Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Oxford Union Debate
Should these speakers have been invited?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/educa tion/article2948623.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/educa tion/article2948623.ece
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi24
Sorry for the brief 'thread hijack'....CD, they've recorded a cover of Wings 'Band On The Run' for that new Radio 1 compilation (loads of artists covering songs from the last 40 years to celebrate the 40th birthday of the station).
I hated Band On The Run, but their version is frankly, superb.
naomi24 - another problem with denying groups their say is that they will grow increasingly resentful and feel marginalized.
Another reason for ensuring everyone has the right to have their say.
The flipside of the coin though, is that if they are allowed to preach what many consider incitement to racial violence (and their lawyers would robustly deny that - they've actually won a couple of court cases on that issue), then it stands to reason that other hate groups should be allowed to have their say.
This is where my unwavering support of free speech begins to form a few cracks.
I'm only human.
Sorry for the brief 'thread hijack'....CD, they've recorded a cover of Wings 'Band On The Run' for that new Radio 1 compilation (loads of artists covering songs from the last 40 years to celebrate the 40th birthday of the station).
I hated Band On The Run, but their version is frankly, superb.
naomi24 - another problem with denying groups their say is that they will grow increasingly resentful and feel marginalized.
Another reason for ensuring everyone has the right to have their say.
The flipside of the coin though, is that if they are allowed to preach what many consider incitement to racial violence (and their lawyers would robustly deny that - they've actually won a couple of court cases on that issue), then it stands to reason that other hate groups should be allowed to have their say.
This is where my unwavering support of free speech begins to form a few cracks.
I'm only human.
This Irving character is completey mad, so yes it would be a laugh listening to him. Much the same as David Icke or L Ron Hubbard.
However, I am at odds with Griffin. I will say 95 percent of his views are very favourable with my own politics. If you actually read his manifesto, he wants better health, better education, better policing, great fiscal policy, fantastic immigration policy and over all rather cordial beliefs.
However, I do not really understand his views on Jews. It was explained to me on here a while ago, the difference between being a Jew and being a Zionist. Griffin is anti-Zionist not anti-Jew. In fact they have a Jewish candiate. My own view is Israel is for the Jews and Palestine can rot in the evil hell they have created. I guess that makes me a pro-Zionist then?????
Also, I abhor the anti-gay stance Grifin takes, especially if you believe the stories that he had a boyfriend at University. As a Christian myself, I do not like the way he hides behind the Bible in his complete hate for our gaylord cousins. My Bible preaches love, not hate.
I strongly share his view with national service, however he lets himself down when stating ALL those who have completed the service should retain their arms in their homes. Mmmmmm arming the masses IS NOT the way forward.
So, yes if Griffin accepted Jewish rights of Israel and laid off the homophobia, he would get my vote 100 percent. For that reason, there is no argument against him speaking. They are a bona fide political party and frankly I find ANYBODY pro-Islam or marxist 3 billion times more offensive than ANYTHING Griffin has ever said or done, including aforementioned views on gaylords and Jews.
My Great Granfather died fighting the Germans in WW1so we can enjoy our freedoms, and my Grandfather killed many a Nazi in WW2 for much the same reasons.
Long live free speech!!!
However, I am at odds with Griffin. I will say 95 percent of his views are very favourable with my own politics. If you actually read his manifesto, he wants better health, better education, better policing, great fiscal policy, fantastic immigration policy and over all rather cordial beliefs.
However, I do not really understand his views on Jews. It was explained to me on here a while ago, the difference between being a Jew and being a Zionist. Griffin is anti-Zionist not anti-Jew. In fact they have a Jewish candiate. My own view is Israel is for the Jews and Palestine can rot in the evil hell they have created. I guess that makes me a pro-Zionist then?????
Also, I abhor the anti-gay stance Grifin takes, especially if you believe the stories that he had a boyfriend at University. As a Christian myself, I do not like the way he hides behind the Bible in his complete hate for our gaylord cousins. My Bible preaches love, not hate.
I strongly share his view with national service, however he lets himself down when stating ALL those who have completed the service should retain their arms in their homes. Mmmmmm arming the masses IS NOT the way forward.
So, yes if Griffin accepted Jewish rights of Israel and laid off the homophobia, he would get my vote 100 percent. For that reason, there is no argument against him speaking. They are a bona fide political party and frankly I find ANYBODY pro-Islam or marxist 3 billion times more offensive than ANYTHING Griffin has ever said or done, including aforementioned views on gaylords and Jews.
