The Oxford Union is a private debating society; only members can attend its proceedings. Its appeal for speakers is in being able to influence some of the top minds in the UK and the world and, of course, being recognised as worthy of such an opportunity. It does not matter a hoot whether people outside the intelligentsia have heard of it, particularly as it is frequently confused with OUSU, the Students’ Union, and that its finances are secure thanks to the formation of the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust.
The invitation to Nick Griffin and David Irving were not ever about free speech; they were about raising publicity for the current administration of the society. There was no facility for Messrs Griffin and Irving’s comments to be disseminated; consideration was not given to those who would speak against this pair of pukes – viz. an email from Luke Tryl of October 15th – beforehand.
Equally, Griffin and Irving are the worst people to choose to argue for freedom of speech; not because of their repulsive politics, but because they are too easily open to arguments against the person rather than the arguments they propose. Furthermore, they well know that few people at the Oxford Union will give two hoots for anything that a thug of a politician and a poor historian will say; however, the boon to the BNP and its fellow travellers will, I think, be substantial. If the Oxford Union wanted to have an informative debate for its members on freedom of speech, I would have thought that John Gray, Inayat Bunglawala and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have been better speakers; controversy for its own sake is a poor substitute for radical thought and honest learning.
I said at the beginning of this post that the invitation was about publicity, not free speech. Perhaps that is unfair, and I should attribute it to incompetence rather than malice. Either way, I hope that Mr Tryl, who appears to have a nascent political career, takes a step back to consider the effects that the actions he and his associates have undertaken will have. The message that will be taken away from this is that a bad politician and a bad historian are people who are worth listening to.
Oxford Councillor Antonia Bance has one take on it; Skuds has a rather different one.
xD.
Our society is based upon the principle of free speech. The OU is a private club. It can invite whomever it wants to speak. If people don’t want to hear the speakers, they won’t attend the debate.
The Oxford Union has the right, in law, to invite whoever it wants.
I have the right to paint myself blue and stand on Tower Bridge shouting ‘Wibble, wibble, wibble’.
Neither would be a good idea; just because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must do a thing. I would add that we have a right to criticise the actions of the Oxford Union and to argue, in a manner to which they might be receptive, not to do it again.
xD.
…stand on Tower Bridge shouting ‘Wibble, wibble, wibble’…
In your fabulous headgear, that would indeed be something.
i would say that they should not have invited them for the reasons you’ve outlined however given in to intimidation and threats like this really would unermine freedom of speech (e.g the demonstrators)
Thankyou, Edmund. While I think the protests were great, the sight of people climbing walls, barging in and so on was less than edifying and, more importantly, is grist to the BNP’s mill.
James – at some point, I will paint myself blue, put on my red bowler and stand on Tower Bridge shouting ‘Wibble, wibble, wibble’. Possibly when I run for Lord Mayor of London.
xD.