Why the Oxford Union has it wrong

Novus

But Messrs Griffin and Irving haven't been invited to the Oxford Union to be given a platform to air those opinions of theirs which are widely held to be contemptible or abhorrent: they have been invited to take part in a debate on free speech. As public figures who are often at the centre of storms concerning free speech, one might imagine they had singular perspectives on the issue and would therefore be a valuable addition to a panel debating this topic. I agree that the OU inviting either of them to speak on the matters for which they are notorious might well be a resignation issue, but I don't see how this is. It seems a trifle hollow to hold a debate on free speech if speech is enough to get you excluded from the debate!

Simon Cawkwell

Surely, the invitation to Griffin and Irving is very wise. Taking Irving first, his views are clearly potty. It is therefore wise for them to be aired and then requested to be supported by evidence which will allow them to be seen for what they are. Girffin's starting point is different. Amongst other features of his politics, he seeks to air the grievances (real or imagined) expressed by many ordinary people which politicians in power decline even to consider in public. The effect of the mistaken reticence of the latter is to provoke anger and then endorsement of Griffin. Let Griffin speak and allow people to decide for themselves where they stand. All this suppression of views is dangerous and foolish.

Napoleon

This people should have the right to speak their mind. And if others have the right to go to Oxford to express what they think, why Griffin and Irving can't? Their views are outrageous and offensive, but many don't know this, that's why they should speak their mind, because only then, others can see how disgusting their views are...

James Sutherland

I'm curious to know how Forsyth would know that Griffin's views are 'obnoxious' without actually hearing them himself. Or is censorship something that should only be imposed on other people? No matter how Forsyth tries to put it, he basically wants to silence someone who's political website gets more hits than any other party in Britain (and probably more than The Spectator). People are interested in Griffin's views - face it. Let him speak. And why use that photo of Griffin? Is this all you've got - silly photos and no argument?

CE

So those of us constituting the Great Unwashed shouldn't be allowed to hear the views of Irving because we're unlikely to be intelligent enough to understand that he's wrong? I do not want to delegate the decision on who I can listen to to anyone else. To even suggest excluding certain people from a debate on free speech (on FREE SPEECH, for God's sake) because we dislike their views is almost too laughable to take seriously. There's no point debating free speech when the only people allowed to speak publicly in society are the blandest of the bland. Anyone can boast of their belief in free speech if no-one ever says anything unpleasant. Someone who listens to what Griffin and Irving have to say and after that still believes in free speech is someone whose convictions I might respect.

Baru

However, neither figure has been invited simply to come 'speak to them'. They have been invited to partake in a debate. In no way has the Oxford Union condoned or legitimised their views, in fact, the controversy has mostly drawn attention to how reprehensible Griffin's and Irving's views are. The internet has already given both men a platform. The Oxford Union has given its members a chance to confront them.

Tiberius

Just to be safe, perhaps we should ask West Midlands police to adjudicate on the difference between this event and one where Imams give speeches to encourage a certain type of behaviour towards non-Muslims. And parents - beware what you let your kids name their teddy bears this Christmas!

The Laughing Cavalier

Novus is correct when he says this concerns free speech not facts about what Hitler did or didn't do. The paternalistic Ms Lipstadt thinks we're too ignorant to bandy words with Mr Irving. When all this first came up in the 1970s the student union marxists argued that our critical faculties were not up to discerning poisonous rhetoric when we heard it and must be protected from it by them. It was patronising nonsense then and remains so today.

Edward

But, James, if you are an organisation committed to promoting free speech and the power of debate - as the Union must in accordance with its charitable status - then you must feel that more free speech and more debate will help sehd more light upon and resolve even the nastiest arguments. If the Union censors who it gives a platform to then it cannot truly be said to be a bastion of free speech of a forum for free and frank debate and discussion. If it aspires to be such a bulwark of debate then it has a duty to and must offer its platform - and subject to rigorous debate - all shades of view.

Edward

Of course, the real problem with Irving is that he is no fan of free speech - he is happy to try to use libel laws to suppress and crush criticism of him and is also happy to lie. That said, there is much to be gained for showing up Griffin for what he is.

