|
|
Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007, 07:59 pm
Does free speech include the BNP?
A lot of bloggers seem to be talking about the Oxford Union's decision to let Nick Griffin and David Irving come and speak. They claim that they're doing it not because they agree with the BNP, but on the grounds that freedom of speech means even objectionable ideas have a right to be aired. So, should fascists like the BNP be allowed to speak their views? Here's my take on it. Some of you may recall that a while back a BNP member turned up on my LJ and started giving me his theory of the world.Just a reminder of his highly rational, plausible and non-lunatic theories: "RED nose day…. You obviously know nothing of the subtlety of neuro associative conditioning. Associate pleasure to an object, colour, sound, smell etc., and that enters the nervous system as a pleasurable experience; it’s not hard to understand.
RED is an important colour to communists and they must associate as much pleasure as possible including RED nose day. Ken Livingstone is holding a carnival across London in 2009 celebrating Fidel Castro’s communist Cuba uprising. Again associating pleasure to communism. There isn’t anything loony about RED nose day helping the communist cause. Haven’t you heard of RED Ken.
Wake up Spirit of 1976"Quite frankly, if this is the sort of thing the BNP come out with, maybe there really is a case for letting them speak their views on a wider platform, just so everyone can see what a certifiable, laughable bunch of freaks they really are.
Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 08:14 pm (UTC)
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) sugar_spun
I'm willing to bet that, if I were to drink the entire contents of my wine cellar cupboard, I would be riotously drunk, and that still would not make sense. I'm also willing to test my hypothesis. I wish my corkscrew wasn't broken. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 08:19 pm (UTC)
tempore
While I don't know that inviting them to speak is all that wise, I do agree that the freedom to speak views, even if they are objectionable, is important. That's not to say that slander or hate speech should be allowed, and sometimes it is a fine line. However, personally, I'd rather know exactly who my enemy is, for one thing, and letting them speak means that they reveal themselves as such, rather than keeping their hatred closeted and getting support in more insidious ways. The beauty of freedom of speech is that once someone airs their views, everyone else has the right to disagree as vocally as they want, too. And it always comes back to Voltaire's quote, for me: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." To only have "freedom" for certain speech is not freedom at all. With the support of something like that, as well as the other side, come some unpleasant results, but that makes it no less valid of a principle because it's all about determining what and who can be controlled. I can control myself and my reactions, but only mine, and only if I know what I am reacting to or against. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 08:30 pm (UTC)
burkesworks
Let them talk. Who made Trevor Phillips sheriff regarding whom the Oxford Union may or may not invite? Besides, there's nobody quite like Nick Griffin when it comes to putting his Doc Marten-clad foot in his mouth as soon as he opens it; one of the highlights of the 2006 BBC local election broadcast was the sight of Griffin sweating and gibbering incoherently under questioning by Dimbleby, like a chav in the dock of a magistrates' court as sentence is about to be passed. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 09:05 pm (UTC)
clytemenstra
They should let them speak. Their views are repugnant but refusing to let them speak only damages their opposition - it creates an impression that their views are so dangerous no-one should hear them, which merely gives them power. They should be allowed to speak, so everyone else can answer them back, and point out the sheer mind blowing idiocy of their views. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 09:10 pm (UTC)
brewhexe
I am with you - let them show what delightful people they are. I do hate Holocaust deniers though, with a passion. So maybe, after Irving has spoken, we can show him round some ovens. My Mum works for Oriel College and I am sure she could lend us the kitchens for a while. Then we can deny it all. :D Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)
annomalley
It's a tough one. On the one hand, I sympathise with Luke Tryl, the society's president's argument: "Nick Griffin likes nothing more than parading around in gags, saying he is being censored. I want us, the liberal mainstream, to show that we are not afraid to take him on in a debate, we will defeat him, and we will beat fascism every time." ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7102363,00.html) On the other hand, inviting these people gives them an inappropriate kind of legitimity - would they invite Charles Manson to debate murder? Holocaust denial is a crime in several countries. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 09:31 pm (UTC)
malvino
