Critics line up to attack Oxford Union over 'free speech' debate
By Andy McSmith
Published: 26 November 2007

Hundreds of demonstrators are expected tonight outside the Oxford Union where two leading figures from the British far right are due to appear as speakers.

The historical writer David Irving and the British National Party (BNP) leader, Nick Griffin, have been invited to address the student forum – which styles itself as "the world's most famous debating society" – at 8.30pm.

They will talk on the subject of free speech, but the invitations have been widely condemned.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, accused the event's organisers of staging a "juvenile provocation" and reducing freedom of speech to "a silly parlour game".

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show yesterday: "As a former president of the National Union of Students, I'm ashamed that this has happened."

Some critics have appealed for the forum to be cancelled amid warnings that people may get hurt as tempers rise.

Julian Lewis, a shadow defence minister, who addressed the Union last week in a debate about the "war on terror", said the students should be "ashamed" of themselves. In a letter to the Union's officers and standing committee, Mr Lewis, the Tory MP for New Forest East, said he was resigning his life membership "with great sadness". Mr Lewis, who studied at Balliol and St Antony's colleges, said the right to free speech should not guarantee access to privileged platforms.

The invitation was also opposed by the university's Muslim and Jewish societies, but Oxford Union members voted by almost two to one in a secret ballot on Friday to go ahead with the invitation to both speakers despite signs of growing opposition.

Several senior politicians, including the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, have withdrawn from the event which was organised by the Union's president, Luke Tryl, a member of the Tory youth organisation, Conservative Forward.

Mr Tryl said: "[Mr Griffin and Mr Irving] will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head-to-head manner."

Simon Darby, a BNP spokesman, described the event as an "important breakthrough" for the party. "It is ironic you have got people shouting 'fascism' while campaigning in the face of the process of democracy," he said. "Nick is looking forward to the event. It is easy to ignore the protests."

Mr Griffin heads a party that believes in banning almost all immigration to the UK, and whose manifesto calls for "two million plus" of those already here to be deported.

Mr Irving, 69, was once considered to be a promising historian, but became notorious after claiming that Hitler did not ordered the massacre of Jews, and denying that the gas chambers existed. Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in several countries, and in 2006 Mr Irving served a jail term after being convicted in Austria.

Sabby Dhalu, secretary of the campaign group Unite Against Fascism, said: "If the event goes ahead as it stands, it does not even have the appearance of a 'debate'.

"The Oxford Union will have to hold itself responsible for any subsequent repercussions on the threats to the safety of students if it proceeds with this decision."

Lee Jasper, secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, warned: "The Oxford Union is jeopardising the safety of the students by continuing with this event.

"It is not too late to rescind these invites – Oxford Union gathers growing condemnation with every moment it continues being complicit with a meeting promoting fascism and Holocaust denial."

Martin McCluskey, president of the Oxford Student Union, the university's official student body, said it was "disgraceful" that the pair were being given the same platform as past speakers including Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama.


do you think these people should be treated on a 'no platform' basis or do you think their ideas need to be openly debated?

Let them speak and send them on their way.

Irving has already been discredited as a legitimate historian.

Let 'em at it I say.

I find it fucking hilarious that people are getting up in arms about it. I think it's pretty obvious that they're only inviting them to illustrate "the dark side of free speech" or whatever. It's a debate some people don't want to have because they have this misguided romantic idea that free speech only applies to stuff they agree with, the huddled liberal masses, etc., but if you actually want to discuss it properly, it seems like having people around who are deeply unpopular because of what they say would be a positive thing, not negative.

The idea that they're somehow "supporting fascism and Holocaust denial" is complete guff.

I love the muted threats from the Union Against Racism et al. Fucking idiots.

yeah, I am of the opinion let them speak and make them look like idiots.

the one thing i do find irksome about it though is that the head of the union basically seems to have done it cos he knew it would be controversial and boost his c.v. he looks like a twat and i would quite like to kick him in the nuts.

i hope nick and david arnt well behaved and say the truely stupid shit that will mark em out as what they are.

By not allowing these two bigots to speak, Oxford would just be jumping on the highly-strung PC bandwagon. I fully support free speech - in Irving's case it's made a mockery out of him - and don't think any harm will be done by allowing the debate. It's better to hear from all sides.

__________________

well, and the other thing is that when you ban people they can always pull the 'you are afraid of what we have to say' thing

I dont know about Irvings other views (he's said things that make him sound like a closet Holocaust denier) but 'Hitlers War' is easily the best book written in English about what the Germans were up to in WW2. No other book comes close to that level of research and primary documents and as a result accuracy.

I'd like to see a transcript of what he does say at Oxford. If it about WW2 history I suspect he'll kick everybodies ass.

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

Rival students clash as Holocaust denier turns up for Oxford debate

Students attacked and jeered others who turned up to a freedom of speech debate at the University of Oxford last night that was to be addressed by David Irving, the controversial writer, and Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party.

Undergraduates with tickets to the event endured chants of “Nazi scum” and “shame on you” from hundreds of protesters from Oxford colleges and the Unite Against Fascism campaign group in a narrow street in central Oxford. Some protesters brandished placards and hit students who were trying to get into the debating chamber.

As ticketholders fought their way through, protesters broke into the chamber and one tried to attack a member of the debating society’s staff. About 30 people sat in the debating hall singing protest songs.

