Anti Fascist Protest outside Oxford Union?

[butchersapron]

What an odd thing to say, especially from one who does little to hide his contempt for such institutions. But you're being ironic - right? Please tell me you're being ironic.

You have a problem with this position?

 

[untethered]

It's probably worth pointing out for the avoidance of confusion that the Oxford Union is independent of the university.

 

[butchersapron]

We should bear in mind that by definition people cannot depend on anti-racists to fairly represent the views of those whom they designate as "racists".

Let them speak and let the people decide.

The people? Public school twats and wannabe Public school twats you mean.

 

[nino_savatte]

You have a problem with this position?

What position? Your patent dislike of institutions of Higher Education?

Are you even speaking the same language, I wonder?

 

[butchersapron]

Put the thickees in the ovens

 

[fredfelt]

When people like the BNP are asked and questioned about their policies, they usually end up revealing themselves as the stupid racists that they obviously are.

So, why worry about them appearing at this event?

The best way to expose their lies is to "give them enough rope, etc".

Surely trying to physically prevent them speaking only plays into their hands by giving them the old "they are afraid to let us speak because they know we are right" excuse.

Giles..

Agreed. All the fuss has enabled BNP supportors to put stuff like this on the Oxford Mail web site:

I would've thought that the likes of Galloway are much more dangerous than Nick Griffin who is, after all, just a man who cares passionately about his country.

How is Nick Griffin a fascist? Surely the real fascists are the unwashed scruffs who will be protesting outside! The 'mainstream' politicians could at least try to debate with Griffin. They're obviously running scared just like Francis Maude did when offered the chance earlier this year. It is very easy to throw insults at the BNP and call them names but the 'mainstream' politicians' reluctancy to debate with the BNP speaks volumes.

 

[nosos]

When people like the BNP are asked and questioned about their policies, they usually end up revealing themselves as the stupid racists that they obviously are.

So, why worry about them appearing at this event?

Because your first claim simply isn't true.

 

[nino_savatte]

Put the thickees in the ovens

Eh? I guess this means something to you. To me, it looks like unconnected nonsense.

"Blood on the walls" eh? You're a friggin' pussycat.

 

[Giles]

Because your first claim simply isn't true.

What, that if they come out with racist views people won't be able to see this?

Or something else?

What can they say that doesn't reveal their fundamentally racist views, and Irving's discredited views on history, and yet people consider so dangerous that they must not be allowed to even say it?

I find this attitude of "we can't let you say that" worrying.

Why not debate their odious views, rather than take this position that "we know best what others should be allowed to hear and discuss"?

Giles..

 

[audiotech]

Late 1970's the same "ignore them and they will go away" argument was posed then and was deliberately ignored as weak and seen as an argument to do nothing by the more militant anti-fascists, mostly working-class.

The main fascist organisation at the time was affected by this (made it more difficult for them to organise and develop). Later other events came together and as a result the organisation split into four, with some turning to violence.

This was dealt with by further militant anti-fascist activity and these violent fascists were either convicted, or driven into the sewers from whence they came. The remnants later re-grouped and began a move into electoral politics.

What had developed then in far-right circles was a ‘pincer strategy’ that used, and uses still, both overt electoral respectability and covert violence.

Back in the nineties the most successful fascist organisations were in Germany, who concentrated more on electoral tactics, which it should be noted were also employed by the fascist organisations of the 1920s and 1930s, though not to the exclusion of public mobilisations. They also played down, if in ambiguous terms, associations with pre- or World War Two fascism. Here it's important to understand that this emphasis on either electoral or violent methods is a matter of tactics rather than strategy. The suit wearing respectability of much of the electoralist extreme right hides a political thuggery which cannot be ignored when some glibly talk about 'free speech'.

I noticed that Oxford university's newspaper, Cherwell, has quoted..., a second-year student, as saying he received death threats after criticising fascist groups in an internet blog. He said: "My family has been threatened, my friends have been threatened and I've been threatened. Someone rang in the middle of the night and said they would cut my throat."

So much for his 'free speech'.

