THE CABAL
| The Left Must Defend David Irving's Right to Free Speech | |
 by Brendan O'Neill, November 26, 2007
|
|
As I write, Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party, and David Irving, Holocaust denier-in-chief, are preparing to speak to 500-odd smartly-dressed students and a pack of hacks at the Oxford Union Debating Society.
The OU's decision to invite a racist politician and an anti-Semitic historian to its hallowed halls has caused an almighty stink. A Conservative Member of Parliament resigned his life membership of the Union, and various other British bigwigs— including Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence, and a black TV presenter called June Sarpong—have cancelled planned appearances at the OU.
The cry goes up around Britain:
"How can supposedly brainy students provide a
Leave the Gag Off So He Can Make an Ass of Himself: The British National Party's Nick Griffin platform for these charlatans?"
For me, the most shocking thing is not that Griffin and Irving have been
provided with a platform—after all, their weasel ideas are better out in the
open where we can at least take potshots at them—but the issue they have been asked
to pontificate about: the right to free speech!
The OU debate is titled "This house believes that even extremists have a right to freedom of expression," and Griffin and Irving are on the side of defending freedom of expression. Neither of them has a libertarian bone in his body. They wouldn't recognise free speech if it jumped them in an alley.
Irving's response to Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust, in which she exposed him as a fact-fiddling denier of the Nazis' extermination of half of Europe's Jews, was to demand that she pulp every copy. He then sued her for libel (and thankfully lost). So Irving supports freedom of expression for extremists, but not for American professors. Especially Jewish ones.
Griffin's British National Party (BNP) is founded on a profoundly authoritarian programme of restricting immigration into Britain. Asking these two characters to defend freedom of expression, or freedom of any kind, is a bit like asking Mark Chapman to speak on healthy hero worship.
That two fascists/fascist sympathisers can hold forth in Oxford about free speech is actually an indictment of the British left and British liberals. So-called progressives have abandoned the cause of free speech in recent years, which has allowed cranky elements on the right to pose as the true upholders of open debate.
Increasingly, the British left's response to outrageous or offensive ideas is to demand censorship. Radical students call for "No Platform" on campus for fascists, Zionists and other "extremists." The radical-left Anti-Nazi League campaigns for the banning of BNP TV broadcasts, and for the closure of BNP bookshops. (I guess asking the police to shut down a bookshop is an eco-friendly alternative to burning all the books inside.)
Meanwhile, mainstream
left-leaning commentators and activists demand tougher legislation against "hat
Um, Yes it Is: By seeking to prohibit "hate speech" and "incitement to religious hatred," the left has damaged freedom of speech itselfe
speech" or "incitement to religious hatred." They seem to believe that if
extremists are allowed to spout fascistic nonsense or diss religious minorities
then the mass of the population—like Pavlovian attack dogs—will go out
Jew-baiting and immigrant-bashing. Their demand for censorship is motivated not
only by a loathing for extremists, but also by a fear of that unpredictable
blob, the public.
It is the left's lack of faith in open democratic debate that has led it to embrace new forms of censorship. Yet the proper way to deal with racist riff-raff is to lance their arguments with the sword of disagreement in a loud and rowdy public debate. Seeking to silence them only allows their ideas to fester, unchallenged, like a boil under the skin of British society.
In taking a censorious turn, the British left has failed to challenge dodgy ideologies head-on—and it has handed the baton of free speech to Irving, Griffin and other chancers. The question is not why were these two provided a platform at Oxford, but why are there so few others willing to defend freedom of expression today?
NEXT: Read about the ruckus over this post, in The Judean People's Front, the Blogosphere, and Jewcy
 |
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked in London (www.spiked-online.com). He is a regular contributor to the BBC, the Guardian, and the Christian More... |
On the anniversary of Hitler's death, we Godwin ourselves sill...
Hint: They'd like her better if she were an African immigrant
PeaceWorks Founder Daniel Lubetzky Schools Us on Building Bridges...