Police fought to bring the situation under control while nervous students waited in the bar for the debate to begin. The trouble forced Mr Irving and Mr Griffin to hold separate debates, starting at about 10pm. Only 250 of the audience – half the expected turn-out – managed to attend.

Mr Irving talked about his conviction in Austria for Holocaust denial and denied being antiSemitic, while, in another chamber, Mr Griffin spoke about immigration, libel laws and the public perception of the BNP. He said they were regarded as “working-class plebs”. On the protesters outside, he said: “This is a mob which would kill. I have seen them beat old men and women and try to kill them. Had they grown up in Nazi Germany they would have made splendid Nazis.”

Earlier, a crowd had massed outside the society’s grounds, shouting antifascist slogans, banging drums and waving flags and banners. Luke Tryl, the president of the Oxford Union Debating Society, came under immense pressure to cancel the debate but insisted that Mr Irving, who was jailed for his offence in Austria, and Mr Griffin, who has been convicted of race offences, be allowed to speak.

After the debates he said: “I think David Irving came out of that looking pathetic. I said in my introduction that I found his view repugnant and abhorrent.” On the protesters, some of whom had been heard chanting “Kill Tryl”, he said: “I don’t think they do their cause any favours by inciting violence. That is my only regret.”

Daniel Bloch, co-president of the University of Oxford’s Jewish Society, said that his members had worked with the Islamic Society to stage a strong and united protest. He said: “My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views, which are disgraceful.”

The decision to invite Mr Irving and Mr Griffin, made after a vote among members of the debating society, had already outraged Trevor Phillips, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and prompted a senior Conservative MP to resign his life membership of the union. Julian Lewis, the Shadow Defence Minister, said that the students should be ashamed. Dr Lewis, MP for New Forest East, said he was resigning his life membership “with great sadness”.

The presence of the pair on the list of speakers prompted a series of withdrawals from the platform, including Des Browne, the Defence Secretary. Evan Harris, a Lib Dem MP who was billed to speak, said that banning Mr Griffin and Mr Irving would risk turning “bigots into martyrs”. Later he criticised the police’s failure to throw a cordon around the site and prevent protesters storming the building.

Rival students clash as Holocaust denier turns up for Oxford debate - Times Online

Are you serious? The book blames everyone else for the war, and claims Hitler had good intentions. Unfortunately for him, some people have read Mein Kampf.

It also claims that Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust.

As far as his Holocaust revisionism ... he's hardcore. He was found guilty of it, in Austria, in a court of law, and was fined. A number of yrs later, in Austria again, 2005, he was arrested again for denial, and was imprisoned for almost a yr! Then deported. He's been refused entry from many different countries, but UK welcomed him back for some reason, although an English court found during the big lawsuit he lost in 1998 that he was a racist, a denier, and anti-semitic.

He published the discredited Leuchter's report and wrote the foreword.

He's respected for his knowledge, but not how he uses it. Some say he really doesn't believe what he says, and just likes to shock........

Thx

I never read him write that 'Hitler had good intentions'. As for blaming everybody else for the war, no I dont think thats accurate either.

I'm not going to defend what he thinks about the Holocaust, but he wouldnt be the first person to question how much Hitler himself had to do with the execution of the Holocaust. 'Mainstream' historians divide quiet evenly on the issue.

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

Seems like those historians who question Hitler's role in the Holocaust are deniers/revisionists.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Hitler's own role in Holocaust was not so great. From what I understand, most of his "generals" (not sure what the word I'm looking for here is, sorry) were pretty messed up too, and he seems to have had a rather laissez-faire attitude to managing them.

I don't think for a second that Irving isn't a bit nuts and is more interested now in "doing the free speech" thing than anything else (why else would he have gone to Austria to lecture rather than the hundreds of other places in the world where his message is considered unsavoury rather than illegal?), but I do have a serious problem with those who think they support freedom of speech but want to see him silenced simply because they don't agree with him. Even if you think he's a total liar, you can't justify censoring him for that.

The cunts shouting and spitting at people for wanting to hear what he and everyone else at the debate have to say are... well, cunts, basically. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm far from right-wing, but I'm pretty sure if I had had the opportunity I would have actually been one of those the protesters were shouting "shame" at. Where's the shame in going to watch a debate, no matter how abhorrent the views of the speaker(s)? I would have just wanted to see how they attempted to justify their points of view.

__________________

No, you don't understand; if you attend a debate, you automatically support the views of everyone involved, even if they're mutually exclusive and that would be silly.

i can't remember whether it was specifically in hitler's war, (but i think it was) but irving was actually found to have deliberately mistranslated german documents in order to downplay hitler's own role. which is obviously a bit of a no no. i cant remember exactly what it was but it is detailed in this book, Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. a lot of historians then went through his work and found serious issues with many of his books, but to be honest, im not sure how many historians work would stand up to that sort of scrutiny.

i'd agree on the point about the question of the extent of hitler's own personal involvement,

unite against facism are a bit mental though, we had a debate about the bnp, and the guy from UAF ended up going on about how he'd visited palestine

i dont think he went to austria to highlight the free speech thing, cos the actual speech he was arrested for took place yonks ago, but i could be wrong.

but yeah, what i actually wanted to say is protesting something like that is pretty stupid, and again adds to the view that these people are being stopped from saying something worthwhile. let them speak and then we can all see that they're idiots.