JamesW

While I agree that Irving may prove a tougher nut to crack, I don't doubt for a minute that these guys will be shredded before the sophisticated audience in the Oxford Union. As Simon C says, it is only when the views of these characters are subject to public scrutiny and comprehensive rebuttal and refutation that they can be exposed for what they really are: inconsistent, bigoted, morally repugnant tripe. Griffin's message in particular is bound to resonate with the many in our society who face real hardship and are looking for somebody to blame. Freedom of speech does not imply any right to the ideal conditions to exercise that speech, but in this case, closing down the debate will not help. It is precisely because of these no-platform policies that Griffin will hardly ever meet a hostile audience, so why not embarrass him, and show everybody just how wrong he is? The sooner we bring the vampiric far-right out into the daylight, the sooner they will turn to dust.

Michael S.

I completely support Julian Lewis and respect his stand against the irresponsible childishness of inviting Dumb and Dumber to make a mockery of Oxford's noble traditions. This is not a matter of free speech. Irving is still legally allowed to deny the Holocaust in this country and to publish his filth, and Griffin is a public figure and political leader, and if either of them has been "at the centre of storms concerning the right to free speech" as a previous poster put it, it is because they have systematically misused and abused this right. Strange enough, after in '98 Lib-Dem MP Alex Carlile helped bring Griffin to trial for inciting to racial hatred, Lib-Dem MP Evan Harris is now oh, so enraged that the BNP leader is not being given his fair chance at publicly denying the Holocaust. As for other Torries being expected to resign from the Union, I don't think that is likely to happen. Mr. Lewis I believe, acted out of a sense of personal outrage and disappointment and his resignation won't make much of an impact in political circles, I'm afraid. It is a shame that such an invitation has been utterly wasted on these two scoundrels (as Mr. Lewis called them). There are many writers and journalists in this country who've had considerable experience with totalitarian regimes around the world, and surely their contribution to a debate on the value of free speech would've generated much more discussion and food for thought than the rabid musings of Irving and Griffin will. This is nothing but shallow "provocationism" which capitalizes on the idea that freedom of speech should be granted especially to those who tend to misuse it. What a complete load of toss! Instead of having a meaningful discussion, we've ended up with a cheap circus that we might as well call "I'm a Holocaust denier, get me out of here".

Andrew Higgs

I'm agnostic on the Griffin invitiation. He is truly disgusting and the people who belong to his group are malign or dim or both; but there we have it. The Irving invitation does seem wrong, however, since he has been proven to be a liar and a cheat in an academic setting. And this isn't a question of Irving having a right to speak, the right of the Union to invite him, or any such matter. Yes indeed those rights hold, but one may also comment when someone's judgment is poor.

Novus

Michael S, I'm intrigued by your phraseology when you characterise the inclusion of controversial figures as a 'shallow "provocationism" which capitalizes on the idea that freedom of speech should be granted especially to those who tend to misuse it.' Freedom of speech isn't "granted" to anyone. It is a fundamental right that, much though it may be abridged in contravention of the rule of law, is inherent and inalienable in a free society. That means that Griffin and Irving have that right as much as anyone else, and no amount of "misuse" or "abuse" of it can possibly justify its abridgement. If it can be taken away, it's not a right: it's a privilege. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in a country in which freedom of speech is a privilege. It apparently is at the Oxford Union, unfortunately.

AndrewG

Whilst Michael S. proposes alternative speakers, they've hardly experienced home-grown censorship the way Griffin and Irving have. By all means invite them too, but there's an important debate to be had about the limits on free speech in OUR society.