No justice, no peace, no girlfriend
Israel's cynical effort to re-brand collective farming
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Adam LeBor
free speech
Very good post, Brendan. I remember when I was a student at Leeds University in the 1980s David Irving came to try and speak. We immediately no-platformed him in the student union so he could not speak. I still remember the strange mix of vindication, triumph and contempt on his face. It would have been far better to debate with him and destroy his arguments through truth and rationality than censor him.
visit: adamlebor.com
kid blast
Ahmadinejad at Columbia
Same principle. The best argument against giving holocaust deniers and such a platform is that free speech is not a university's only commitment. Intellectual rigor is another. The public sphere must accomodate all voices, no matter how untroubled by responsible handling of evidence, but a university used to have certain standards. Indeed, its function in society used to be self-consciously refined research and debate. The modern concept of the university as simply another political forum exposes it to, and makes it the prisoner of, healthy politics' essential creed: speech for all in whatever manner they decide. Oxford, or Columbia, is no better than the corner pub or the city council meeting. A laudable notion, perhaps, in an egalatarian society, but professors shouldn't be allowed their pretensions. They're bartenders and neighborhood alderman, indulging as they must drunks and cranks.
Anonymous
Debate!
after this one, OU should host a debat titled "Is the earth really flat?"
Dan Freeman
Flat Earth
The sad difference is that no one is really still debating whether the Earth is flat (except in the annoying Thomas Friedman sense), whereas some people still believe David Irving is right. While those inviting him must weigh the balance between the value of crushing his arguments and the publicity he receives for getting a toe-hold on such a prominent platform, once the publicity has been given, suppressing his speech is simply harmful. The speaker gets the same amount of publicity, without getting his ideas smashed. He comes out looking like a martyr, holding a secret truth. Once Irving was on the stage, best to make him look like a fool then send him packing with his tail between his legs.
Will
What a jolly game the
What a jolly game the Tarquins and Penelopes are having at the Oxford Union. And now - apparently - according to o'neil - fighting nazis is now ‘totalitarian’. How sophisticated of him.
Political discourse has now degenerated to the extent that race hate and genocide denial (a thing o'neil and his fellow Spiked Online, Furedi cultists know a lot about as it happens) is now just another ‘text’–as valid as any other. Post-modernist wankery. O'neil pollutes your blog Jewcy staff. Get rid off.
George Monbiot competently nails the UK’s very own LaRouchies
Mr B
Free what?
Sad thing is, there are lots of people in the UK who would broadly agree with Griffin etc. And if you talked to those people about this "controversy" they would have no idea what you are on about. Thus the debate on this page is really self-serving and mainly irrelevant. BNP will always be able to recruit new members, going to Oxford is probably seen as a bit of a waste of an evening apart from the free publicity. Gag 'em, or give them free speech, whatever, the only good fascists are dead fascists.
Joey Kurtzman
O'Neill criticized by the running dog Monbiot
Will,
Wait...George Monbiot whose known associations include the sinister SWP-influenced, Pinter-approved Stop The War Coalition? Who through his involvement in the Respect Party is tainted by association with George Galloway and--wait for it--the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain?
Surely someone who shows so little regard for his affiliational hygiene has no business being cited here, no? Please provide a link to someone more acceptable to the politburo.
Anonymous
eh we're all flesh and
eh we're all flesh and bone... we all need to get over ourselves here. every should have the right to tell someone to shut the f*ck up and thats it.
i could squash daves bull, but i don't feel like typing, and nobody should ever, ever denounce free speech. unless you are f*cking god or something, people are still people and who gives anyone the right to say we can't speak something someone believes in.
Brendan ONeill
Only freedom can defeat fascism
Will says I view race hate and genocide denial as "just another text - as valid as any other". Clearly he missed the bit where I said these ideas should be lanced, like the boils that they are. But this can only be done through public debate and public ridicule. Yes, treating racism and genocide denial as "culturally valid views" would be mad. But seeking to hide them from public view through censorship and repression is also mad, since it means they are never dealt with properly. As a consequence, they can actually become more enticing to certain alienated sections of society. As Deborah Lipstadt said when I interviewed her for the BBC last year, outlawing Holocaust denial helps to turn it into "forbidden fruit", making it "more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system". This is the great betrayal of the new left censoriousness: it actually helps to prop up poisonous ideas by default. One reason I support freedom of speech for all is precisely because I want backward ideas to be knocked for six, and I recognise that having a messy and open debate about them is the only way to do that.
