tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post8870271062639680534..comments2023-11-05T07:18:30.231+00:00Comments on Hug A Hoodie: BNP debate at the Oxford Union: an eyewitness accountJonny Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-81296182119569068872011-09-15T04:50:28.263+01:002011-09-15T04:50:28.263+01:00This is good , what has happened, goodness is bal...This is good , what has happened, goodness is balance, Greek thought,<br />We in the BNP are delighted that the left wing attack us, Lord Wellington put it well, in regard to a small French man, who invaded Russia,/ stupity is the most desired, quality in ones enemys mind ,and should be encouraged at all times, A BIG THANK YOU, UAF, BCP,search dark, FROM A BNP MEMBER.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-14747579985724580402009-12-02T07:23:14.209+00:002009-12-02T07:23:14.209+00:00Well, the situation often debate and touch you liv...Well, the situation often debate and touch you live in that debate could realizar.La fortunately true that many people confuse the issue of freedom of expression and abuse ellla ago.juliodebatehttp://www.debatepopular.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-90488280322336660742007-12-05T16:05:00.000+00:002007-12-05T16:05:00.000+00:00Oh god, I love debates. I love how they continue a...Oh god, I love debates. I love how they continue after hours, in pockets of the country, in houses, between friends...or on the public platform that is the internet. You don't have to make every point during the actual debate in order for them to be discussed - even if the BNP's views were not 'crushed' during the official discussion, the question of free speech and the peculiar threat of the BNP is now being reconsidered up and down the country. <BR/><BR/>In any case, I thought the debate was about the importance of freedom of speech, not about whether or not the holocaust actually did happen or if the members of the BNP are morons. These are asides that people have brought to the debate through their prejudices. The BNP's REPUTATION for being racist gives their argument an interesting slant, and, when discussing freedom of speech, HOW could you possibly justify missing out the views of someone who has been locked up in a 'modern' European country simply for expressing his opinion of events? For me, his inclusion was the most interesting aspect of the debate - that this wasn't just western liberals shaking their fists at totalitarians, but was an examination of our own conception of democracy and the place of freedom of speech within it.<BR/><BR/>Inviting controversial speakers to the event caught people's attention, and I wonder if anyone would have been interested in the discussion (for it is an important one) if it had just looked like being the usual one-sided argument. <BR/><BR/>I'm interested in the debate of Jewish identity in this thread. I am not Jewish myself, and so you might argue that I cannot possibly comment, but I'm going to anyway. So shoot me. (Or don't shoot me, depending on whether you think I have the right to air my views or not, whatever they may be.)<BR/><BR/>I'm a student and our union is more or less ruled by the Jsoc and the Isoc (Islamic society). The Jsoc win a motion, the Isoc demand a re-vote, and vice versa. Both are as bad as each other, and it has crippled the Union in terms of constructive debate and elections. Last year, for example, one of the societies disagreed with the first motion and, seeing that it was going to be passed, walked out of the general meeting taking all their members with them. There were not enough attending the meeting, therefore, to pass any of the motions. Very clever, but what a complete waste of everyone else's time. <BR/><BR/>I am not saying here that either the Jewish student community or the Islamic student community is to blame for screwing up our union, just that some societies are too powerful for their own good. The union steps of an election day are packed full of the members of both societies, harassing you as you wander down the street and slagging you off if you don't stop and listen. It puts everyone else off Union politics, which isn't good really, is it? All we ever hear about is middle-eastern problems. It's been a long time since the Union took an interest in issues that directly relate to our actual university, or at least the country we live in.<BR/><BR/>So I applaud Luke Tryl's recognition of the need for two sides in a debate. I congratulate him on his impartiality and his principles. Let's not forget that there were other people speaking at that debate. The controversial speakers had not been invited to go and proselytize, but to contribute to a much wider debate than whether or not immigrants should be shot or death camps forgotten. It seems to me that the protesters took their invitations too personally. All this discussion of Jewish identity is irrelevant - Irving was not trying to prove that the holocaust didn't happen, but that he had the right to make this claim. Personally I think it's very peculiar that it is illegal to make that claim in some countries. It's a bit 1984 for me. If there can only be one version of history, who