First they came for a second year student.........

 

[untethered]

I find this attitude of "we can't let you say that" worrying.

I think it's a fantastically good idea. My house, my rules. Our country, our rules.

Why not debate their odious views, rather than take this position that "we know best what others should be allowed to hear and discuss"?

Messrs. Griffin and Irving's views on freedom of speech are banal and disingenuous. I don't have a problem with anyone debating with them fundamentally but I doubt it would shed any new light on the subject.

 

[treelover]

MC5, all straight out of the SWP's handbook....

 

[butchersapron]

I think it's a fantastically good idea. My house, my rules. Our country, our rules.

When do i get a piece of it then?

 

[audiotech]

MC5, all straight out of the SWP's handbook....

It was mostly straight out of my head with some notes from a written piece by Rick Kuhn who, like me, is not a member of the SWP.

 

[Giles]

I think it's a fantastically good idea. My house, my rules. Our country, our rules.

But its not "our rules" is it? Unless they say stuff which is deemed to "incite racial hatred" then they can say pretty much what they want. It may be your house, but its everyone's country.

Messrs. Griffin and Irving's views on freedom of speech are banal and disingenuous. I don't have a problem with anyone debating with them fundamentally but I doubt it would shed any new light on the subject.

So, who is to decide whether or not another's views are "banal", "disingenuous" etc? You? A bunch of protestors?

Don't you see that once you start having someone decide in advance if what someone else wants to say is worthy of being said, that is quite a big step on the road to totalitarianism?

Giles..

 

[untethered]

When do i get a piece of it then?

A piece of what?

 

[butchersapron]

A piece of what?

This country.

 

[untethered]

But its not "our rules" is it? Unless they say stuff which is deemed to "incite racial hatred" then they can say pretty much what they want. It may be your house, but its everyone's country.

The Union have the right to decide who they invite and what they say, within the broader scope of the law, of course.

While the Union are being accommodating in this matter at present, I wouldn't have a problem with them deciding not to invite people such as these or limiting their speech in the chamber. It's their house so their rules apply.

So, who is to decide whether or not another's views are "banal", "disingenuous" etc? You? A bunch of protestors?

It depends on the context. I was just voicing my own opinion there.

"No platform" is a crude and probably pointless idea in the context of a students' union, but I do respect their right to make their own rules.

Don't you see that once you start having someone decide in advance if what someone else wants to say is worthy of being said, that is quite a big step on the road to totalitarianism?

Not at all. You might consider any measure to limit freedom of speech to be an authoritarian one but that's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, nor does it necessarily put us on the slippery slope to an overbearing and unaccountable state.

Every society (state, organisation, city, students' union, family) should be based around a shared set of values. From those values come rules. The rules should be there to assert the values and defend the members from behaviour contrary to those values. If that means some forms of expression are prohibited in line with the society's values, so be it.

 

[untethered]

This country.

You do have a piece of it.

I'm not entirely sure what your problem is.

 

[audiotech]

whine, whine, whine....

Oh, and considering your daft comments so far on this thread - on Nottingham students, posting up false election results and your do nothing and ignore them position on fascists, it's clear your ideas come straight out of your arse.

 

[butchersapron]

Do i?

 

[untethered]

Do i?

Of course. Wipe your feet, come on in and take a pew.

 

[butchersapron]

What does that mean?

 

[Nigel]

I'm inside the Oxford Union now with a guy from the Zionist Federation.

 

[audiotech]

I'm inside the Oxford Union now with a guy from the Zionist Federation.

Is this by text?

Do update when you can Nigel, over and out.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Did he tunnel in then?

 

[audiotech]

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I've been there twice, I think. Once was in about my first week as a student and I'm sure I was there for a beer festival another time.

It's basically an attention-seeking society to be honest.

 

[Nigel]

Did he tunnel in then?

He's been in the building since about 2 p.m. according to my sources.
No supporters that I can see in the bar. Lots of security inside!!!
Not Fash though. Maybe this one guy by the door with a walking stick, but its difficult to tell!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I meant you, Nigel.