My Great Granfather died fighting the Germans in WW1so we can enjoy our freedoms, and my Grandfather killed many a Nazi in WW2 for much the same reasons.
Long live free speech!!!
On balance, I think no
We have a conditional free speech right under the Human Rights Act. There is no such thing as totally free speech - there are always consequences/impacts and it is not lawful where there is could be incitement to racial hatred or a disproportionate harm to others. Both of these men have caused harm or encouraged others to do so, through their speech. NO other acts that cause harm to others is a right is it?
We have a conditional free speech right under the Human Rights Act. There is no such thing as totally free speech - there are always consequences/impacts and it is not lawful where there is could be incitement to racial hatred or a disproportionate harm to others. Both of these men have caused harm or encouraged others to do so, through their speech. NO other acts that cause harm to others is a right is it?
They were invited to get some cheap publicity. There are any number of people who can debate freedom of speech; they went for the hatemongers. Perhaps they should have invited Abu Hamza too? How many ABers would have agreed with that?
Ruby is right, freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are other freedoms too. Your freedom not to have lies told about you overrules my freedom of speech; so if I do tell lies about you, you can sue me for libel. An American judge once explained that you don't have the freedom to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. In other words, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to endanger people's lives. That sounds fine to me. My life is more important than my speech.
Ruby is right, freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are other freedoms too. Your freedom not to have lies told about you overrules my freedom of speech; so if I do tell lies about you, you can sue me for libel. An American judge once explained that you don't have the freedom to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. In other words, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to endanger people's lives. That sounds fine to me. My life is more important than my speech.
We are told we have free speech in this country, and providing nothing is said to break existing laws, then anyone no matter what religion or creed they belong to, should be able to speak on any subject they choose.
Having never heard the BNP speak, (and I am sure I am in the majority), surely one cannot make judgment on them. The same goes for the holocaust debate, let's hear this person's argument before condemning what he says.
Regarding the demonstrations it is always the left who take to the streets and use violence, be it The Anti Nazi League, or the Socialist Workers Party. Have the BNP retaliated? No they just seem to want to march in peace.
Having never heard the BNP speak, (and I am sure I am in the majority), surely one cannot make judgment on them. The same goes for the holocaust debate, let's hear this person's argument before condemning what he says.
Regarding the demonstrations it is always the left who take to the streets and use violence, be it The Anti Nazi League, or the Socialist Workers Party. Have the BNP retaliated? No they just seem to want to march in peace.
jno, perhaps they should have invited Abu Hamza too Abu Hamza is not a good example, since he clearly committed a crime. Incitement to murder goes far beyond freedom of speech. and quite rightly he is �banged up� (as Lucy Thomas puts it). However, before he was �banged up�, perhaps he should have been invited to air his views, and to have those views openly challenged. If a debate with him had taken place, although I doubt it would ever have been successful in changing his thought processes, it may have demonstrated his irrationality to his followers, and may possibly have persuaded some of them to think otherwise. Instead his words have been heard, in the main, by impressionable people, who haven�t had the opportunity to listen to and consider a reasoned opposing argument, and so, no doubt, continue to hold him in high esteem � and possibly even see him as some sort of martyr.
As I said, legislation may prevent people from speaking, but it doesn't stop them thinking irrational thoughts. Only education can do that.
As I said, legislation may prevent people from speaking, but it doesn't stop them thinking irrational thoughts. Only education can do that.
naomi, what goes beyond free speech varies from place to place. In Austria it's illegal to deny the Holocaust happened (it's something neo-Nazis do); Irving did it and was also banged up. Griffin has likewise been convicted of incitement to racial hatred, though his jail sentence was suspended, so no banging. I think this places them on a level with Abu Hamza.
jno, I understand what you�re saying, and I respect your views, but I can�t agree that incitement to racial hatred, as terrible as that is, is equal to incitement to murder. As for those who deny the holocaust, of course it�s nonsense, but legislation, like political correctness, serves only to stifle the issue rather than address it and seek a solution to it, and therefore the problem festers and grows. Those who spread hatred need to be exposed for exactly what they are, and given the platform, the people most likely to do that is the hate-mongers themselves. Let them talk � let them debate with rational people - and hopefully they�ll take enough rope to hang themselves. In my opinion, legislation means we are afraid, and by legislating to silence these people, we are, in effect, giving credence and publicity to their evil, when in fact we should face it and fight it. Anyone want to hold my coat?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Home & Garden102 mins ago
ChatterBank117 mins ago