is to choose it? (And before you jump on me, I do not deny the holocaust, I do not think that Irving's is the correct version of events. But if we are going to be so strict over such views, why don't we lock up all the people who think that God created the world in seven days, that evolution is rubbish, or that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS?). <BR/><BR/>The Nazis blamed the Jewish community for all history's wrongs. Now it seems that anyone who so much as smiles at Nazism is a fascist - the Root of all Evil!! Who was it recently who acknowledged that the Nazis were good with their propaganda? I can't remember, but he was instantly required to apologise for not spitting upon the dirty fascist scum. The truth is, they WERE good at propaganda. That's the whole point. <BR/><BR/>Which brings me on to my last point in this (pretty unstructured) comment - image. If the not-so-secret point of the debate was to 'crush' the BNP and put them in a bad light, this was completely undermined by the attitude of the protesters. Free speech in itself is not the tool of the racist or the extremist. Their arguments in themselves are not dangerous to society. It is the reaction of the masses that dictates the damage those words can cause. If so many people disagreed with the debate, then they shouldn't have turned up. If the auditorium is empty, then foul words cannot worm their way into impressionable minds. Instead, as has been noted in previous comments, the arrogant, nonconstructive attitudes of the protesters served only to elevate the speakers into a position of not only intellectual, but moral superiority over the unruly mob. <BR/><BR/>People can say whatever they like, so far as I'm concerned. It's up to me whether I follow their advise or not. If you don't like a debate, don't go. if you don't like porn on the internet, don't look at it. if you don't like you kids sitting in front of the telly all day, turn it off and kick them off the sofa. I think people grossly underestimate the agency of the human race. To suggest that if I hear some nutter telling me that homosexuality is wrong I am more likely to believe them than if no one discussed the issue at all is, quite frankly, insulting. I watch adverts for Bacardi all the time, but I still don't like it. I read arguments in books all the time, but I don't necessarily agree with them.<BR/><BR/>I don't see why everything must come down to law and politics.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with Thought Police.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-54842653093777211732007-12-04T13:26:00.000+00:002007-12-04T13:26:00.000+00:00A very interesting post. While we agree on the co...A very interesting post. While we agree on the concept of "free speach", we disagree what it means.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, the demonstrators had a right to demonstrate. That's their free speach.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Oxford Union had an absolute right to invite Irving and Griffin. Does not mean that I have to agree with it. <BR/><BR/>You see, Moira Hindley, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper all have/had a right to free speach as much as Irving and Griffin. Irving and Griffin most certainly practice this right in the UK - check out their websites and public engagement list. Indeed Hitler practices this right too - including debates with Jews that he refers to in Mein Kampf. <BR/><BR/>Their right to free speach does not mean that I would have invited any of them to speak to me in my home. The fact that Oxford chose to exercise its right by providing this scum with a platform speaks volumes about Oxford.BHChhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08178467606233596591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-24150709579741850722007-12-04T10:06:00.000+00:002007-12-04T10:06:00.000+00:001. Irving's statements that he is no Holocaust-den...1. Irving's statements that he is no Holocaust-denier or no anti-Semite are silly. Just read the transcripts of his 2000 London trial, there you'll find all the evidence to prove that Irving is a Holocaust-denier (he declared himself a "hard-core disbeliefer" of the Holocaust), an anti-Semite and a deliberate falsifier of history. Why should any serious historian get into a discussion with someone like that?<BR/><BR/>2. Irving's Freedom of Speech is not confined in any way, if he would not have been invited to Oxford or disinvited later on. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you have the right or possiblity to speak everywhere. I, for example, would not give him the chance to speak in my appartment. Not giving him a stage to speak does not equal silencing him. He builds his own stages with his lectures, his website, his books etc. and will - and can! - go on in doing so. Will the OU invite known rapers and child abusers in the future to discuss their understandung of sex? Certainly not. But they certainly have Freedom of Speech too!