Who is right on the Oxford Union debate?

So is Julian Lewis right to lambast the Oxford Union for inviting Nick Griffin and David Irving? Or is Evan Harris right to argue against cancelling the invitation?

Answer - they are both right.

Let's begin with Lewis.

Neither Griffin nor Irving is an appropriate guest for a debating union committed to free speech. Still less are they an appropriate choice as defenders of free speech in a debate on that subject. Both are opponents of free speech and defenders of some of the worst crimes against it.

So the invitation to these two is sensationalist publicity-seeking.

What, though, if the debate concerned subjects like the Holocaust or immigration. Should the Union turn to these men then?

No.

In the case of Irving; he does not make general political points, but specific historical ones. They would be better dissected in academic seminars than in the Oxford Union. And indeed they have been. The determination is that he is not a serious scholar, instead being driven by his prejudices.

Griffin is the organiser of an often violent and hateful group which is frequently threatening when it takes hold in local communities. It is ironic that he should pose as a champion of free speech, since free speech is neither his method, nor his objective.

In either case one might defend their right to speak, but this is not remotely the same as inviting them to do so.

So Julian Lewis - a man worthy of great respect for his consistent vigilance over anti-democratic forces  - is right to resign his membership in dismay. Inviting Irving and Griffin was quite wrong.

And incidentally, I think Evan Harris should not have accepted an invitation to join them in debate.

But....

While the Oxford Union may be wrong, in my view, to invite these guests they are absolutely within their rights to do so. They should not be forced to withdraw the invitation just because I find it offensive.

So Evan Harris is correct to defend the freedom of the Union and to argue that the invitation should not be cancelled because of political pressure.

It would be entirely wrong for protestors to prevent the Oxford Union from exercising its right to free association.

Comments

[jakabaa]

Comments.....will not appear...until ....has approved them.
We in the Balkan in the Middle Age used to call this cenzorship. Long live Comrade Irving, and, naturally all of You.

[Simon Stephenson]

I repeat the charge I made about your stance in the Nigel Hastilow/Enoch Powell affair. Your disapproval of Griffin and Irving speaking in the debate is based, apparently, on your belief that what they actually stand for is the opposite of what they are scheduled to propose in the debate. So they are being devious - less than honest, at least - in order to make political capital.

Isn't this, though, the central part of the armoury of every politician now practising his art? And, in the wider sense, isn't functionality in the modern world entirely dependent upon the ability deviously to represent things other than as they actually are?

And, I suppose, isn't a heaven sent example of this the very fact that you you are seeking to deny a platform not to ALL those who are devious, but specifically to those who represent points of view with which you strongly disagree? Isn't this no more than censorship by stealth?

[John Gregory Flinn]

I'm sure you've had this subject on before - but I am unable to navigate your archives, why do you clear the decks so quickly?
I'm sure I'm not the only blogger who likes to read, debate and comment further. But one of your blogs can be here today and gone tomorrow.
Which brings me to what you might hope for Griffin and Irving!

It seems to me that Julian Lewis is being 'driven by his prejudices' over his attitude to (not) joining in debate at this meeting and resigning his membership.

As far as I can see there is more evidence that Mr Barri, the muslim leader in Britain, is responsible as 'the organiser of an often violent and hateful group which is frequently threatening when it takes hold in local communities' (and more), than Nick Griffin.

You have made other determinations about Mssrs Irving and Griffin which are debateable, and which, since you are so definitive, also leaves you open to the accusation of being 'driven by prejudices'.

Far-right opinion and, indeed, policies are a fact of life in many continental countries, and increasingly so.
The de-facto 'cordon sanitaire' that appears to prevail in Britain about far-right politics is counter-productive as experience elsewhere shows.
The recent election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President in France was probably made possible because he undertook many of Le Pen's policies (of the 'Front Nationale').
Then there is the Swiss Peoples' party's recent success and kicking out the 'black sheep'....

So, (hitherto) political taboos are main-stream now, the Oxford Union may be trying to elicit this.

[Mike]

In spite of Labours attempts to curtail free speech it is still legal to hold a debate within the constraints of the law. People like Trevor Phillips, Des Browne and Jacqui Smith may totally disagree with Griffins or Irvings views but that is the point of free speech. The telling indictment here is that the police have to be in attendance because of politically correct extremists & terrorists threatening trouble at the Oxford debate. One never hears of any other 'extremists' threatening Mosques, Synagogues or Temples and them requiring 24/7 police protection. I think that spells out who the real terrorists are in Britain today and its not the BNP or Irving. If the truth hurts so be it, live with it, debate it but terror threats just add fuel to the BNP´s or Irvings arguments and give them more credence than they deserve.

