But if the BNP is aiming at power it really doesn't need a Nazi millstone round its neck - as Griffin should have understood.

He should have accepted this invitation to speak alone, or not at all.

Griffin should also only have accepted on the basis of BNP policies being listened to. That would have been worth fighting for.

The 'free speech' issue has gone rather pear-shaped – indeed, the free speech issue was pretty much crap in any case.

'Free speech' is a meaningless distraction, and the last few weeks have brought on board many well-meaning libertarians, & similar types, who haven't really got a clue about the basic nature of the BNP.

Never mind Voltaire. If you find someone's opinions genuinely abhorrent then you shouldn't waste a minute of your time fighting for their right to express them.

Hitler - and Lenin - took advantage of similar conditions in order to wipe out freedom for others for quite some time to come.

Anonymous said...

Just a point about the trolls... The British nazi trolls will probably ease as they seem to have temporarily become French (for some absurd reason), to infiltrate BBC news website comments boards (and other news sites) to post their poisonous anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rantings.

Most BNP trolls are using the unfortunate situation in France to try to make rabble rousing hate diatribes against ethnic minorities in the uK, because this is the way the sick minds of racists work.

So-called British nationalism is a scam, as it's purely about Hitleresque race and religion, and nothing to do with little Englander patriotism.

To say France is a supposed rival of England and Britain, it's ironic to see the British far right express solidarity with the enemy (albeit the white majority of ) France. Remember when LePen visited Griffin?

Says a lot for the shambolic philosophy behind calling the BNP's white supremacism "British nationalism".

Anonymous said...

Trolls seem to be enpowered by Stormfront.

If only the United states would wake up to the fact their freedom of speech laws are abused to persecute minority groups, inciting hatred and violence.

Anonymous said...

So-called "British Nationalism" is in a bit of a pickle. Do its devoted believers hate black people, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Europeans, gay people, the Irish, foreigners of any description 9including the French), or should they be instructed to hate anybody who isn't Anglo-Saxan, Christian, and (contradictorily) doesn't worship Odin?

Does anybody really know exactly does the BNP stand for, and what is its purpose within the wider scheme of things? Silly question, maybe, butm speaking on fascist terms, they do seem to have lost their way big-time, with many of their followers unsure which races of human beings they can and cannot detest.

All BNP members with half a brain cell between them should be asking Nick Griffin this very question, as he makes a pretty living by pocketing members subs via this self-financing egotrip he calls "British Nationalist politics".

Anonymous said...

Irish people are now not to be hated (much to Sid Williamson's surprise), but apparently anti-Semitism is back in favour, and is the new black (er... white)... thanks to Griffin's approval of fellow Holocaust denier Irving.

It must be hard to keep up with the action, if you're a beleagured British fascist.

Anonymous said...

The BNP's American contact, a hardline nazi and former member of the American Renaisance (who had his facebook account deleted after joining the BNP facebook site), is called preston Wiginton. Apparently he is a hardcore neo-nazi and (according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre who show a photo of the two men together) a friend of David Duke who helped organise Griffin's recent visit to the states.

As well as a heavy involvement with Stormfront, Wigington also edited articles in an online Russian white supremacist magazine called tworca.com which constantly denies the Holocaust.

It is suspected that it is Wiginton's influence over Griffin that has persuaded him to return to Holocaust denial and hardcore white supremacy.

Anonymous said...

Thus Americans are dictating future directions of BNP policy... So much for "British nationalism!"

Anonymous said...

I agree the BNP have become very confused about who they should hate.The quote below was fron Sid Williamson when he was in the BNP

"those pig thick fuckin Oirish bastards, talk about stupid, they starved coz there was no spuds! Closest thing in the white world to a nigger is a spud munching thick fucking Paddy.". This is the real face of the BNP, behind Griffin's oily smile

he should have feckin spellchecked irish

Guess who

Unknown said...

This sequence of events was a disaster for free speech and its defenders.

1)Irving and griffin were given a plantform where they might sound reasonable. It is now possible to connect their names with 'people who are concerned with civil liberties in this country'. this is clearly the wrong brush for them to be painted with.

2)The antifacist demonstration, as described by the independant, looks like a ractionary student rabble that is as against free speech in appearence as the BNP is in practise. chastising and effectively trying to block an audience from recieving information, even poor information and opinions from card carrying facicts, is an affront to free speech, and therefore problematic.

3)Pressured by various forces, union president Luke Tryl cancelled the appearence of contravertial but authoratitive historian Norman Finklestein after criticism from the academic community, in order to focus his atentions on the griffin irving debate, a political move that showed that the union was more interested in headlines and publicity than both protecting free speech and creating legitimate debate. they actively crushed free speech in order to save it for the most bizzare of guests.

Anonymous said...

I would have liked to see the debate aired on TV or broadcast on radio. I think that it is clear that there is a real argument about the limits of free speech (which has genuine and ethical people on both sides) which needs to take place. The events in Oxford should have been used to raise the level of argument in our civic sphere. The media were in general disappointing in that respect.