<BR/><BR/>3. Irving is very sensitive, when other people don't like to let him speak where HE wants. But, as his 2000 trial showed, HE does not want to allow other people (Deborah Lipstadt) to use THEIR Freedom of Speech. It was Irving, who tried to silence her. Everything he accused her of doing against him he does himself to other people. It is Irving who makes disgusting jokes of Holocaust survivors and smears historians (e.g. Richard Evans, Eberhard Jaeckel and labels them "cowards and liars")!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-37964422318287450202007-12-04T00:00:00.000+00:002007-12-04T00:00:00.000+00:00View how the Holo-Hoax is getting exposed world-wi...View how the Holo-Hoax is getting exposed world-wide on:<BR/>http://www.codoh.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-68024963171004680972007-12-02T20:13:00.000+00:002007-12-02T20:13:00.000+00:00I just read your comments which were sent to me by...I just read your comments which were sent to me by the rabid neo-nazi, Ingrid Rimland. She even included a compliment from David Irving.<BR/><BR/>I congratulate you on the ability to maintain a rather objective view point. <BR/><BR/>Hopefully you will go into politics when you are done with academicsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-54621555459979255372007-11-30T15:12:00.000+00:002007-11-30T15:12:00.000+00:00The point of allowing free speech should simply be...The point of allowing free speech should simply be to find out what it is the speaker thinks. If it's good, let's embrace it, if it's bad, let's reject it. But unless we hear him or her out, we'll never know.<BR/><BR/>Those who have seriously worked with problem-solving know that nothing beats a free for all brain storming. Let everyone speak their mind, no matter what we think of them in advance. Very often a gem will pop up from the most unexpected corners and solve the problem.<BR/><BR/>If David Irving, or Adolf Hitler if you like, claimed that 2+2=4 then what, it couldn't possibly be, because we wouldn't want to agree with them?<BR/><BR/>Airing opinions and arguments should always be allowed. Deeds not necessarily.<BR/><BR/>So "all" Jews aren't alike? But "all" of the rest of us are? I never hear this comment when it's about "The Germans invaded Poland" and similar. Did "all" the Germans invade Poland? Were "all" Germans for this invasion? Etc.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, our age will in the future be known as Dark Ages - The Sequel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-91257816030102418952007-11-30T03:20:00.000+00:002007-11-30T03:20:00.000+00:00-- Jonny: 29 November 09:49:00Sorry Glad Thereafte...-- Jonny: 29 November 09:49:00<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry Glad Thereafter, I don't agree. I was born in England, and have lived in England all my life. I'm English. My religious background is neither here nor there.<BR/><BR/>I think we have a different idea of what the word English means. I'm using it to describe my national identity, you're using it to describe your ethnicity.<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that "English" is a national identity, whereas "white Anglo-Saxon", for example, is an ethnicity.<BR/><BR/>I've never tried to deny anyone their right to a community identity, but I resent being told I'm not a proper Englishman or a proper Briton simply because my family history on this island happens to be five generations long, rather than fifty.</I><BR/><BR/>Jonny, I’m afraid that when I hear people make arguments like these I begin to doubt their sincerity.<BR/> <BR/>You and I both know that to equate Jewish status with belief in religious Judaism is dishonest – and that all Jews know this, while most non-Jews don't.<BR/><BR/>Neither Israel the state, nor Israel the people (Jews), make absence of Jewish religious belief a barrier to citizenship or community of fellowship.<BR/> <BR/>Your deliberate conflation of religious and ethnic Jewishness (when I had clearly made differentiation) and your conflation of English and British status (again, contrary to my specific focus on the English – not the ‘British’), add depth to a pattern of double-standard.<BR/> <BR/>So yes, I agree with the straw-man: your religious beliefs are neither here nor there in determining your status as English; but equally I know that your religious beliefs are neither here nor there if you seek citizenship in Israel or claim Jewish identity – but I insist they are necessarily equal and valid standards unless we be anti-Gentile and anti-English.<BR/> <BR/>This means of course, that even if your ‘religious’ misdirection were valid (and it isn’t), it would lead an English nationalist to expect support from the three largest parties – including your own – for a policy of ‘Anglican’ nationalism which discriminated against Jews, Muslims, atheists, and Catholics, among others, for precisely as long as those parties supported Israel’s right to exist as a ‘Jewish state.’<BR/> <BR/>Would you then resort to a third level of Jewish racist and main-party double-standard? I would recommend rather that you all stop digging, and start treating all peoples equally – even if they happen to be English or non-Jewish. <BR/><BR/>By any objective standard the three main parties are anti-Gentile and anti-English in comparison with their approach to Jewish group-interests, with the BNP rather less so, while all are equally pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.