Stacey HW

I'm relieved to see that so many people are above the idea that the public need to be "protected"from ideas that we may not like. I'm interested to see that few who have posted comments here are blind to the irony of the discussion that views should be banned from a conference of free speech. The fact remains that we pride ourselves on living in a democracy, and democracy cannot exist without free speech. We either have free spoeech or we don't; if we are to censor the views of those with whom we disagree then how can we hope to have a system of government and opposition? Free speech is central to our system of government and it is not enough for mealy mouthed politicians to pull out of further events because they find the idea of free speech for everyone offensive. That is, of course, their right; but they need to consider that this is a bullying tactic akin to "you can't be my friend and his friend" and this means that the need to defend with all our strength the right to speak, even if we do not agree is far greater than before

Michael S

Novus, I was not talking about freedom of speech as a right in that context, but rather of the freedom to speak at the OU debate, which is in fact a privilege (in this case wasted on morally bankrupt liars) AndrewG, when have these people been censored at home? Irving has been arrested in almost every country in the world except England, and Griffin,as the leader of a political party even has his own spot on the beeb. I think it's time to stop fooling ourselves; these two are not victims of censorship, they are promoters of it. If they are to participate in this debate, and it looks like they are, let us at least see them for what they are. The truth is that free speech has its limits in any society, even more so in democratic societies (contrast with Iran for example) ,and the title of the debate implies as much - "the limits of free speech". You can't yell fire in a theatre when there isn't one, you can't threaten someone with violence, in short you can't just say whatever comes to your mind without taking responsibility for the consequences. The fact that Holocaust denying and incitement to racial hatred are crimes in many democratic countries in Europe and around the world, should tell us that there is no such thing as "a right to say anything" in a free society. I continue to believe that inviting these two charlatans to take part in a debate regarding freedom of speech is no more double-standard than not inviting them. Why? Because they are not victims of censorship (breaking the law is not a matter of censorship, I hope you will agree), and they don't believe in free speech to begin with. Furthermore, neither of them is an authority on the subject. They were invited solely on the authority that they themselves have been the target of censorship, which they haven't! Why didn't the OU invite an extremist from the Muslim community to take part in this debate? Why these two? Isn't excluding anyone from this event hypocritical? The fact is Irving and Griffin were chosen on purpose, because of their decidedly British brand of radicalism (Griffin especially). This is not a matter of letting everyone have their say, as the supporters of this charade would put it; it's a matter of pissing in the wind to see what happens, and I think it's wrong of the OU to indulge in this kind of behavior.

wonderfulforhisage

Please may we be allowed paragraphs in the comments. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I knwo pspelling and puntuation arnt important anymore for young peeple but oldre fokes find it hard to reed without them.

John

Much as I hate to support a Lib Dem, I think that Harris is right and Lewis is wrong. We MUST take on these people by demolishing their arguments, not by (somewhat arbitrarily) refusing to debate. Seeing as even our Prime Minister is using some of the same slogans as Griffen, it appears that there must be some basis in his grievances (unless we feel that Brown is beyond the pale too, and we shouldn't platform share with him). It is imperative that we try to understand how Griffin and his ilk have got to where they are, and to try to dissect the legitimate from the crazy. Otherwise we are just sweeping the underlying problems under the carpet and risk fueling the very movements we despise.

Lee Jakeman

If you have a case to make against Griffin, why don't you make it? Printing the most unflattering photograph of him that you can find and branding him "obnoxious" is not an argument. Griffin is seldom quoted. Is that because a lot of what he says is true? As for Irving - well the case was already been made against him by Deborah Lipstadt.

David Lindsay

Who cares whether or not some student society invites Nick Griffin or David Irving to address it? Least of all when the grown-up, permanently resident, working, tax-paying City of Oxford is politically one of the most interesting places in Britain today.

Yet where is the coverage of the fact that no Tory Councillor has been returned there, whether at City or at County level, for a good many years now, giving the lie to the alleged continuing existence of the Tory bogeyman without which there is no point to the Labour Party? (Are there still any Tory Councillors in Cambridge, either? There certainly isn’t a Tory MP there these days.)

Where is the coverage of the rise of the Green Party in Oxford’s middle-class wards, a clear indication that the Guardian Tendency is detachable from the Labour coalition if given any alternative, and is by no means necessarily susceptible to the charms of the Lib Dems (again, if given an alternative)?

Where is the coverage of the rise, on Oxford’s council estates, of the Independent Working Class Association, which has about as many councillors nationwide as the two Respect factions put together, yet of which almost no one has ever heard? And where is the coverage of the fraught relationship between Oxford’s Greens and the IWCA, a microcosm with profound implications for the impending, not to say ongoing, realignment of the British Left?