I agree with the idea, it has potential to backfire somewhat if the BNP find two very erudite and eloquent dopplegangers, but otherwise it simply removes one of their last remaining weapons (which has incidentally been gaining them ground). I think the risk is worth it. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 11:11 pm (UTC)
frightened
I'm a bit baffled by the idea that "freedom of speech" = "this particular organisation/individual has to give that particular organisation/individual a platform at the other time/date/place". I mean, everybody's got freedom of speech, and yet everybody obviously does not get to speak at the Oxford Union. I think there's an invalid jump in reasoning there. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 03:45 am (UTC)
jacinthsong
Yeah, exactly. I've been ranting about how this is not a free speech issue for weeks. Not impressed with the Union I paid up for right now. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 10:54 am (UTC)
frightened
Mmmhmmm. Everybody has a human right to freedom of expression, okay, though that's obviously not simplistically true since we have laws about slander this and conspiracy that and copyright the other, and so obviously it's much more complicated than people who justify their jerkishness with wails of "freeeeeeee speeeeeeeech!" like to believe, but never mind. Pretend it's true. Still, if someone comes in my house and calls everybody a cunt, the door's hitting them in the arse on their way out. Besides which, shouldn't the university be providing a safe environment for all their students? (Not just physically safe, but in the sense of a safe space, or like how some bigoted behaviour isn't acceptable in a workplace.) I mean, I didn't actually see any while I was visiting Sarah, but there must be some black people in Oxford (they probably keep them in the same cupboard as the poor people), for whom presumably this is slightly more personal than an intellectual game. Edited at 2007-11-26 10:59 am (UTC) Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 11:01 am (UTC)
jacinthsong
Yep. loneraven has an excellent post up about all this, particularly your last point, and I've been meaning to make one for weeks... Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 11:14 am (UTC)
frightened
Grargh. That's a very eloquent and depressing post right there. Thanks to lazy journalism and unexamined het privilege, rather than anything more sinister, I hope, our student newspaper published a hideously homophobic article on its front page. (At least I could stomp down to the office and yell at the editor, which is more than I can say for the Sunday Mercury or the Express and Star, and there were huge numbers of complaints and they apologised next issue, but still.) You know what? That fucking hurt. There are some places where I'm dumb enough to believe in the non-discrimination policies and so I let my guard down because hey, we're all too civilised here to start slagging people off for no good reason, and then suddenly I'm in what's supposed to be a safe space and stuff I pay for is telling me I don't count as a person. Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 03:21 pm (UTC)
malvino
"Besides which, shouldn't the university be providing a safe environment for all their students? (Not just physically safe, but in the sense of a safe space, or like how some bigoted behaviour isn't acceptable in a workplace.) I mean, I didn't actually see any while I was visiting Sarah, but there must be some black people in Oxford (they probably keep them in the same cupboard as the poor people), for whom presumably this is slightly more personal than an intellectual game. " Nah, quite the opposite in my view. University is supposed to be a challenging place, where everything you know is torn apart and you get to think through it all again rationally, build your base from the ground up. It's quite possible you'll come to the same conclusion as you had all along, but you'll have a far more solid basis for it if it's been challenged. Also, just because someone is black doesn't mean they can't objectively dissect arguments about white supremacy, or, more pertinently to the debate I'm guessing these two will focus on, immigration. There are arguments that it's gone too far, that England is losing its own culture, that multiculturalism has failed as an experiment, - all kinds of things which we kneejerk into thinking are racist but may actually be valid and aren't debated enough because nobody wants to be lumped in with the BNP but which nevertheless should be examined critically and objectively - that could do with some serious debate. Where else would this happen but a university? I think that the BNP (and UKIP and such) is gaining some ground and appealing to some voters simply because the mainstream parties and public figures are frightened by being labelled racist and won't go near the debate. I mean, I could debate the IRA when they were making occasional attempts at murdering me and my fellow commuters, I can now debate the legitimacy and justifications, or lack thereof, that the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists claim to have, and reason through the arguments that Bush says it is "Unacceptable to think". That's not to say that by having the debate one would come to the conclusion that the terrorists (and include the BNP here if you like) are justified, just that it is possible to understand them and their motivation (which may well be that they're criminally insane). Frankly, unless you understand your enemy you're just swinging in the dark and will never win any battle against them. In my view, when you say "you can't debate this topic" then the terrorists have won, or rather, the braindead, reactionary herd has won. Besides, these two will be humiliated, not justifed, they are being given a platform and a length of rope to go with it, and there'll be a trapdoor underneath them. Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 12:18 pm (UTC)