<BR/> <BR/>(With regard to definitions of ethnicity and nationality, you are defining English ‘nationality’ as vaguely resident-based, and you are again denying English ethnicity altogether. You should be aware that neither of your definitions has academic or objective validity. They are opportunist local-political arguments and objectively racist, and ethnocidal.)glad thereafterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08492706037234933335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-72583661917983789022007-11-29T17:20:00.000+00:002007-11-29T17:20:00.000+00:00Jonny,You stated: “I think my internationalism did...Jonny,<BR/><BR/>You stated: “I think my internationalism did work, in the sense that Hitler was defeated and Europe is democratic.” <BR/><BR/>Hitler was defeated by a 3 major powers: the US, the Soviet Union, and Britain. These powers allied together out of self-interest and in pursuit of their own security. No noble sentiments towards internationalism led to this alliance. Indeed, Britain and Soviet Russia hated each other, and US-British relations were not that great either. But all powers realized that they shared the common security goal of destroying Hitler – self-interest led to the ending of Hitler, not altruistic internationalism.<BR/><BR/>Vis a vis the Utilitarian argument, there is no evidence that other politicians will host BNP speakers, therefore free speech will not be carried out over the long-run so as to yield the benefits of exposing the BNP’s views. Therefore, we need to look at the costs and benefits of Tryl’s debate in isolation – and the results indicate net disutility! The BNP are not exposed as nutters, many individuals were offended, and people saw the BNP gaining credibility.<BR/><BR/>Hence, I think you are wrong to apply the utilitarian argument over the long run. Anyway, even if we did, it is not necessitated that the BNP would be more exposed over the long-run. Comsider the scenario that more free debate led to more publicity for the BNP, and their votes going up. Would you be content with that outcome? Can you accept that free debate with the BNP may lead to their popularity rising? And do you accept that if that happened, both you and Tryl are partly responsible!?!<BR/><BR/>BNP in parliament because of you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-4748855764191985852007-11-29T16:32:00.000+00:002007-11-29T16:32:00.000+00:00Another quick installment of replies:Enlightened 1...Another quick installment of replies:<BR/><BR/>Enlightened 1 - that's my favourite Shakespeare sonnet. You can't go around editing it, that's just criminal! The bard got it right first time. ;-)<BR/><BR/>I agree with your argument about the acceptable limits of free speech, although I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that Irving and Griffin were desperately brave to go to the Union. I'm sure they've had enough criticism in the past to be fairly thick-skinned about this sort of thing. <BR/><BR/>I'd be tempted to think they were scared, with good reason, of getting blown to bits in debate, bit I don't think they were. I'm quite sure that they genuinely believe - in the face of all possible evidence - that their views are correct, and somehow capable of standing up to argument. People say Irving is a liar: I believe he's more likely to be deluded than a deliberate liar.<BR/><BR/>Bam - I don't agree with your analogy. When a teacher or a professor gives a lecture to students, they're in a position of authority. When I go to a lecture on Kafka at the Modern Languages Faculty in Oxford, the lecturer is *endorsed* by the University, who wouldn't employ an academic if their research was unreliable or under allegations of falsehood. The situation with Irving is quite different: he wasn't asked to give an authoritative lecture on history; he was asked to speak on one side of a debate. The Union certainly didn't endorse his opinions, or the opinions of any other speakers.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 21.33 - yes I do, always! Sorry it's taken me a couple of days, though.<BR/><BR/>Steven Allan - thanks again for your comments, very kind. I'm sure Luke Tryl would make an excellent Prime Minister, but I somehow doubt he'd want a Lib Dem like me in his Cabinet ... and no, I'm not switching!<BR/><BR/>I think that covers all the comments so far. Sorry I've skipped a few; I just felt that some of them were repeating arguments I'd dealt with elsewhere. If you think I've missed any important points, write back and I'll come and deal with them.<BR/><BR/>Once again, thanks a lot for the response.Jonny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-23131652879083573022007-11-29T14:58:00.000+00:002007-11-29T14:58:00.000+00:00A few more responses, while I have 5 minutes spare...A few more responses, while I have 5 minutes spare (between a talk at the Union and a German translation class!) - I'm just going through comments in order, unless I think I've dealt with the points in a response to an earlier one.