Which is why I'm watching a gathering storm over in the dreaming spires of Oxford with growing interest.
Earlier this year, the President of the Oxford (debating) Union invited - amongst others -Nick Griffin and David Irvine to speak on the issue of freedom of speech. The student union, national union of students and the Oxford Jewish society are up in arms about it.
In short their argument is this: platforms shouldn't be given to fascists and holocaust-deniers.
I have two problems with this line:
1) The only way we are going to be able to confront the hideous beliefs of organisations such as the BNP is to have an open debate about them. After all, if we hide them under the carpet, then they are not going to go away. So, let's win the battle of ideas fairly, instead of legislating against certain beliefs. Aren't those that suggest preventing arguments they don't like from ever being heard just as bad as the despots who defined a large part of the twentieth century? Why is fighting fascism with fascist techniques at all desirable?
2) Ultimately, it is very patronising. Why should the Oxford Student Union, the NUS or the Oxford Jewish Society be better placed to decide what I should be able to listen to and what I shouldn't be able to listen to than any other organisation? Why do I even need someone else to tell me what is good or what is bad? Surely I can make my own mind up?
What's worse, though, is that it seems the argument has extended further. Now some believe that: platforms shouldn't be given to those who are fascists and holocaust-deniers, or to those who decide to participate in debates with fascists and holocaust-deniers. See this Facebook group for proof.
The last line of the description is particularly chilling:
This is not a group for discussing the rights and wrongs of appearing with the BNP. It is a group for those who have made up their minds and want to act. Dissent will be crushed - crushed nicely and politely, but crushed nonetheless.
This rhetoric is very disturbing from those that believe themselves to be on the liberal/left of politics. Perhaps we're simply 'all fascists now'? I certainly hope not.
I believe in the freedom of speech, not the freedom from speech. And I'm surprised that a certain proportion of the intellectual heavyweights of Oxford's undergraduate population have failed to sufficiently make that difference...
One response to “Freedom from speech”
Why should freedom of speech be extended to people like Griffin and Irving who would strive to deny others that right.
Nick Griffin doesn't even allow freedom of speech within the BNP,after a recent leadership challenge Griffin and his cohorts went on a purge of all those who dared speak out against him.
Griffin was recently on a US speaking tour and in Michigan all he did was abuse and insult the audience.
Post a Comment