frightened
Nah, quite the opposite in my view. University is supposed to be a challenging place, where everything you know is torn apart and you get to think through it all again rationally, build your base from the ground up. It's quite possible you'll come to the same conclusion as you had all along, but you'll have a far more solid basis for it if it's been challenged.Intellectually, sure. In terms of having contact with people who don't respect your fundamental human rights? Nope. Nobody deserves to have to put up with that. Particularly since that's not going to be an equally-applied thing - it's largely only going to affect people who can already expect to face discrimination and hate crimes and who, frankly, deserve a break. Also, just because someone is black doesn't mean they can't objectively dissect arguments about white supremacy, or, more pertinently to the debate I'm guessing these two will focus on, immigration.That's not what I said. I said it's likely to have more of a personal impact. That's not doubting anybody's intelligence, that's thinking maybe it's not nice to make people's lives unpleasant if you don't have to. Besides, these two will be humiliated, not justifed, they are being given a platform and a length of rope to go with it, and there'll be a trapdoor underneath them.I think that's an extremely naive view. Both have been smacked down in debate before and, in the case of Irving, in a heavily publicised court case between two academics. At no point has it sent them crawling back into the woodwork with their tails between their legs. Extra attention makes them more self-important, not more humble. Why should the Oxford Union be any different? Tue, Nov. 27th, 2007 01:48 pm (UTC)
malvino
Well everyone's entitled to their opinion, I think it's incredibly naive to act like fundamentalists, physically barring them from entering the place, invading the hall, and acting like nutter while they calmy repeat "they're scared of us because we offer a really alternative". The protestors (presumably unwittingly) did exactly what the BNP would have wanted. If Nick they'd hired some goons to turn up they would have told them to do the same thing in order to paint the BNP as victims, who knows, the most rabid of the protestors may even have been BNP plants (it's pretty obvuous Griffith has studied Hitler and it was a tactic he used to good effect). The fact is that the BNP has been gaining ground by going door to door and telling people what they want to hear, and since they're not challenged in the mainstream media this will only help their cause. Unless they're allowed to speak in public, and refuted in public in a forum that the national media reports widely the voters who have been electing them to position will only ever hear their side, because the guys who are voting for them don't read the liberal papers. Sun, Nov. 25th, 2007 11:48 pm (UTC)
harry_t_skull
of course, you are only saying this because you are a closet-living-goose-stepper yourself! I tend to agree, and was actually thinking about this early, but then again, if the speakers turn up and manage to convince half of oxford uni that infact blacks are a lesser race, islam is taking over the country and the holocasut was a massive zionist conspircy and never happened, then yes, I will look a bit stupid. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 12:10 am (UTC)
harry_t_skull
actually, a better way of doing the freedom of speach thing. Have the BNP guy up, and the holocaust denier, then a pissed up paranoid homelessman who thinks that he was abducted by aliens and kettle crisps, and say 'this guy's right to freedom as speach is equally as valid as yours' Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 08:56 am (UTC)
spiritof1976
I like that idea. "That man's making more sense than you, even though he's just pissed his trousers!" Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 01:58 pm (UTC)
rssefuirosu
Pissing one's trousers comes from a genuine need ;) Also, good to see your lj, nice post to begin with. Cheers for that. -Sef Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 03:14 am (UTC)
st_rev
Well, the tricky thing is, if you don't let people speak freely, you can't tell whether they're despicable fascists who shouldn't be allowed to speak. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 11:03 am (UTC)
jacinthsong
They can speak as freely as they like. Just not in the comfy, warm confines of the Oxford Union with its veneer of legitimacy. I really don't see how 'free speech' and 'no platform' are mutually exclusive. Mon, Nov. 26th, 2007 08:40 pm (UTC)
st_rev
Sure, two different questions under consideration here. |
