A debate too far?

David Irving and Nick Griffin are being given a platform to speak in Oxford. But the union should never have invited them
  • theguardian.com,
  • Jump to comments ()

By inviting David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak on November 26, the Oxford Union - which bills itself as the most significant debating society in the world - has sought sensation over substance, and has endangered both the students and citizens of Oxford.

Many students rightly fear for their own safety. An Oxford student who campaigns against fascism has already received death threats. One racist website has written "It is time that UK nationalists showed these filthy vermin that we will not bow to threats of violence and bully boy tactics. In my own opinion we should be there on the 26th". Another extreme nationalist website posts photos and names of anti-fascists alongside the slogan "Remember places, traitors' faces, they'll all pay for their crimes". It is disturbing to think that Oxford students could be added to that website.

Luke Tryl, the president of the Union, is unrepentant. The best way to deal with Irving and Griffin, he argues, is "to crush them in debate". In his Cif piece last Friday, James Ball seems to agree.

But by crushing them in debate we will achieve nothing, while they will achieve a great deal. They have already been crushed in debates countless times, but are impervious to reason. They, and their supporters, will not change their views, because their views do not come from a rational place. By inviting them, however, the Union gives them the whiff of legitimacy they search for. The stamp of having been invited to the Union will be exploited by them to present themselves as credible thinkers, assisting them in their struggle to sway audiences with their hateful rhetoric. So whether we would or would not crush them in debate is irrelevant; by virtue of their coming here, we will already have lost, having furthered their racist cause.

Here's where things get really strange: Tryl has been quick to point out that "these people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech". But if we aren't debating their sickening views, then how can we crush them in debate? The Union has simply contradicted itself; the racism of Irving and Griffin will be left unchallenged because their racism is not even being discussed.

And what about their being invited to talk about free speech? Surely this is a joke. Griffin has written that the BNP are supported because they can back their slogans with "well-directed boots and fists". BNP power, he writes, will be "the product of force and will, not of rational debate." And as for Irving, it's worth remembering that the famous court case - in which he was proven to be a holocaust denier and a racist - was actually launched by him against penguin books. He was trying to silence his critics, not the other way around.

By inviting these men to defend free speech, the Oxford Union is committing a grave disservice to free speech itself. The Union could have invited any number of speakers to discuss free speech - political dissidents from Burma, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia for example. Such speakers would highlight the importance of free speech - while Griffin and Irving personify its abuses.

It must be stressed that the right to free speech does not entail an obligation upon others to provide a platform. The right to free speech and the privilege of invitation to the Union are two different things. If they were the same thing, then the Oxford Union would be one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, having never invited almost all of the world's population.

Voltaire never said "I detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be invited to the Oxford Union to say it". Such a stance amounts to the death of quality debate in the Union - otherwise that principle could be used to demand and defend the invitation of anyone and everyone to the Oxford Union, and I doubt your average four-year-old has constructive comments to make about the consequences of devolution, for example.

I asked Tryl what he thought qualified Griffin to talk on free speech. He responded by saying that it was interesting that Griffin speaks for free speech but would probably seek to curb it were he in power. So Griffin's views are inconsistent. Big deal. Has the Union stooped so low in its quest for sensation that being inconsistent is sufficient reason for invitation?

It is not too late for the Union to do the right thing, and disinvite these men - if he does so, many will applaud Tryl for acknowledging his error.

But if the invitations are not rescinded, and Irving and Griffin speak, then the Union hacks will have their party with the champagne flowing at presidential drinks. It's the minorities who will have to deal with the mess left behind.

Latest posts

Today's best video

Today in pictures