[William]

This "free speech" conundrum has been unresolved for too long. Fascists, neo-nazis, jihadist apologists, holocaust deniers, anti-semites, islamophobes and assorted racists do not qualify for the privilege of free speech (it is a privilege, not a right) because (a) they would deny this freedom if they seized power and (b) their hidden aim, beneath their sophistry and pretence to rational argument, is simply violence and murder against racial or ethno-religious groups. It's as simple as that. There's a social contract. You are entitled to free speech if you seek truth and wisdom in a climate of tolerance. But if you seek violence, murder and denial of human rights, and if your words incite these evils, you may not speak, because your words constitute violent actions.

[Mike Jones]

Freedom of speech, oh no, sorry, not in this paper, I've just read the, "comments are moderated until the author has approved them"
So what gives him the right to censor what is printed or not. Obviously his political and cultural outlook influences what is printed and what isn't.
You used to be a good paper, now you just follow the pack

[Tyler Blalock]

In the US we went through this recently with the Columbia/Ahmadinejad speech. What is lost in the debate is that freedom of speech does not require that any people be given a microphone or platform for their views - it only requires that they be allowed to express their views freely. The speech rights of Irving and Griffin will not suffer if Oxford or any other organization declines to offer them a microphone, because they are still quite able to express their views. Framing this situation as a debate over freedom of speech is disingenuous.

[J Pearce]

The only "fascists" on display are those idoits who want to ban people from speaking.

Griffin and Irving are entering what (I would hope) is a crucible of the most potentially intelligent people this country has to offer.

Let them stand or fall on the strength of their intellect and arguments! If, as I suspect, they are all based on shallow, partial, historically inaccurate material, then one would hope that the Oxford intelligentsia would show them up to be the frauds that they are.

What is there to fear?! What worries me is the shift towards authoritarianism in the guise of censorship. As far as I'm concerned, the blinkered students who are trying to ban this debate are as equally dangerous as Griffin and Irving.

[Malcolm McLean]

Not many historians get to do jail time for their books. Whilst if Nick Griffin haen heeded those who died on 7/7 would be alive today. Not many politicans can say that.

The men who have resigned from the Oxford Union in protest are not a patch on these two. This will go down as one of the great moments in Union history, and the students will be proud that in that day they were alive, and stuck to their principles.

[Darren]

Saying you 'believe in free speech, but...' is meaningless, just as saying 'I'm not racist, but...'. Either we are free to say and think what we believe or we are not. If fascist groups were to come to campus to debate, our representatives should be inside the room arguing with them and proving them wrong, not just protesting pointlessly outside. You can't win the war against fascist ideas if you don't fight the battles. Banning things just makes us look like we are scared to take them on.

[David Moon]

Oh come off it Danny, this is just a bit of mutual flattery between you and your old mate Julian who worked for you at Tory Central Office back in the mid 90's and who wrote a nice puff piece letter for you which he still proudly publishes on his own website! Entitled 'Finkelsteins Fan' it was originally published in the Spectator 20 July 1996. I have never read such woolly glib rubbish as your assertion that BOTH Lewis and Harris are right when they are arguing complete opposites!

[Joe, Scotland]

I really liked this article. I like it because it manages to weave its way through a very dangerous minefield. There are two very important points:

1 Free speech is a fundamental right in a functioning democracy.

2 Even those who propose ideologies that would restrict that right must be allowed to air their views.

It is indeed an issue for the Oxford Union to decide on the merits for themselves.

It is only when someone says or does something criminal that they should be shut down.

There is no law against Holocaust denial in this country at present, and until someone says something illegal then they have the right to have their say on immigration or any other matter.

I am glad I don't live in Iran, where I would be arrested for holding a controversial opinion; and I am equally glad that I wasn't alive during the Nazi reign of terror in Europe not so long ago.

However my Uncle fought and died fighting the Nazi regime, along with a great many heroic people, in an effort to rescue all Europe including the many, many people murdered during the Holocaust.

I don't want to pre-judge what the outcome of all of this debating will be. Although I must admit to being a bit baffled by the whole Holocaust thing. Mr Griffin has really shot himself in the foot by being associated with someone who refuses to believe a very well documented piece of history.