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 04.59 - I think you're wrong to apply the utilitarian argument to one individual debate. I'd apply it more to the entire culture of free debate. Think of it like a hand of poker: you can play a hand perfectly correctly, according to the maths, but still lose it. But at least you know that if you played that same hand exactly the same way, whenever it came up, you'd win it more often that not. In the same way, yes, sometimes fascists come out of individual debates looking good, but if there's a culture of free debate, then in the long run they will always come out worse. I'd also point out that Irving took a fair battering in the debate, came across with real question marks over his sincerity, and anyway: if the protesters had let us have a real debate, instead of a very watered-down Q&A, we'd have made far more progress.<BR/><BR/>Tristan - spot on. Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Balder - you can't just say "the Jews" - as Tristan points out, everyone who is Jewish is also an individual, and deserves to be treated as an individual, rather than a member of a group. My opinion is totally independent of anyone else's, and the fact that I'm Jewish doesn't change that in the slighetst. I agree totally that there are things in the Old Testament which look racist to modern eyes, and I believe that if anyone nowadays took the sort of ethnocentric views that you read in ancient scripture, they would be a racist, pure and simple. As a student of (amongst other things) medieval German literature, however, I believe it's entirely wrong to judge ancient text against modern principles. You have to read the Bible as a product of its time. I doubt any author 3,500 years ago would have preached universal human rights, or supported the idea that one's tribe or race shouldn't be a factor in judging others.<BR/><BR/>That's all for now, more replies tonight!Jonny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-26659177117338206932007-11-29T14:34:00.000+00:002007-11-29T14:34:00.000+00:00@ericfowlerRe:"take issue with your being "sickene...@ericfowler<BR/><BR/>Re:"<I>take issue with your being "sickened" by Irving's assertion that Britain should have cut a deal in 1940. That may be an unattractive choice, but wasn't the war pretty sickening too? A lot of lives could have been saved.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Of course you'd save lives if you could, but if the saving of lives trumps all then you'd never go to war to fight for your freedom and your way of life, for yourself and future generations. You'd always capitulate or compromise in the face of aggression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-60500236898022584382007-11-29T14:33:00.000+00:002007-11-29T14:33:00.000+00:00Thank you. Its nice to know what happened. I had a...Thank you. Its nice to know what happened. I had a ticket but couldn't get in. I can't even begin to understand what screwed-up logic justifies that and tries to pass itself off as liberal and democratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-12538598582534407262007-11-29T13:40:00.000+00:002007-11-29T13:40:00.000+00:00Hear, hear Johnny.The English group doesn't includ...Hear, hear Johnny.<BR/><BR/>The English group doesn't include Jews? What English group is that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-59393899626282164022007-11-29T09:49:00.000+00:002007-11-29T09:49:00.000+00:00Sorry Glad Thereafter, I don't agree. I was born i...Sorry Glad Thereafter, I don't agree. I was born in England, and have lived in England all my life. I'm English. My religious background is neither here nor there.<BR/><BR/>I think we have a different idea of what the word English means. I'm using it to describe my national identity, you're using it to describe your ethnicity.<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that "English" is a national identity, whereas "white Anglo-Saxon", for example, is an ethnicity.<BR/><BR/>I've never tried to deny anyone their right to a community identity, but I resent being told I'm not a proper Englishman or a proper Briton simply because my family history on this island happens to be five generations long, rather than fifty.Jonny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-44224577533269557742007-11-29T07:07:00.000+00:002007-11-29T07:07:00.000+00:00The fact that I’m of eastern European Jewish backg...<I>The fact that I’m of eastern European Jewish background doesn’t make me any [...]less English.</I> Jonny.<BR/><BR/>Your idea that the English group includes in its ranks ethnic Jews and, presumably, Somalis, Sikhs, Han, and Hutu, would mean that 50 million people in this country are without ethnicity, and can't enjoy the benefits of community feeling and heritage that this basic human bond brings. <BR/><BR/>Once again, note the double standard: minorities as a rule jealosuly guard their ethnic attachments and community coherence, while demanding that the majority's sense of itself is universalised and non-people specific. <BR/><BR/>Apparently the English MUST forget themselves at the behest and for the advantage of other ethnies, or else they, the English, are labelled 'racist.'