Will
Robust -- nothing wrong with that is there?
Oh please! -- Kurtzman I was just about to send you the email as well (the second one - and not the forwarded one you've already had - but you seem incapable of reading or mulling over information in any detail whatsoever -- you thick fucking retard. Oh well -- you can go knucklefuck yourself too then. I'm intrigued however, as to why you want to breathe some life into this stinking corpse of a cult here (please enlighten us all as to the reason - no really - I mean it). That doesn't mean that any more posts from this O'neil cultist appearing here will not get you (and him) both barrels and not just the one mind you. Thicko. Also, anything to say about the content of Monbiot's article rather than ignoring it because it doesn't meet with your pre-conceived notions?
Account from a former 'member' here:
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/living_marxism_rcp_spiked_online.html
<i>"The
RCP's idea of free speech was always mixed up with its list of who it
could work with. If the problem
of the left was its insincerity or liberalism, then of course the
best allies were the ones that the rest of the left would like the least. Thus the RCP
was in favour of free speech for fascists and racists, and for corporate
spokesmen who claimed that pollution was doing no harm to the environment,
the supermarkets were a particular good, as was business in any
appearance. A silenced Marxist could never expect to be
supported by the RCP, nor any feminist, not any anti-racist. In fact anyone
who claimed to speak up for left-wing values would be patiently informed
that they didn't need free speech - they had it already - the people
who lacked it were the right and the far-right."<i>
Some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28Furedi%29
"The use of pseudonyms by associates of the LM group and the Revolutionary Communist Party
is extensive. The primary function of this would seem to be to allow
the group to promote its ideas widely in the media without being
recognised as a relatively small ideological clique. Nom de guerres can
also compartmentalise areas of a life, protecting an individual and
their career. Fiona Fox is now head of the Sense about Science. One can only presume her current colleagues are unaware of her writings as Fiona Foster, denying genocide in Rwanda."
Of which see here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000308064904/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM85/LM...
Pseudonyms of these vermin:
Leading personalities of these vermin (O'neil is one of them of course)
Others
Very much a bunch of wierdo scumbags (all posh, slightly above average having technical skills bastards as well -- (this is a reference to their social origin --- from which their ideology arises - and is not meant as a moralistic slap on the wrist for being born with silver spoons in their gobs) . At least you are being 'contrarian' having this cunt on board (granted - it debases the word contrarian by you having him on board)). At least he's worse than Mr Euginedes -- although - that doesn't say a lot...but still...
Carry on -- stand at ease --as you were you fuckwits.
Will
I note o'neil doesn't
I note o'neil doesn't address the content of my initial comment. He also says this...
"But this can only be done through public debate and public ridicule."
Wrong! Rubbish! It can be done by kicking fash scum in the head and/or killing them. (see the second world war and the anti-racist mobilisation in the UK in the 70s). o'neil is a well known apologist for genocide as is the cult he belongs to. Get rid of - Jewcy guys and gals.
Inertia creeps
Joey Kurtzman
<satire>
Will says, "Also, anything to say about the content of Monbiot's article rather than ignoring it because it doesn't meet with your pre-conceived notions?"
See, this is why I really need to make more copious use of html <satire> tags. All that blather about the guy's insidious affiliations followed by a refusal to examine his arguments—I was mimicking you, see. It's garbage, and typical of the braindead factionalism and intellectual emptiness that's always characterized the most useless quarters of the left.
On the other hand, thank you for bringing the term "knucklefuck" to my attention. Unlike the drivel in the rest of your comment, that one word warrants some mulling over.
Will
Yes -- you are an
Yes -- you are an intellect.
A supreme being.
Pity you are defeated.
Shuggy
Platforms and posturing
"For me, the most shocking thing is not that Griffin and Irving have been provided with a platform—after all, their weasel ideas are better out in the open where we can at least take potshots at them—but the issue they have been asked to pontificate about: the right to free speech!"
