Hundreds of protesters are expected to gather at Oxford University after students voted to allow BNP leader Nick Griffin to speak at their union
Martin McCluskey, president of the Oxford Student Union, said it was “disgraceful”
Sabby Dhalu, secretary of campaign group Unite Against Fascism, said: “If the event goes ahead as it stands, it does not even have the appearance of a ‘debate’.
Lee Jasper, secretary of the National Assembly Against Racism, added: “Oxford Union is jeopardising the safety of the students by continuing with this event. Guardian
This is the same as “I believe in Freedom of Speech but…”
It’s not some sort of variable.
It’s not there just for the cosy warm stuff.
It’s not there just when you agree.
You either have Freedom of Speech or you do not. There is no grey area. There is no in-between. So the “I believe if free speech but not if I find it offensive” trio of Martin McCluskey, Sabby Dhalu and Lee Jasper along with their obedient little followers in the “I can but you cannot” troupe should STFU.
I totally agree; freedom of speech is an absolute right – you either have it, or you don’t. I believe in the totality of freedom of speech and therefore no-one has the right not to be offended, ridiculed or insulted and anyone exercising their right to freedom of speech has the right, and opportunity, to be wrong, obnoxious, foolish and to have their arguments totally demolished.
I don’t understand. Are the objectors trying to make it illegal for Nick Griffin to speak? If not, aren’t they just using their freedom of speech to urge that people not invite Mr. Griffin to speak at events?
Saying that someone is a racist/fool/evil person/whatever and that people shouldn’t listen to them doesn’t make you an enemy of free speech.
They were arguing that he does not deserve the same as others, that their voice should take precedence.
They wanted an uneven playing field before they had actually heard what he was going to say.
They were condemning before they knew what it was they were actually condemning.