Novus

Michael S, I appreciate your distinction, but I think it merely reinforces my original point: what purpose is served, other than to highlight its own ridiculousness, of a debate on free speech from which one's prior speech is enough to get one barred? Furthermore, to be honest I find the recourse to the analogy of falsely shouting "fire!" in a theatre irrelevant. That poses a clear material danger to the people in the theatre because it would result in injuries and possibly deaths in the scramble to evacuate, for which that person would be responsible. I don't see that the same can be said of Griffin's and Irving's ideas, noxious and false though they may well be. Mill said, "Freedom of expression must be sacrosanct because: 1) an idea we silence may be true; 2) even false ideas may contain an element of truth; 3) true ideas must compete with false ideas if people are to know the reasons for holding them." It speaks of a singular lack of faith in the power of liberal ideals - and in the intelligence of the audience - if the only solution to the existence of men like Griffin and Irving is to exclude them rather than to take every opportunity to hold their ideas up to the ridicule they deserve.

Frank Leggott

The British press,including the Spec tator, gave up on free speech the day they refused to publish the Danish cartoons.

wonderfulforhisage

David Lindsay 12:33am. How did you manage to get your comment paragraphed?

Mark Alexander

Mr Forsyth, you have clearly got this all wrong. Free speech is just that: Free! Not free for the politically correct but unfree for all others who do not hold to those views; but free for ALL people, whether you like those views, or not. The reason: Free speech is quite indivisible. Either you have it, or you don't. Period!

There is no doubt in my mind that the denial of the Holocaust - or as David Irving would probably put it, the revision of the Holocaust - is objectionable, but so are many people's ideas, including many of our politicians' ideas - ideas which many might find abhorrent.

A free country has to afford its citizens the right of free speech; otherwise we might end up like the Sudan, a country in which naming a teddy bear Muhammad will end in a prison sentence and a flogging for blasphemy.

It seems to me that people today have been brainwashed by political correctness. As a result, they bend over backwards not to offend anyone's feelings. This is no way to proceed. If we go on this way, we shall end up with no freedoms at all. Then all those poor soldiers of yesteryear will have fought and died in vain.

As Voltaire said: I disapprove of what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. This, in my eyes, is the basis of a civilized society.

william smith

Its amazing . the real fascists are those who attempted to deny free speech last night . Most of them born with silver spoons in there mouths . Of course IRVING is a lunatic . But Griffin is leader of a party that is getting more votes , because nobody will talk about Immigration . You lot live in a different World to the rest of us .

Patsy

Of course the world knows IRVING is a lunatic but you are right noone is prepared to openly talk about immigaration for fear of being branded a racistwe are a small island and can't cope with huge influx of EU citizens, Griffin is far more DANGEROUS than IRVING could ever be. I also think i live in a different world at times!!!

Anan

The cartoon issue was truly about freedom of speech. This case has nothing to do with it. As an aside, the reason the papers all over Europe decided to print them was not to arouse anger specifically but to make a stand against the fear that has enveloped any discussion of this religion/form-of-government in recent years, due to unfounded PC fears, and more importantly, due to the clear and present danger of violence and death befalling those who would like to discuss the issue, be they followers of the religion or not. // With regard to this particular issue, no one is denying these two lunatics their freedom to speak. What is at issue here is that they have been given too grand a stage for their level. We don't need uneducated thugs such as Griffin and his ilk at our Universities, especially one with the "grand" history of Oxford. // Perhaps the mere idea that such a [media] spectacle could even have been contemplated by the Oxford Debating Society, let alone passed, shows just how low Oxford has sunk from its greatness of yesteryear!

Sweeney Todd

Please could someone tell me what was the substance of the debate that actually took place? What did Griffin and Irving have to say about free speech? Did anyone disagree with what they said?

MW

When I was at Oxford Sheikh Abu Hamza spoke at the Union and implied (very, very heavily) that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was the work of the Jews. To my mind this was abhorent. During the 1980s Gerry Adams spoke at the Union - at a time when every UK broadcaster had to use an actor to record his words. He was on the IRA Army Council at the time. His views were, to my mind, abhorrent. James, would you say that either of these gentlemen should have been denied a platform at the Union?