General Chat

I have started several times to right a long post on this - but each time I end up deleting it.

Try as I may to remain impartial on these boards - I just cant do it as my feelings against this party rise too high.

I have enjoyed reading everyones opinions but I now think that maybe we are giving them more attention than they deserve.

On the contrary, Ann. Without freedom of speech we would never see such examples. Surely it is better to let people of all beliefs etc speak out rather than let them talk and indoctrinate behind closed doors.
Hamza was watched for a very long time and the case against him was built on what he said in public.

I'm very torn on this. The BNP have spread some extremely fascist type leaflets etc around our town in the past as well as other places. The fact that He'd been charged with denying the holocaust speaks for itself.

While I agree with freedom of speech, should they have been invited to such a prestigious place to start with. Well, lets examine the motivation for inviting them. That bunch of academic, so-called-elite, probably thought that by inviting them to debate they could shoot down anything they said and do what everyone else had failed to do (ie shut up the racist drivel that often falls from their mouths) .

Is the protest right? Well...two sides to this... if they'd not made a fuss and let it go on then there'd have been no publicity and Nick Griffin and his buddies would have been sorely disappointed. That said, just as it has been said, Griffin and co have freedom of speech...well so do the protestors. Such is the democratic state... we have the right to protest as well.

As far as I'm aware there has been no violence (from what I read earlier about the silent protest), so neither side are doing anything wrong. Unless, as it's been said, they are inciting to violence.

In my opinion the situation should never have arisen because the platform should never have been given in the first place, after all speaking at the Oxford Union is not a right it's a privilege.

I agree that you have to hear someone to understand their pov, but once you've heard it and decided that it's wrong then why shouldn't we tell them to shut up? lol. (I read the info from the JW's and Mormons before I told them, politely, that I didn't agree with their views and to go away). That said, most of the time I think everything that falls from most politicians mouths is drivel.

a lot of valid points have been put forward here and freedom of speech in this country is one of the cornerstones of democracy, but we have a case in point with that chap with a hook hand - Abdul Hamza - we gave him freedom of speech and all he did was incite terrorism. I've not heard the BNP personally but have seen unbiased footage of their activities - undercover filming of their activities and the aftermaths of their rallies and that quite franklhy is enough to convince me that they are fundamentally evil and have lost the right to freedom of speech

Yes Rose I agree.

Apparently the debate is now actually taking place.

Errol, yes agreed ...hearsay and newspaper 'interpretations' are not enough to base opinion on.....

you're quite right it does have to be listened to first hand ..however unpalatable their views
(ESPECIALLY how unpalatable their views !).

rosex

Going to what Hayley?

They are entitled to their say like everyone else. As Maddie says, as long as it doesn't encourage violence and terrorism.

vic xx

I don't agree with their views at all Rose, but in order to form an opinion one has to listen first hand rather than form opinions based on hearsay and newspaper reports.

Tough call....... Having lived many years in Welling where they used to have the HO I can say hand on heart I wouldnt want to be within 10 miles of a speach by the BNP.

I remember a riot so bad once that Welling High Street was full of police on Horseback and I had to close my shop with customers in it and put the metal grills down as it was not safe to go outside due to the riots incited by the BNP against what were and had been for several hours peaceful protesters.

I also understand that to have a debate you need to hear both sides .......

But I havent seen a leopard change its spots and I cannot imagine this would be a peaceful debate....

Just look how these very boards can turn nasty if a debate is opened on a sensative subject and out of maybe 20 or 30 reasonable posters a couple of people dont agree with each other.

Respect for each other goes out the window and the quality of communication deteriorates to personal attacks and a nasty atmosphere for all else.

Now put that into the hot bed of Politics with young adults is a receipe for disaster and you can be sure that riotors for the sake or Rioting would have kicked off.

I have edited this as too really confused Errol :))))))

Good night all ....by the way Errol are you going to voted on personality 2007......mwahhhhhhhhhxxxx

From what I understand Nick Griffin was inside the Oxford Union by 7 pm this evening and had already given interviews to the local press and the BBC World Service by that time.

Sam x

no that isn't what i meant!

not putting it well......I would defend the right to freedom of speech to the hilt...

I respect that other people will have different views to me and that they are not necessarily 'wrong' because they differ from mine......

you are probably right that the BNP should have been allowed to speak...my answer was a 'gut reaction' to their views...not considered argument....but because it IS my gut reaction I can understand the protestors also...

rosex

I've edited this because it answered your previous post which you have now edited. Hope I don't have to edit again lol 'cos it will get complicated.

I have edited this post Errol as you have answered my question ...ta x

My understanding also Muffy. We cannot dumb down or bar people from talking because of their views. The people who sat outside and prevented the debate/discussion from taking place are the bigots because they are afraid of any opinion that is not their own! (Sound familiar?)

Anyone should be allowed to speak as long as it doesn't encourage violence / terrorism etc.........

From the sounds of it they were INVITED to speak?. It doesn't sound like they attempted to foist their opinions on anyone or incite anything if they were invited surely?. If I am correct they were just going to tell people what they were all about? xx

Freedom of speech as long as it falls into line?