<BR/><BR/>I don't think so Jonny.glad thereafterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08492706037234933335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-79731207055601763302007-11-29T04:54:00.000+00:002007-11-29T04:54:00.000+00:00A splendid post by a fine reporter. I thank you. I...A splendid post by a fine reporter. I thank you. <BR/><BR/>I agree with most of your opinions but choose to take issue with your being "sickened" by Irving's assertion that Britain should have cut a deal in 1940. That may be an unattractive choice, but wasn't the war pretty sickening too? A lot of lives could have been saved.EricFowlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682596898595547401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-27404488284571079582007-11-29T04:27:00.000+00:002007-11-29T04:27:00.000+00:00"I’ve had a lot more reaction to this blog posting..."I’ve had a lot more reaction to this blog posting than I’m normally used to getting!"<BR/><BR/>This could be because no-one else has written such a comprehensive piece, and a first hand account at that. With so many of today's youth going off the rails - idle hands making work for the devil - it's really uplifting to witness the achievements and the views of yourself and Luke Tryl.<BR/><BR/>Just a point on the comments. There seem to be an awful lot of assumptions in respect of the BNP's policies, some of which are wide of the mark. Perhaps people ought to have a look at their website and read their manifesto. Not only that, but the BNP is not a one policy party; it has a full manifesto with policies on all of the major issues.<BR/><BR/>For all that, as a Conservative, I look forward to the day when Luke becomes the PM. Maybe you'd like to consider changing parties, Jonny, so that you could be in the cabinet with him in the not too distant future ?<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work, anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-60312412541407374642007-11-29T04:16:00.000+00:002007-11-29T04:16:00.000+00:00Thanks for your excellent account and thoughtful p...Thanks for your excellent account and thoughtful perspective.<BR/><BR/>See my post at http://www.antarena.blogspot.com/ and http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2007/11/27/mob-rule-at-oxford-university/<BR/><BR/>As a defender of free speech, I find it dismaying that so many commentators here cannot distinguish between free speech as an inviolable principle, and the merits of the issues being discussed. Surely, whether or not a view is mistaken, obnoxious, or downright wicked is irrelevant so long as it is not advocating coercive violence against others.<BR/><BR/>In my view, those who maintain that free speech should be limited to the expressions of opinions they agree with, or do not consider harmful, are clueless as to its actual nature. It is always the 'hard cases' - the racists, the Holocaust deniers, even the defenders of paedophilia - who put the free speech principle to the test. Those who would ban or prevent the peaceful expression of such mistaken views because they believe they will do harm by seducing the unsophisticated are themselves the enemies of free speech, democracy, and an open society, as was quite clear at Oxford on Monday night.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-53016594566466520162007-11-29T01:47:00.000+00:002007-11-29T01:47:00.000+00:00Hi everyone,Thanks for all the comments. I appreci...Hi everyone,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for all the comments. I appreciate you taking the time to write in with your reactions. I’m sorry it’s taken me till now to find the time to sit down and respond properly. In my defence, I’m a part-time blogger, and a full-time student – and this week has been pretty darn hectic!<BR/><BR/>Glad Thereafter – thanks very much, I received your email. I’ll post a response to your comment on the other thread; it seems like the appropriate place to do it.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 3.52 – I think “my” internationalism did work, in the sense that Hitler was defeated and Europe is democratic. Irving may come from a perfectly mainstream school of thought; I don’t know, I’m not a historian, and you probably know a lot more than I do about the various academic debates and counter-factual arguments. In my layman’s opinion, it would have been morally wrong to cut and run from WW2, abandoning Europe to fascism and Germany’s Jews to the gas chambers.<BR/><BR/>Paul – same to you, really. You may well have a point about the counter-factual argument. I just gave a personal reaction, rather than a qualified academic opinion.<BR/><BR/>Ben – I strongly disagree, sorry. Jews, slavs, socialists, roma, LGBT people weren’t murdered in Germany because they lost some philosophical argument: that’s true. But free speech is only one part of a stable and liberal democracy. There are many other basic rights, and they all have to be respected equally. Nazi Germany doesn’t represent a failure of free speech – it represents a failure to respect the human dignity and the right to life of innocent people, based on purely arbitrary decisions by the regime. When you restrict the right to free speech, as you apparently would have us do, you make a similarly arbitrary judgement. You may have the best intentions in the world, but when you chip away one basic human right, you damage the whole system, and put everyone in a very dangerous position.