Oxford Union Debate

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

I am sure this thread will degenerate into a rascim slining match but lets try and keep to the subject!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7114343.stm

the above link gives a little insight into what is going on.

I am not going to agree or disagree with the two principle speakers views thats not the point the point is that they should be able to have those views and disuss them etc as they wish.

why do others who disgree with their veiws think they have the right to silcnce them? Really fucks me off when people don't let others speak. Freedom of speach is critcual to decomacry and I woudl even stand up for old hook hand if he was deined the right to preach (within the law) because whilst i don't argree with what he has to say I do strongly belive he has the right to say it!

[red macca]

Throw the black cunts out

[herthab]

Using freedom of speech to incite racial hatred is wrong.

That goes for hook-handed fundamental cunts and fascist cunts.

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

Using freedom of speech to incite racial hatred is wrong.

That goes for hook-handed fundamental cunts and fascist cunts.

yeah but if they do that then they break the law. I am talking about speach within the law which people might just find offivse for exapmle: hilter was alright. know we all know that he wasn't but I have to the right to think he was and to say that. (I don't but you get my point)

[Peter Venkman]

"Though I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Beatrice Hall

[A Gent Orange]

Using racists to promote your own career is wrong. Typical toffee-nosed Oxford Union self-publicists.

[Dazzza]

Meh, the whole affair is a bit pantomime really.  Despite the interest in the subject matter you can’t help but feel with Oxford’s choice of guests they are hosting the whole shebang for a bit of self publicity.

The protestors really should get themselves a life/girlfriend/television.  

While the subject matter is largely irrelevant.   It could have been the BNP it could have been Iddy Armin it’s all irrelevant as no one spoke in the end anyway.  Both get their bit of publicity pie, protestors get to stroke their raging placards to fulfil the void in their life and a couple of union students get a few anecdotes and one for the CV.

I just wish sometimes those for and those opposed should stop mincing around one another like gay shop assistants and have a good old head butting competition.

[axs]

Meh, the whole affair is a bit pantomime really.  Despite the interest in the subject matter you can’t help but feel with Oxford’s choice of guests they are hosting the whole shebang for a bit of self publicity.

The protestors really should get themselves a life/girlfriend/television.  

While the subject matter is largely irrelevant.   It could have been the BNP it could have been Iddy Armin it’s all irrelevant as no one spoke in the end anyway.  Both get their bit of publicity pie, protestors get to stroke their raging placards to fulfil the void in their life and a couple of union students get a few anecdotes and one for the CV.


I just wish sometimes those for and those opposed should stop mincing around one another like gay shop assistants and have a good old head butting competition.

i can't help but feel that sums it up perfectly.

[Matchworn Shirts]

Well at my University they have careers events specifically for black and asian students, that is bang out of order. If it was for white students only there would be a fucking uproar

[sonic youth]

luke tryll invited griffin and irving for self-publicising reasons. if he hadn't invited them, who'd care about the event? it's absurd to invite someone like griffin to a debate on free speech anyway.

the debate did go ahead. although it ended up being split into two - irving and griffin in one room, the rest in the other. i didn't realise when i was there that people had stormed inside to disrupt the event and apparently there was a fair bit of hostility and violence towards people trying to get inside the event, which is completely and utterly absurd. given the way it all turned out; i'm starting to regret going along.

i went along not to supress or stifle free speech but to oppose the views of people like griffin and irving; specifically griffin's use of the event to publicise himself.

i nearly made it onto redwatch though!

p.s. i probably do need a life and a girlfriend but i've got a television.

[Dazzza]

I’d have maybe gone along for a shufty at Irving the mad old loon but only for the fact I’d like to hear his reasoning about the gas chambers etc and to see if he’s genuinely barking or another publicity hungry gusset dweller.

You don’t line up two infamous blokes like that on the same night at the same venue for the purpose of debate.

Did you have a listen to Irving at all SY?

[sonic youth]

i didn't have a ticket. i'd have liked to have listened if i could get one but you're dead right - it's a publicity stunt for both the union and the bnp.

[Arriba]

liberal lefties on one side.racist bigots on the other.
dunno who's worse myself?

[Gazza's Fat Mate]

luke tryll invited griffin and irving for self-publicising reasons. if he hadn't invited them, who'd care about the event? it's absurd to invite someone like griffin to a debate on free speech anyway.

the debate did go ahead. although it ended up being split into two - irving and griffin in one room, the rest in the other. i didn't realise when i was there that people had stormed inside to disrupt the event and apparently there was a fair bit of hostility and violence towards people trying to get inside the event, which is completely and utterly absurd. given the way it all turned out; i'm starting to regret going along.

i went along not to supress or stifle free speech but to oppose the views of people like griffin and irving; specifically griffin's use of the event to publicise himself.

i nearly made it onto redwatch though!

p.s. i probably do need a life and a girlfriend but i've got a television.

I don't get it. you denonuce the fash but use one of there wepons the surpression of speach to try and defeat them, why don't you enter into a debate and try to highlight how stupid there ideas are? This is what drives me nuts about the ANL and searchlight etc they report rightwing action with such zeel that it just sound so far fetched I surpose that is why they are called the far left!!!

[sonic youth]

like i said, i didn't want to supress anyone's freedom of speech but equally i don't see why what people say in the name of free speech should be unchallenged.