I know I could be asking for trouble here, but I'm quite honestly interested in people's views of the decision by Oxford University student Union to invite David Irving, the historian and Holocaust denier, and Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, to speak in a debate about the limits of free speech.

There have been a number of speakers who have dropped out of appearances at Oxford in protest, as well as an MP who has resigned from the Union in protest.

The argument in favour of them seems to be that the best way to dismiss their views is to allow them to have their say and then prove them wrong. But the argument against is that their views are so abhorrent they should be completely ignored and not given a platform.

I don't particularly want this thread to degenerate in to a slanging match of any kind, but I'd be interested to see people's views on how far the principle of freedom of speech should go?

That's how I think things should be done. :ok:

People can listen to their arguments, and then decide whether they agree with what they are saying or not.

It's a tough cookie. My first thought was that they should be allowed to express their views but what happened if a BNP said something contrived as racism, I certainly wouldn't want that either.

it's a thin line to tread on, as shows the famous quote by somebody somewhere, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Thank god my sis' isn't a member of this union but of "the other one"... :rolleyes:

I'm strongly in favour of free speech-i think it is in fact a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, if we lose it we lose democracy itself.
Saying things that are shocking, outrageous and controversial doesn't mean they are false, or in fact that they are true-it's not whether what is being said offends us, but whether it's true or not that matters and we cannot refute a search for truth just because of our sensibilities-we must hear then make judgement.
Lets take something that would have been virtually unspeakable 100 years ago
in the UK 'homosexuals deserve the same respect as heterosexuals' , now this is broadly (though not entirely) accepted nowadays but what changed?.
The change in perception of homosexuality happened because people spoke out against the church, against politicians and against bigots-things changed because people thought and said the unthinkable. It happened slowly If they'ld had a more liberal society in the Victorian age then maybe people could have spoken out against the grotesque treatment of gays at the time-but unfortunately they didn't
So of course people should be able to advocate racism-but that doesn't mean I or anyone else has to believe them, i would argue against anyone who advocated it, but wouldn't stop them having a platform. In other words i'm voicing the principle of the 18th century enlightenment thinker Voltaire's who's maxim was 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' (i know i have quoted him a number of times)
There are limits to free speech of course, but only commands that lead directly to immediate death or danger (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, is the textbook example but there are many others)

As for denying the Holocaust then of course people should be allowed to say that too, i find the idea of a law to prevent it profoundly anti intellectual.
No piece of history can be closed to examination or re-evaluation, be it the Holocaust, the massacre of Jews at Masada, the assassination of JFK or anything else-how can you ring fence a piece of history and say 'that's it, done'.
What we do is ague against deniers of Shoah show them they are wrong, use our brains, not our laws to undermine them.

I'm gonna have to start posting before you BT, you always say what i wanna say only much more intelligently than I ever could. :P

Just to update people, this debate has now been postponed due to protests. The problem is that Irving and Griffin will now see themselves as martyrs, as people who were denied the right to free speech. The protestors should really have allowed them to speak and then taken their arguments apart so that people could see where their arguments were flawed.

The President of the Oxford Union wrote in to The Guardian today and argued that he found their views despicable, but that the way to beat those views was to allow them to be aired and then discredit them. By way of example, look at Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University. There were protests there about him being invited to speak, but then he comes out with wonderful gems about how they don't have homosexuality in Iran, how it's not a phenomenon that occurs there, and the world gets to see what he's really like and make up their own minds :shrug:

Thanks DJ

Ahmadinejad is a truly vile, and dangerous given his comments about Israel.
I guess many homosexuals in Iran and many other theocracies do what they did in this country hundreds of years ago, and pretend their whole lives-live out a kind of sad lie.

Sex change funding undermines no gays claim


· Ahmadinejad account rejected in Iran
· Homosexuality illegal but transsexuals tolerated

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's combative president, provoked his latest controversy in New York this week by asserting that there were no homosexuals in his country, he may have been indulging in sophistry or just plain wishful thinking.
While Mr Ahmadinejad may want to believe that his Islamic society is exclusively non-gay, it is a belief undermined by the paradox that transsexuality and sex changes are tolerated and encouraged under Iran's theocratic system.

Iran has between 15,000 and 20,000 transsexuals, according to official statistics, although unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 150,000. Iran carries out more gender change operations than any country in the world besides Thailand.
Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is considered a sin, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure.

While the government seeks to keep its approval quiet, state support has increased since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. His government has begun providing grants of £2,250 for operations and further funding for hormone therapy. It is also proposing loans of up to £2,750 to allow those undergoing surgery to start their own businesses.

Maryam Khatoon Molkara, leader of the country's main transsexual organisation, said some of those undergoing operations were gay rather than out-and-out transsexuals. "In Iran, transsexuals are part of the homosexual family. Is it possible that a phenomenon exists in the world but not in Iran? Transsexuality is a real disaster. It's a one-way street. But if somebody wants to study, have a future and live like others they should go through this surgery."

At Columbia University on Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad said homosexuality did not exist in Iran. "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he told a questioner who accused his government of executing gay people. "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."

But Ms Molkara - who persuaded Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality - said his stance was inconsistent with the state's sex-change policy. "They are saying homosexuality doesn't exist, but they have never given me a chance to use my influence among transsexuals to prevent transsexuality from happening," she said. "You could change the culture but the press and state TV are not allowed to write or say anything about transsexuality."

The president's claim was an eye-opener to Iranian human rights lawyers, who said the country's Islamic legal code made draconian provision for homosexual offences by men and women.

It also outraged international gay rights activists, who recalled numerous executions under Iran's sodomy laws. When legal officials announced the execution of 12 prisoners at Tehran's Evin prison in July, they said the condemned included several "sodomites". According to campaigners, several gay men have been caught up in a wave of hangings over the summer, although the claims are hard to verify.

There have been other high-profile cases in recent years, including that of two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, who were publicly hanged in the north-eastern city of Mashhad in the summer of 2005 after admitting having sex. This summer, Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian lesbian, was granted permission to take her case to the court of appeal in Britain after claiming she would be in danger of execution if the Home Office implemented its ruling to deport her to Iran.

"Homosexuality is defined both for men and women in law. There is a section devoted to homosexuality," Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel peace prize-winning human rights lawyer, said. "There is one part for homosexuality in men, which is called lavat [sodomy], which is punishable by death. There is another for women, which is called mosahegheh. If the crime is committed up to three times, the penalty is 100 lashes. On the fourth, it is execution."