[William Bemister]

I am a life member of the Oxford Union Society, a resident in Oxford, and a regular attendee of the Union’s debates.

I was unable to obtain a ticket to last night’s ‘Free Speech’ debate, no doubt because of the bussing into Oxford of students from other universities including those with reciprocal membership.

For those uninitiated into the ways and wherefores of Oxford debating, there have been many more politically incorrect and possibly offensive speakers at recent debates than the likes of Nick Griffin and David Irving, the latter at least being a disrespected historian, but an historian none the less.

The fact that a debate on ‘Free Speech’ was cancelled because of the guerrilla antics of students, of whom few I suspect were Union members, suggests that a vote whether ‘Free Speech’ existed in Oxford last night was a resounding no!

William Bemister
University Club
Mansfield Road
Oxford OX1 3SZ
01865 241470

[louise]

How do we determine what is free speech surely by that very act we negate the principal. I may not agree with the BNP but then again they may not agree with me. To deny anyone free speech even if they have a completely abhorrant point of view is to deny yourself the same right. There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion there is just opinion. What you must remember is that this is what it is. One persons opinion. Hitler denied people the right to speak, the right to be heard, the right to have a voice, he crowded them in ghettos and burned books. How are those who would ban the bnp or extremist groups any better than book burners that was also an attempt to mould peoples thinking. Let them speak so that we may also speak to disagree.

[andrew brown]

The actions of those protesting against the debate were disgraceful. Students attending the debate were assaulted by the protestors and their rights to freedom of speech and association were denied. The police clearly connived with the protestors by failing to protect those going about their lawful business. Whatever you think of the views of the speakers it is clear from the actions of the demonstrators that fascists are not just found on the right of politics.

[Alex Berry]

Who is it that is telling me the B.N.P. is racist? Or extremist?
Labour who have lied time and time again?
The Torys?
Isn't faith and belief in 'mainstream' politicians at an all time low after all their abuses of power?
And this Daniel Finkelstein, do you think your peers want to accept your bias opinion and censorship, rather than decide for ourselves?
Want to know what is extremist?
Releasing prisoners early and paying them compesation for such is extremist.
As is refusing white men applications to the police.
Or one in five primary children not being able to write.
And people trafficking because we have no border control.
Then three's hundreds of thousands of British leaving this God-awful multi-culture each year.
And people digging up the dead to make way for more housing, needed thanks to immigration.
Bring twenty-third out of twenty-three comparable countries on the list of safest places to bring up a family.
Having a huge gap between rich and poor along with static social mobility.
And a government machine overwhelmed with leglislation as it tries to cope with the whole world with all it's ethnic, cultural and religious needs now all in one country.
And nearly a million non-British residents overseas able to vote in British elections.
I could continue on and on...

[Malcolm Stein]

Irving has whined for years about what he calls "Free Speech". Yet he sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel - he didn't like what she wrote about him. He lost the case. He maintains an unhealthy interest in trying to manhandle the law to silence his critics - look at his website to see a copy of his recent threat to the Independent. He seems to me to be an ideal participant in a debate about free speech and no doubt the irony won't be lost on his debating opponents. Neither he nor Griffin should be banned from debating. We don't need martyrs. Their views should be ridiculed in public.

[E Haq]

Speaking as a student who has just come from the debate, I am glad they were invited.

The national press haven't picked this up, but the invitation came in the context of an ongoing debate in oxford about no platform policies and the limits of free speech. The central student union (OUSU) has enforced a no platform policy that has cancelled at least one other scheduled speech by Nick Griffin at the university before. Whilst in that case they were within their rights to do so, there is a feeling amongst students (evidenced by the oxford union's poll, and a 'Big Debate' on the issue) that no platform policies are not necessarily the best way to respond to extremism. OUSU do not reflect or seek to represent this part of the student body, partly because they are currently dominated by students with particular political interests -rather, they spent a lot of energy organising the protest tonight.

In the context, the Oxford Union was making a stand on the ongoing issue of the limits of free speech; one which a large part of the student body supported -not merely seeking publicity or sensation.

