There is a difference between free speech and a platform

By Michael Savage

The Oxford Union's decision to invite BNP leader Nick Griffin and David Irving to a debate on free speech this month is causing a bit of a ruckus in the blogosphere.

There are posts on the subject at Harry's place, Labour Home and Comment is Free for a start. Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked Online, argues that with the left urging the union to stop the two men from speaking, the championing of free speech has been on a plate to the right. For what it's worth, I agree. The left should have more confidence in the inherent reason in their arguments.

But this case is slightly different - for there is a difference between operating in a country with a policy of free speech and giving people a platform for airing controversial views. So Irving and Griffin can say what they like to whoever will listen to their rants, but that doesn't mean they should be handed the legitimacy of a prestigious debating hall. Their arguments are not cogent enough to warrant such a stage - that is why they should not appear at the union.

As Padraig Reidy, news editor of Index on Censorship, puts it:

"They do not have a "right" to speak at the Oxford Union, any more than I have a right to headline Wembley Arena for three nights running".

An interesting footnote - Peter Tatchell discussed the issue on his show at 18 Doughty Street. As if to demonstrate the point on their opposition to unlimited freedom speech, the Unite Against Fascism speaker Weyman Bennett didn't turn up - leaving poor old Peter to make the case for stopping Griffin and Irving from speaking. He said:

"Free speech is an important human rights issue that should not be cheapened by the sensationalism of parading of pair of right-wing extremists in the chamber of the Oxford Union"

Comments

[ds]

they should eb allowed to talk their way into trouble. why not? it's not liek they're going to pursuade anyone is it?

[Keith Lonsdale]

Censorship is one of the most fundamental enemies of democracy. The easiest way to send a resounding message of disapproval to this motley duo would be for nobody to turn up to listen to them.
If Irving and Griffin are not allowed to speak, who will be barred next? It is symptomatic of the liberal-left that they are very keen on free speech for only so long as the messenger is delivering their message.
The Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano recently said, “those who are anti-EU are terrorists, it is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate." Silencing the likes of Irving and Griffin is the thin end of the wedge and would serve to embolden those who desire the silencing of critics of this undemocratic socialist behemoth.
Let them speak; nobody is forcing you to listen.

[Neil McGowan]

>> If Irving and Griffin are not allowed to speak, who will be barred next?
- Keith Lonsdale <<

Irving and Griffin shouldn't be speaking, for the same reason that I won't be playing James Bond in the next film - because I am no bloody good at it. They simply do not measure up to the level of speaker the Oxford Union invites.