Inactive: Revise and Dissent
I can't call this post what I like because a guy given freedom of speech at the Oxford Union forbids it
Deborah Lipstadt and Ed Darrell have both been writing on the forum on free speech at the Oxford Union. I haven't because when something seems remarkably stupid I tend to leave it a while to cool off. A good rule when arguing with an idiot is to make sure they're not doing the same. Yet sometimes this just serves to give more time to let the magnificence of the utter foolishness bloom.
I didn't attend the forum on free speech at the Oxford Union, so I'm going on reports of what happened. Apparently Luke Tryl, President of the Oxford Union, thought it best if one side was crushed in debate. He was almost right. Admirer of Hitler, David "Don't call me a holocaust denier" Irving and Nick Griffin, head of one the UKs far right parties, seem to have solidly trounced the Oxford students.
This should be no surprise. Irving had won before the debate started. By choosing him and Griffin as people with expertise on freedom of speech the OU granted them with an authority they plainly don't have. Irving, who is known from his publications to have denied that Hitler was part of the holocaust made it clear at the debate that anyone who now called him a Holocaust denier was slandering him. He has form for legal threats these are still current. From Irving's publisher's website on the reporting of the Oxford debate: "I am just waiting for the right target, before I serve legal proceedings all over again." So how on earth do you conclude someone who was described by a judge in a court case as an "active Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a racist", and will attempt to silence those who do the same by legal action, is capable of discussing freedom of speech?
It's the cult of the victim.
Irving was recently gaoled in Austria for Holocaust denial. Thus he's a victim. Unfortunately Luke Tryl, who boasted "...it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people," isn't aware that this means nothing when it comes to expertise on freedom of speech. If Irving is an expert on free speech because of his experiences then some of the world's leading experts on plate tectonics can be found among the Tsunami survivors in Indonesia.
How did the debate go? The audience were given instructions on what they were and were not allowed to do while the speakers put on their show. Does the OU think freedom of speech should only extend to select people?
The last defence of the debate is that it's essential to debate these things in the open else you'll "...[push] the views of these people underground". The correct philosophical term for this kind of argument is "a load of old bollocks".
To demonstrate: there's the Prime Minister of Iceland, who's due to speak. I'm sure Geir Haarde is an important person, but will the lack of debate with other Icelanders push the rest of the Icelandic government underground? My guess is no, because the Oxford Union is not the sole venue for debate in the world. As for the BNP, they go out on the hustings and they even get councillors elected. They can debate in the halls of local government. They don't need the Oxford Union, because it's not the sole forum for debate in the UK. For Irving and the BNP it's simply bonus credibility.
It gives credibility because the OU simply doesn't have time to debate all issues. Instead they choose what they believe to be credible and worthy speakers on important issues. Presumably this is why they've invited Geir Haarde on the challenges facing Iceland, rather two local tramps on the relative merits of Carling and Special Brew. If the OU genuinely believes that not debating someone if actively denying them freedom of speech then they're following a clear and explicit policy of limiting freedom of speech to a carefully selected elite. I could be wrong. There may be a follow up planned, where the protesters outside the Union with debate with OU members whether or not they were a bit silly to allow themselves to be humiliated like that. I don't know. Maybe there won't if the students want to send a clear message to Irving and the BNP that the OU is their bitch.
In reality it's more likely to be about social display than serious debate. The protesters did their bit. It got the union some publicity while sneaking people in in gave them the thrill of engaging in the 'forbidden'. Anti-semitism and racism, which is a very real problem in some British cities, is thus reduced to an evening's intellectual masturbation for a middle-class elite. Is the OU planning to become more 'relevant' by ditching the whole 'intelligent debate' thing? There's probably a gap in the market for a university based clone of a lightweight chat show.
See also Westmonster. Shorter. Funnier.
News
- Breaking News
- History Buzz
- Historians in the News
- Political Highlights
- Washington DC
- Obituaries
- History on TV
Hot Topics
- Black History Month
- China Rising
- The Olympics
- Haitian Earthquake
- Did You Know?
- Health Care Reform
- HNN Polls: Rate Obama's State of the Union!
- Important State of the Union Addresses in History
- Did You Know?
- HNN Polls: Massachusetts Senate Election
Features
- Top Young Historians
- Doyens
- Books About History
- On This Day in History
- This Week in History
- Quote/Unquote
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- History Blogroll
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- How Stupid?
- Mark A. LeVine
- Allan Lichtman
- Tim Furnish
- Gil Troy
Etc.
