[vyper]

This month, the student debating society at St. Andrews University was going to have Nick Griffen of the BNP as a speaker in a debate on "Has the multiculturalism experiment failed?".

Suddenly, a free and open debate became the target of numerous pissed off folk.
http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=NationalNewsStoryPage&ItemID=13005379&ServiceID=8&filterid=10&searchid=8
http://www.theherald.co.uk/32846.shtml
http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/news/story/0,12891,1405301,00.html

Now, the debate has been cancelled (or so I'm told - I'm trying to find a link).

Opinion? Bearing in mind you can't just ban a political party because you don't like their ideas.

[Flipside]

Hmmmmmmmmmm......

Well, I don't think it should have been cancelled, that isn't right, but I do think the debate would have been a bit of a stupid affair. Asking someone who has profoundly non-multicultural values whether the experiment has failed or not, is sort of like asking a cow whether it's a good idea to be vegetarian.

It 'might' have been an interesting debate, it 'might' have broken down into a large group of snivelling self-important gits whining about their lot. Either way, to cancel it actually adds media weight to what is, in reality, a very unimportant event.

[pyro-manic]

Griffin is a bigoted, racist prick. He can f*ck right off as far as I'm concerned.


Normally I'd try to be objective, but we had a BNP candidate come to our door before the last lot of local elections, and I found it disgusting. No other words for it. Bigoted, thuggish bastards.

[karajorma]

You can't ban them but I see no harm in preventing them from having a soapbox to spout their issues from.

If they want to talk let them talk to the the other idiots who follow them or rent their own damn space to lecture from.

It's not like the BNP have anything to add to a debate on multiculturism that is the slightest bit worth listening to.

[vyper]

Erm, the students association invited them.

[aldo_14]

I would have wanted the debate to go ahead simply because the BNP would have been shown up as the narrow minded bigots they are.  If we ignore the BNP, then we risk legitimising them.

[vyper]

WHAT the ****?

https://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2900

France bans all neo-nazi groups? How is that democratic?

[aldo_14]

Same as making 'incitement of racial hatred' a criminal offence, from what I can tell.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I would have wanted the debate to go ahead simply because the BNP would have been shown up as the narrow minded bigots they are.  If we ignore the BNP, then we risk legitimising them.

Thing is that anyone who would attend a debate like this already knows that the BNP are a bunch of narrow minded bigots. Frankly the only good that could come out of having him visit would be if a bunch of students met up with him afterwards and kicked the **** out of him.

[Kie99]

So you think Neo-nazi groups shold be allowed Vyper?  If you had a custom avatar would it be a Swastika?  Neo-Nazi groups are something the world can do without.
What you said is like saying people should be able to preach death against all minorities.

[karajorma]

Calm down kie. I hate the BNP but I'm certainly not going to start saying they should be forced to keep silent.

I do however think that there is no point in having the BNP attend this debate. We all know the arguments they'd put forwards anyway so why legitimise them by allowing them to participate in a debate as if they were reasonable people rather than shaming and ostracising them like the pitiful, hate filled bunch of w**kers they truely are.

[vyper]

Alrighty, firstly I think that comment about a custom avatar deserves a brief:  "**** you". Especially since it implies anyone who believes in free speech is a nazi, when the very opposite is true.
However, I will now progress to a measured response:

I believe that political organisations and groups who are attempting to promote an ideology they believe in cannot possibly be outlawed in a free and democratic society. Yes, we may think they're evil, and assholes, but that's the price we pay for being allowed to have and share OUR opinions - we have to allow them to have theirs.

Freedom is not free: Sometimes you have to tolerate people that nauseate you to protect it.

[vyper]

Originally posted by karajorma
Calm down kie. I hate the BNP but I'm certainly not going to start saying they should be forced to keep silent.

I do however think that there is no point in having the BNP attend this debate. We all know the arguments they'd put forwards anyway so why legitimise them by allowing them to participate in a debate as if they were reasonable people rather than shaming and ostracising them like the pitiful, hate filled bunch of w**kers they truely are.

I agree there was little point in them being part of it, since their opinions are never completely represented - they always hide parts of it. However, my problem is that their invitation was revoked because of the pressure brought to bear on the Student Assocation involved by other organisations that would seek to do exactly what the nazis did: control freedom of speech.

[Flipside]

That's a little steep Kie

What Vyper is saying is not that he agrees with their position, but that to make any standpoint 'illegal' opens the door to interpretate all other stand points as it suits. That's the blessing and the curse of Feedom of Speech.

Yes, they are idiots, yes, no-one cares, but to force anyone into silence is wrong, happening to have the Gendarmes mysteriously looking the other way whilst they get the crap beaten out of them is also wrong, and I would be most saddened if they got caught doing such a thing.

[karajorma]

As I said Vyper you can't ban it but why legitimise it?

[vyper]

Because if you don't challenge it in open debate you legitimise it anyway - by making it look too dangerous to be taken on in public.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
As I said Vyper you can't ban it but why legitimise it?

The problem is, IMO, that you have to let these people have their say - and then illustrate exactly why they are wrong in response; because if you ignore a problem, it won't go away.  And I think excluding them is ignoring the problem, and it's a problem we have to be more aware of and confront at every occasion,

[vyper]

Originally posted by kietotheworld

What you said is like saying people should be able to preach death against all minorities.

The Catholic and Protestant Churches preache segregation of themselves from each other - and while it's not widely practised today, it is still being promoted by very powerful church organisations: How is this different?

I'm sorry lads - if there is one thing I cannot stand it's people who think freedom should only apply to the people they like.

[Gank]

If you read the article it doesnt ban far right groups but those "whose common traits are incitement to hatred and the recourse to violence"

Be sort of like the UK outlawing combat 18 and the likes. Also be extremely difficult to actually enforce.

[vyper]

[q]"whose common traits are incitement to hatred and the recourse to violence"[/q]

In the UK you could ban the BNP for "incitement to hatred" under current laws. Take that to it's logical conclusion Gank - the wording is good, but the intent is no different form what I have implied.