General Chat

Going to what Hayley?

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

Apparently the debate is now actually taking place.

Yes Rose I agree.

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

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.

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 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.

But this is a debate Maddie. We cannot ignore and not discuss everything we disagree with, surely?

But Errol, we've heard their speeches and right minded people don't like what they say - we've heard their drivel for far longer than that of Hamza - they cause dissention and ill feeling amongst all races and they publicly say things which an individual would be prosecuted for

we all have the right toi our opinions and most of us have very strong feelings on this and I think it's good that we can discuss them, but please let's not fall out with anyone over it - let's agree to disagree

But freedom of speech must apply to all. If we make the decision to allow some to speak and not others then we are no better. And by allowing all to speak we can make informed decisions.

Ann I think this is a superb debate with no falling out - exactly what an argument (true sense of the word) should be and I for one am very proud that we are all adult enough to have this conversation.

but for how long do you envisage them being allowed to have this freedom of speech? they've been spouting the same poison for years now, we all know what they think and we don't like it. Do you ever see a time when they will be stopped from speaking in public? For how long will they be allowed to carry on? They have abused freedom of speech

Don't forget this is a DEBATE at Oxford - one side puts their point then the other counteracts it - it isn't just the BNP spouting off their drivel with no response!!
They should be allowed to speak and voice their opinions as others with opposite views can then pull their views apart and, hopefully, slam them down!!

maggie

You are so right Errol, it is an excellent discussion and I feel we have all been very measured in what we have said

Long may it continue. What is the alternative? If people abuse their freedom of speech then there are laws in place to prevent them from going further. If they could not speak publicly then they, potentially, could be speaking in private to small groups and indoctrinating them. It is also important that people speak out without fear of intimidation - what one man sees as poison may be another man's religion.

one clear thing has emerged from this very absorbing discussion is that no one likes 'em!!

Maggie well said. That is what debate should be about. Put a point forward and then expect it to be pulled apart if justified.

and another thing says big mouth me - isn't it interesting that there are only about six of us in this discussion when you think how many contribute to these boards?