The people who should be ashamed of themselves are some of the protesters. Although many, probably the majority of the protesters were peaceful, some were out of control, many were determined to intimidate the students. I saw one anti-fascist (!) demonstrator wearing a knuckle duster, another spitting at a student who was trying to get in to the debate. Within the chamber, BNP security guards were protecting students from protestors who were storming the chamber -unsettling and utterly perverse. One middle-aged white protestor yelled 'racist scum' at me repeatedly -I'm asian.

I have a lot of sympathy with anti-fascist protestors, but those who tried to stop the debate through intimidating students came close to diminishing this. Most opponents of the invitation agreed that the union had the right to issue the invite -just thought it was foolish, and wrong. Thus, on their own reasoning they had no grounds to try and delay or stop the debate from going ahead. It was sad to see that liberals, whose views I generally share, can stoop to mob behaviour and acts of intimidation to oppose those who don't agree with them.

[Runcible]

It's completely pointless to attempt to educate students whose minds are so closed that they'll only consent to hear views with which they are familiar and with which they agree. What on earth is an 800 year old university doing wasting time on psychologically fragile young people who can't contain their fear of other people's opinions.
I'd have been more sympathetic if they'd objected to Oxford Union being exploited for publicity purposes by Michael Jackson and Uri Geller.

[Rod Wheeler]

When I was a university student in the late 1960s, British universities still prided themselves on being centres of free debate in which any views could be voiced and discussed, no matter how controversial.This was always one of the great traditions of these institutions - academic freedom. The aim was to demolish your opponent's argument with the weight and logic of your own. This academic freedom seems to be under threat by people who wish to stifle debate by banning the expression of certain views. This policy is coming solely from so-called left-oriented liberals who label anything they disagree with as "right-wing", "reactionary" or "fascist". When did anyone from the "right-wing" last demand that the voicing of the views of the left should be banned? Nowadays, British universities (and, to a large extent, society in general)seem to be controlled by a policy of political correctness that claims to be not only "liberal" but also in favour of "tolerance" and "diverity". At the same time, people voicing these beliefs are acting in a very "illiberal" way by not being tolerant of debates that put forward ideas they disagree with and by trying to limit diversity of opinions. In this particular case, I would support the right of the leader of the BNP to speak and the right of those who disagree with his views to demonstrate peacefully and to argue against him in the debating chamber. This is, after all, how a civilised pluralistic democracy should be behaving. We must be very wary of allowing what one French political philosopher described as "le fascisme de la gauche" from undermining our democracy by inhibiting free speech and stifling debate.

[Harlan Leyside]

The strident, confident, assertive tone in which you issue your simplistic, juvenile, cliched and predictable regurgitation of orthodox sterility is made possible by the stifling restrictions our onerous laws have placed on mainstream expression.
Your comments epitomise safety in numbers.
Say what's expected, what requires, demands and invites no thought, just reaction.
Only in such a blanderised, protected environment could such a feeble commentator such as yourself survive.
It is you, not Griffin or Irving that oppose free speech.

[Dean Rodrigues]

well concluded. As a Union member myself, I was one of the 1000-odd that voted in favour of upholding the invitations, as pulling out at this stage would be, to quote Union President Luke Tryl, a prime example of making the two "free-speech martyrs".

The Union represents free speech by allowing anyone to express their views, and allowing everyone else to disagree with them. It is a sad day in this country when people believe that our population, or in this example the students of Oxford University, do not have the mental capabilities to make a rational decision for themselves.

[Bob Evans]

Throughout history, the very nature of scholarly inquiry has demanded exposure to currently unpopular views. Indeed, it was less than half a century ago that British and American students rose up to defend the principle of free speech and the right to hear then-unpopular opinions.

How tragic that we now see students and politicians banding together in an attempt to enforce orthodoxy and deny free speech to those who hold opposing views.

[Bob Evans]

Throughout history, the very nature of scholarly inquiry has demanded exposure to currently unpopular views. Indeed, it was less than half a century ago that British and American students rose up to defend the principle of free speech and the right to hear then-unpopular opinions.

How tragic that we now see students and politicians banding together in an attempt to enforce orthodoxy and deny free speech to those who hold opposing views.

[Bernard Parke]

We seem to have forgotten the quotation.
" I do not agree with waht you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it!"

