November 26, 2007

Protesters Delay but Fail to Derail Holocaust Denier's Appearance

Protesters forced the Oxford Union to briefly delay a controversial free-speech debate tonight that featured the British historian David Irving, who served a prison sentence in Austria on charges of denying the Holocaust, and the leader of Britain’s far-right British National Party, Nick Griffin.

According to reports from the Associated Press and BBC News, 20 to 30 demonstrators pushed their way into the debating chamber to protest the inclusion of the two men, forcing the event to begin more than an hour after its scheduled 8:30 p.m. start.

Hundreds of demonstrators had gathered in the City of Oxford before the debate, The Guardian reported, and many students with tickets to the controversial event were blocked from entering the building by chanting protesters.

There had been speculation that Mr. Irving would pull out of the debate, but hours before it took place he told The Guardian that he would go ahead. “I thought the traditional enemies would have been doing enough to silence me at Oxford,” he said. “But I have the balls — you’ll see what I mean.” Mr. Irving arrived at the debate carrying a ball and chain.

The University of Oxford was at pains today to distance itself from the event. A statement posted on the university’s Web site emphasized that the union “is an independent debating society” and that “the university does not have jurisdiction over its events.” —Aisha Labi

Comments

1. I know we live in a society of “free speech” but to flat out deny such a horrible and important event is beyond me. People like that are either ignorant, trying to pick a fight, or propaganda (Iran, anyone?)

   — Bryan Warrick    Nov 26, 11:50 PM    #

2. 2. Freedom of speech is designed and institutionalized precisely in order to protect speech that is “beyond us”. Not just speech with content we approve of.

   — Joseph F Foster    Nov 27, 09:15 AM    #

3. David Irving is a discredited historian who, even though his views are repugnant to most, does reside in a democracy and should enjoy free speech as does any other citizen. The good news is that the more he speaks the less respectable the point of view Irving represents becomes.

   — Martin Slann    Nov 27, 09:38 AM    #

4. His views are repungnant and probably full of ill-will, but those are precisely the ideas that the First Amendment protects in the U.S. Also, if radical Islamists can speak freely in public places in Britain, then others with equally outrageous ideas should be allowed to speak. I think the major reasons for allowing outrageious ideas to be spoken include 1.Honoring the idea of free speech, 2. Honoring the inate dignity and worth of the speaker as a human, however awful his comments may be, 3. Realizing that if even a small part of what he has to say is true, then the talk has some value, and 4. Realizing that the outlandish nature of his ideas will cause them to be discredited.

   — James    Nov 27, 10:08 AM    #

5. And every uni in America would gladly host a Slavery denier. This is a joke. More Israel bashing at it’s best.

   — Sahi    Nov 27, 11:55 AM    #

6. Sahi, buy yourself a good grammar book and review the section on apostrophes.

   — Rob    Nov 27, 12:45 PM    #

7. Is there a distinction between allowing someone the right to speak freely—i.e. post a web page, do the soap-box-on-street-corner routine, etc. —vs providing a somewhat distinguished forum that is also a limited resource(despite the University’s best efforts, their name is linked to this, and I doubt that Just Anyone can speak there)?

   — Vickie    Nov 27, 12:46 PM    #

8. I deny that the British people were ever subjected to bombing by the Third Reich. The claim by the British is a total fabrication for which there is no existing evidence. Where are the bricks with explosive residue? This is all an ploy by international Brits to justify the continued and illegal occupation of the British Isles. Furthermore, I demand an academic platform to expouse my views!

   — marci    Nov 27, 03:01 PM    #

9. Marci – “I deny that the British people were ever subjected to bombing by the Third Reich… I demand an academic platform to expouse (sic) my views!”

   And you should have one! It would serve three purposes: 1. It would honor the concept that all are welcome in the arena of ideas. 2. It would provide comedic entertainment for those in attendance. And 3. It would show you to be a loser and an idiot who possesses no credibility. Everyone in attendance would know it firsthand. You would not be a martyr and you could not say your ideas have never been aired. In short, giving you a platform in a debate would serve the very best reasons many of us subscribe to the idea of free speech and academic freedom.

   — Bill    Nov 27, 04:28 PM    #

10. How many are aware that the Oxford Union, just last month, withdrew an invitation to Norman Finkelstein to speak at one of its events? Apparently, narrow right-wing protests were enough for the Union to abandon its free speech principles, but when masses on the left object to legitimizing hateful, odious figures/ideas then the Union (led by a Tory) stands on the principle of free speech.

    — Amy    Nov 28, 09:51 AM    #

11. Obviously, this “historian” either has his facts horribly wrong, or he is just racist and trying to protect the works of a racist organization. Of course, completely free speech includes even false, racist trash like this, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Free speech is free speech, but rubbish like this is, in essence, trying to sugar-coat or excuse the horrible acts of the Nazis. This is only one step away from displaying to the public that the Nazis had good intentions and it would acceptable to repeat what they did. So, should peolpe be able to pose as respected scholars and promote racism? Absolutely not.

    — M. Quirk    Nov 30, 05:03 PM    #

Previous: In Agreement, U. of Wisconsin to Reduce Use of Coal
Next: New York Medical College Will Halt Use of Dogs in Labs