<BR/><BR/>NB – are you saying that once a debating society gets to a certain level of fame, it can no longer invite anyone to debate, in case some of its respectability rubs off on them too? As I see it, the Union is only as famous as it is because of its tradition of providing a forum for any viewpoint, and because it’s always been willing to tackle thorny issues.<BR/><BR/>Stephen – thanks for your comments about my writing style, much appreciated. It probably wasn’t as carefully-drafted as normal, but then again, I wrote it very late, wanting to get it finished whilst things were fresh in my memory.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 20.55 – there’s no rule that says you can’t debate against the BNP. All there is is a cowardly culture of refusing to engage in debate against them for fear of letting them into the mainstream. It really won’t happen; the BNP have everything to lose as soon as people find out what they actually stand for. How are you supposed to beat them if you won’t debate against them? The convention is misguided, and Luke was well within his rights to challenge it.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 21.03 – I think the police are far more at fault than Luke Tryl. The Union’s internal security for the event was watertight. Why did the police fail to set up a cordon to stop protesters from blocking the entrance, and climbing the wall? The Union can only police its own premises: it’s the job of Thames Valley Police to see to Cornmarket and St Michael’s Street.<BR/><BR/>Simon – you’re quite right that Griffin and Irving would have faced much more robust scrutiny if there’d been time for a real debate. The fact that it became a watered-down Q&A, through no fault of the Union, really damaged the forum’s claims to hold their extremist views to account. I disagree with your assessment of the BNP themselves, though. Of course immigration is a legitimate concern, and I can well understand why people in Britain are upset about aspects of immigration policy. But the BNP go far far beyond what is reasonable in that debate. It’s one thing to argue against the way immigration policy has been handled; it’s quite another thing to argue that people should be treated differently because of the colour of their skin. The BNP would happily “deport” people who are British, who were born here, who have no other home than Britain, simply because they’re not white. However legitimately upset you are by policies related to immigration, I don’t believe there can ever be an excuse for turning to a party with that sort of nakedly racist outlook.<BR/><BR/>Jimmy Seal – sorry, but that comment is outrageous. Why should I have to believe a certain thing just because I’m Jewish? I’m entitled to hold whatever political views I like as long as I’m prepared to justify them in debate. Moreover, do you really want to live in the sort of country where you can introduce people’s heads to the pavement, as you so charmingly put it? Is that the sort of democracy your granddad fought for? Both my grandfathers fought against Hitler in the war, and I doubt they would have wanted to live in a Britain like that. Call me a “liberal wanker” as much as you like; frankly I take it as a compliment.<BR/><BR/>Glad Thereafter – “disgusting BNP policies”, I’ve already covered. Irving as an angry hatemonger – that was my preconceived idea, and one that was very different to the soft-spoken reality. On Anne Atkins – I think you’ve misunderstood me. (Admittedly, looking back at what I wrote, my wording was perhaps a bit sloppy.) When I wrote “how ironic”, I was referring to the protesters calling for Tryl’s death, when the main argument against the Free Speech Forum was the threat of violence. Anne was quite right to point that out, and I agreed with her. She certainly hasn’t incited murder herself, as far as I’m aware! I strongly disagree with your views on ethnic nationalism. My concept of what it means to be British isn’t based on race. The fact that I’m of eastern European Jewish background doesn’t make me any less British, or any less English. I have friends who are proud to be British, and come from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. This is a very big topic, so I might well write a whole blog post on it in the near future, and deal with all your arguments in more detail then.<BR/><BR/>Gah, it’s almost 2am again. That’s about all I have time for tonight. I’ll come back in the morning and put up responses to all the other comments. Bear with me, I’ve had a lot more reaction to this blog posting than I’m normally used to getting!Jonny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07414994559548890103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-10352379479480947322007-11-29T00:21:00.000+00:002007-11-29T00:21:00.000+00:00Emotion, here, runs high, and reason runs out of t...Emotion, here, runs high, and reason runs out of the door (if it ever came in) - as always.