Political correctness has destroyed this right of free speech/

[Stuart Danks Victoria Falls]

I think alot of what Nick Griffiths says makes sense on issues like immigration. Look at the teacher arrested in Sudan. Alot of immigrants do not share the values we hold dear. Imagine a Britain where you are arrested for celebrating Christmas. Britains have an unbelievable naviety about these sorts of issues and someone like Mr Griffiths at least makes us be aware and think what could happen

[Jez W]

A quick run down of last nights itinery;

Lefty Journo's demonise Griffin and Irving, whilst standing shoulder to shoulder with some well off Lefty students scweaming and scweaming about how correct they are- 'hey, because they've debated about it at Uni don't you know!'

NG and DI turn up- rabble surges- but only enough for a photo shoot, as to be arrested would jepordise the well off lefty students future careers- 'you know.'

After a ten minute delay the debate goes ahead; DI and NG probably tell everyone how important free speech is- maybe now DI tells everyone that not as many Jewish people were murdered by the murdering Nazi's- whilst maybe linking 30's Germany to past things happening elsewhere- in such a fashion that they can't be banged up for incitement. A wholly bad and wrong stance maybe- who know's- no will ever hear it outside of debating chambers in Oxford anyway.

Debate finishes- most of the lefty rabble have gone home now though- got a lecture at 10am tomorow- got to get some sleep or mummy and Daddy will be 'cwoss'.

NG and DI go home- papers next day have field day.

The end.

What a waste of time!

[Victor - a very happy expat.]

Never mind Messrs. Griffin and Irving their obnoxious views are well known to anybody who takes an interest in the world around them. What is truly obnoxious is the fact that the internationally known and respected Oxford Union have given them their platform and their oxygen of publicity which is all they crave. Doesn't anybody get it yet? These people have no 'power' - only in their dreams - stop feeding them, stop being so naive- those empty heads at Oxford knew exactly what furore this would cause and they were right. Thank goodness they will be tomorrows fish and chip wrappers.

[john problem]

Nobody overseas can understand why a university debating club gets so much attention. But they do not know, as we do, that the Oxford Debating Union is where our political leaders learn the skills they so brilliantly demonstrate in Parliament. And its successive Presidents arrange for a controversial debate once a year to ensure it gets media coverage. It also allows politicians, of whom one never hears normally, to 'resign' and take other brave and intellectually rigorous stances.
Thrilling stuff.

[richard pope]

'i may not agree with what you say however i will defend to the death your right to say it' voltaire. the fact you even debate that it may have been right to censor someones opinion is clear demonstration that you have been brainwashed by the authorities that any opinion other that your own is incorrect and that you are more right than other people. opinions are opinions and fashion, set by the temporary debate victor of society trends, is temporary. will you be so weak as to let the next trend setters dictate to you what they want you to think also or do you infact believe that peoople should be censored if you do not agree with them? why not make them 'vanish' as as so often the case when authoritarian intrusive states find people 'off message'.

[Keith Bentham]

Liberalism is the fascism of the day.

[Eddie]

Yes, it is legal to invite such people to speak in a debate, and rightly so, but not everything that is legal is responsible. The Union has gone out of its way to provide a platform for these abhorrent views, and it shouldn't have.

[Bazrabaz]

The naievety of the so called intelligent elite at the Oxford Union makes my heart sink for this country - wake up you fools - the enemy is within and it's not the BNP.

[Lea]

Looks like the FASCISTS were outside the building, not INSIDE!

[Simon Stephenson]

Mike Jones

I'd just like to say that as someone who writes a lot of very off-centre posts I've never had reason to believe that "Comment Central" is other than scrupulously fair, and non-devious, in both the policy and the practice of its moderation.

I wish I could say the same about all the other forums to which I post. I accept the need to moderate to weed out libellous and personally offensive contributions. But I believe there is also an intention in much moderation to keep "uncomfortable" postings from becoming part of the discussion. Often this is achieved merely by not publishing these comments, often under the guise of being "off-topic" or irrelevant. There is however also an example of level-1 deviousness at play, in which the publication of unwelcome contributions is purposely delayed until (a) they appear buried beneath a pile of more recent comments, and (b) they appear too late to form part of the real-time discussion, the main players having moved on elsewhere. Clever, eh!

[Joseph Garrick]

Oh David I have just posted a comment.

Now you be a good boy and expose your role in censoring any expression of free thought that Israel would not approve of!

[Jim Carr]

The protesters were no better than thugs.
Freedom of speech? You have been given a foretaste of what that particular phrase means to the politically correct mob.
And just where were the police in all of this? Investigating some TV programme for a non-existent slight against the preachers of hate?
I suspect the protesters' conduct was an eye-opener for a lot of people.

[Ross]

What actually does the BNP stand for? It is all very well for Daniel Finkelstein to rather grandly defend the right of the Union to free association. But it is clear that the journalist believes the decision wrong, and engagement with the argument (in the context of a debate on free speech) beyond the pale. Where then is the analysis, the engagement with the ideas and arguments that he and his well-heeled colleagues oppose? Whilst many commentators defended the BNP's right to speak, I can find no published account of the debate itself, nor the kind of analysis that rises above the usual lazy accusations of 'this hateful group'? It is not enough for journalists to accuse someone of being distasteful (or as the demonstrators seemed to think, a 'fascist') and thereby close down further discussion. It is far worse, I'm afraid, than merely a disservice to the readership.

[Ben]

The only people denying freedom were the violent protesters.Without free speech we have nothing. If you disagree with whats being said, debate it, argue it, but don't deny freedom of speech.Resigning because you don't like the opposition, is fascism, denying somebody's right to freedom of speech, is fascist behaviour. Those reactionary idiots cannot reason that, because they have no thought other than a brain-washed single mindedness.

FREEEEEEDOM!

[J Wales]

I think that many people have missed the point entirely - the vast majority of people in this country disagree with Irving and Griffin, and many would like to see them silenced by a no platform policy. Who better than them to explain why they should be allowed to have their say in public despite this?

[Russell]

It is worth pointing out for the record that Oxford Union President Luke Tryl is not a supporter of freedom of speech.

A month ago Tryl rescinded the invitation of US academic Professor Norman Finkelstein, who was scheduled to speak at a Union debate on the Middle East. Finkelstein is a critic of Israel and its human rights record in the Occupied Territories, and special interest groups put pressure on Tryl to cancel Finkelstein's invitation because they wanted to silence his views. Tryl accepted this pressure and duly cancelled the invitation.

Is this how someone behaves who passionately believes in free speech? He has perjured himself and the Union.

See http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/
israel_palestine/free_speech_oxford_union

[George]

Pretty obvious how you think Finkelstein! Julian Lewis is another one of those advocats of free speech like yourself who only support it when it is something you agree with. So how dare you in a public newspaper condemn the Oxford Union - what gives you the right to tell us what is right or wrong?
Stick to reporting facts and keep your biased opinions to youself.

[Robert Jones]

I find this notion of denying them a platform deeply condescending. What are we afraid of? That they will gain legitimacy for their views? That some people may be influenced? Well, I say, legitimacy with whom? Who's views? Those with less intellectual capacity than the debaters? Come on! Give them their platform, trust their audiences to make their own judgments. And if perchance their views do gain wider legitimacy, then they are, by definition, validated by democratic consent. Deal with it.

[George]

It was interesting to note that in photographs of the protesters there seemed to be rather a lot of middle aged students? Then of course there was the ones who believed so much in what they were protesting that they covered their faces - probably in case Mummy and Daddy cut their allowances

[John Stitch]

Yeah ! Free Speech ! Yeah !
Err ... unless of course it's something you don't agree with. What an absolute farce. I don't agree with the views of these two men either but would it not have been better to let them speak and expose themselves to ridicule than to weigh in rent-a-mob-handed chanting all the usual mindless 70's leftist slogans ?
I think it's clear which group has shot itself in the foot here ...

[Simon Stephenson]

Henry94

"The internet and YouTube in particular changes this debate even if we put in in terms of how to suppress unacceptable opinions. The curious can find both men there so their views can't be suppressed.

Therefore they need to be crushed in debate occasionally and their humiliation should be celebrated like Irving's courtroom debacle.

So invite them by all means but make sure there is enough firepower on the other side to shoot them down in flames."

This reads to me as though you are suggesting that the majority have a right to prevail over not only what we all do, but also what we all think. This on the basis that the majority is able absolutely to define which views are right and which are "unacceptable".

Sounds like not too far away from a tyranny to me.