<BR/><BR/>However, the quiet thinking man knows that if the German U-boat blockade had succeeded against Britain, and our food lines cut.<BR/><BR/>It would have meant starvation for all.<BR/><BR/>If our airforce had been defeated and Japan had not attacked the US bringing them in the war, whether they liked it or not, allowing the enemy to have invaded with impunity - what do you think they would have found in our 'alien internment camps'?<BR/><BR/>They would have been the last to get our food. Many would have died<BR/>from age, starvation and disease.<BR/><BR/>For a while their bodies would have piled up, and like we would do with any mass bodies in the conditions that would prevail, I am certain the order would have been given to burn them.<BR/><BR/>Now I am not saying that is what happened in Germany as I was not there.<BR/><BR/>But how would the Germans (or any enemy for that matter) have used it. Can you not see the photographs, and films circulating the world?<BR/><BR/>Documented? Any enemy so inclined could have created all the documentation they desired. They could have had a field day. Yes, there would have been children and women among the starved and dead.<BR/><BR/>They say military history is always written by the victor.<BR/><BR/>Never mind what Irving said, he has never been on the 'inside' as so few are, or have been.<BR/><BR/>But what did D'israeli mean when he held the all high position, of the world's, at that time. greatest power, and said: <BR/><BR/>'This world is run by far different personages than is believed by those on the outside'<BR/><BR/>In those words, perhaps is a clue to providing answers to much controversy.<BR/><BR/>But alas, what is gradually coming is only the ability ti 'think'. To voice thought is a freedom we are fast losing. It all happens in steps. That way, most hardly notice.<BR/><BR/>How do you eat an elephant? - one bite at a time.<BR/><BR/>How do you break a bundle of sticks? -one at a time.<BR/><BR/>Take heed of those one bites, or one sticks.Enlightened 1https://www.blogger.com/profile/08254632385728355906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-9253926327901021772007-11-28T23:20:00.000+00:002007-11-28T23:20:00.000+00:00Forgive the written errors on my post, it's been o...Forgive the written errors on my post, it's been one of those days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-51539225122904760142007-11-28T23:16:00.000+00:002007-11-28T23:16:00.000+00:00Seems people are missing the idea of the creating ...Seems people are missing the idea of the creating the debate in the first place, i guess it's easy to argue which view best supports your opinion.<BR/>Two views would be as i thought everyone would udnerstand by now "The BNP Has a lot of ideas which could only conclude in perherps the demise of all we've worked for over the past years, their ideas are as trivial as their existence in this present state of multi-cultural cohabitation. Sadly their true agendas are not known by the vast public consequently some people still believe they have some reason to exist, or sense in their actions so putting all their ideas in public view will show EVERYONE just how well, stupid and senile they are and everyone would take them as nothing more than senial old men trying to relive the days of slavery, or simply retarded kids playing racist."<BR/><BR/>The second view, is the thought that giving them such a platform would build their credibility, wrong they already had credibility because they're true views were often if not always hidden from the general public under the protection of anti-facist screaming "silence!".<BR/><BR/>I'm not quite sure how the debate went but i hope it was recorded and will be on the ever receptive youtube ; ]<BR/><BR/>As for the "Make a deal with the Naziz" point, well making deals for your survival with a nation ready to slaughter literaly "Millions" if not billions because a fool woke up one day and thought "Hey, my eyes differ in colour to yours and so is my skin, i don't feel like looking at anyone who looks like you"<BR/>doesn't exactly scream logic or common sense, what's to say he won't assume you both breathed a different air and try to erase you from existence the next day, who will then fight for you when he's maddness turns on you. Hitler had no logic, he had no common sense, he's actions were of spontaneity and sheer impulse.<BR/>Some germans followed him because he gave them pride and told them how better they were than everyone else<BR/><BR/>It's ideas like this that the world or at least britain should realise, and proceed to point their pitchforks at the BNP and eradicate them from society.<BR/><BR/>I sinserely hope this debate has accomplished all it said it would. A man who gives the response of "Because it took you a while to find my racist poem, i'm not really racist" should be kicked out of britain. Simply makes the world laugh at us.!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4316904890367789805.post-88903619240257896102007-11-28T21:33:00.000+00:002007-11-28T21:33:00.000+00:00Jonny, do you ever respond to comments?Jonny, do you ever respond to comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com