[alan maddox]

Finkelstein has shown his personal bias yet again.He is free to write whatever he wishes and so are people at the Oxford Union free to speak whatever they want.
Just because you don't think you will like what they are going to say is no excuse for banning them
Griffin is in fact the only decent politician left in this dump of a country.One only has to read the informed passages on the website of the BNP to realise that everything they say is spot on, and wimps like Finkelstein can't bear the truth.He's very lucky to be included in our society that allows him to speak his mind and that's all the debate was about last night,not what these speakers wanted to speak about but as to whether or not it was right to let them speak.I don't recall Finkelstein calling for action when that fat slob with the hook on his hand was spewing out his oral filth,securely protected by members of our police force,who were diverted from their usual rsponsibilities of catching burglars and low life.
cf Voltaire -he like Enoch Powell was right - " I disapprove of what you say,but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Julia Iskandar]

In my opinion Irving and Griffin are two nut cases who deserve each other. I wouldn't have bestowed credence on them by inviting them. The best solution, once they were invited, would have been to let them slug it out with each other in an empty room - given that they're both "publicity-at-any-price" addicts. Not getting ANY attention would be the worst punishment for their foolish views and their lies.

[john russell]

Gab on about Hitler and all your other little taboos, but many Brits are getting off their knees and realising that last night's farce at the Oxford Union was just one more establishment propaganda stunt aimed at deflecting the voter's attention from the fact that immigration policy is something well within his/her sphere of influence, and on which a range of policy-choices is available. And further, that the 3 old political parties who claim to be the arbiters of right and wrong on immigration, are the very people who have brought about the mess which now confronts us, our children and grandchildren.
Last Thursday 29% of those who could be bothered to vote in a local by-election voted BNP. Those of you who think you can tell the rest of us what to think and how to vote, have had your day.

[L Stewart]

The chief reason for my moving from a lifelong support of the Conservative Party to support of the British National Party was ideological. However, a considerable influence on me in making what was nevertheless a difficult decision was the treatment of the BNP by the major parties and their media : of which misrepresentation either from malice or quite astonishing ignorance was a feature I could not overlook.

Mr Finkelstein and commentators like him repeatedly make the same observations about the BNP which are entirely false, and are merely a parroting of the invective resorted to by a political establishment well aware of its own cynicism, incompetence, corruption, weak moral fibre,and total lack of concern for the British people; and that apart from insult, false analogies and outright lies, it has no arguments to refute the BNP's criticisms or the merits of the nationalist case itself.

Media policy towards the BNP ranges from the automatic use of terms such as 'vile', 'evil', 'fascist' and 'racist'; to strict censorship openly required by many editors on news reflecting well on the BNP; to an eagerness to seize on anything which might be used (more often misrepresented) to reflect badly on the Party; to the insertion of undercover reporters primed to find something/anything which can be made of a chance remark or ill-chosen phrase. In spite of this, nothing has been 'discovered'- because there is nothing to 'discover'.

The overwhelming decency of members and supporters of the BNP can be confirmed by any person taking the trouble to attend a BNP meeting, or meet with an official.
Similarly, the tendency of the ludicrously named 'liberals' and more openly marxist fanatics of the UAF to use obscene abuse, threats and violence against nationalist activists including women and old age pensioners can just as easily be verified.

To say that "Griffin is the organiser of an often violent and hateful group which is often threatening when it take hold in local communities" is thus nonsense, as is the accusation that Mr Griffin is an opponent of free speech. Both, in fact, are complete reversals of the truth.

It is extremely revealing when Mr Finkelstein et al have to resort to such falsehoods to defend their position.

[Ripsnorter, Spain]

This story has nothing to do with free speech, nothing. It is all about the empty headed dopes at the Oxford union (soon to be tomorrows politicians) actually inviting these people whos opinions are internationally well known and giving them the publicity on which they thrive.

[James Hopkin]

Re: comments calling the moderation 'censorship'. Moderation of the comments is entirely consistent with the point Danny makes. Freedom of expression does *not* imply a right to a platform or a right to be published.

[Simon Stephenson]

As always, Frank Furedi puts the case much better than I do:-

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4115/

[Mark]

I'm amused at the commenter who wrote "How dare you in a public newspaper condemn the Oxford Union."

Surely there's this thing called "free speech" which allows, well, the editors and columnists of newspapers to provide their opinions?

For what it's worth, I'm a life member of the Oxford Union. I didn't vote in the question of whether those speakers would have been invited, but if I had done, I'd have voted "no".

Not because I believe that their views should be suppressed. No matter how little I share them, I'd rather live in a country where we're all willing to say what we want. But because I have next to zero interest in their rantings, and there are between 10-20 million other people to whom I'd rather spend an evening listening.

Oh, and you can now have fun guessing my ethnic group, and the country in which I was born :-)