Agreed - so what the hell is this post all about? I'm growing a little tired of this rubbish about the need to 'lance the boil' of their arguments. They've already <i>been</i> lanced - in Irving's case in a court of law, no less. As the above quote from your post admits, their <i>very presence</i> at this 'debate' is a lie - it was, therefore, surely ridiculous and grotesque to invite them in the first place? I'm also getting a little tired of this call for the left to defend Irving's right to free speech. It would be refreshing if there were more posts reminding the 'liberal-left' of their obligation to fight for the <i>truth</i> against racist liars.
Shuggy
Platforms and posturing
I should add that when I say I agree, this relates to your remarks on the basis on which they were invited.
Gadgie
Confusion
There appears to be some confusion in the mind of Brendan O'Neill here. I can assure you that Brendan will not be welcome into my front room to promulgate his views. Have I censored him? Have I infringed his right to free speech? Should I invite every kook on the planet to my sofa on a weekly basis so that I uphold the principle of freedom of thought?
David Irving can exercise his freedom on web sites, in books and in expensive failed court actions. No one is stopping him. This dispute is purely about an invitation to a semi-private institution, but one that carries, for some bloody reason, a media profile and social cachet. How can an institution with those social and academic responsibilities then decide to legitimate fascism by offering it their cosy respectability and the deference of hearing and debating poisonous anti-Semitic lies? It smacks of the upper classes reverting to pre-war type.
And Will would be welcome on my sofa any day.
Terry Glavin
Unanticipated benefits
Being the incorrigibly cheery type, I'll volunteer to find the thing here that redeems Jewcy's well-intentioned error in providing Brendan O'Neill with a platform to hector Leftists on their solemn duty to set aside whatever it was they were doing and lick stamps for letters congratulating the toffs at the Oxford Union for making complete fools of themselves and turning their wee town into a circus for an entire week.
There. Found it.
It's not in any argument O'Neill makes. I think he's right that there is a silly tendency among some of us on the Left to attempt to shut down debate rather than confront our adversaries in debate. But Deb Lipstadt makes the case for the virtues of public debate far more eloquently and persuasively, and without resort to the sleight of hand required to conflate the spouting of "fascistic nonsense" with incitement to hatred and violence.
The thing that redeems this exercise is Will's colourful exposition, with succinctly presented references, setting out something of the story of the Furedi cult with which Mr. O'Neill is associated.
Here's how to make this little escapade even more of a benefit to American readers.
Brendan might use this opportunity to explain the trajectory of his friends and benefactors, which by all evidence appears to be that of a Trotskyist groupiscule that has morphed into a tag team of corporate public-relations specialists with a free-speech fetish that extends to child pornography.
How the heck did that happen?
That's a question Brendan, among all of us here, must be uniquely competent to address.
Anonymous
I'm all for the BNP
I'm white and I'm willing to fight for my race and heritage. If man is truly free, then as free men we have the right to decide with whom we associate. If I prefer to live in an area that consists of mostly white Christians, that's my choice. Why is it that people are referred to as racist just for wanting to be with their own kind? The way you people think... if I started a all white colony on the moon, you'd want to send up blacks and muslims. As if it should be a crime for whites to exist in any sort of colony or city without any other race.
Kev
The truth?
Its always been the case that no-matter whether what you say is true or not, the majority of the damage will have been done. People may like to remember how it was when the witch hunts were being carried out a few centuries ago. The mere pointing of a finger supported by the spoken word 'Witch' was enough to stir up mass hysteria amongst the everyday people.
The equivalent today is 'Racist', 'Fascist' and many others that I could mention. Its not what is said but whether or not it can be presented as plausible to an audience. Maybe its time to question our understanding of moral values tempered with a realistic approach to what constitutes education.
Terry Glavin
Crikey
Kev: Deal with the Anon guy above you.
Anon: "Why is it that people are referred to as racist just for wanting to be with their own kind?"
That's not true, actually.
But it is true that people who call themselves "White Christians" and express the desire to be apart from people of other races are invariably racists. Which explains why they tend to be referred to as racists.
You want to live in some "colony or city without any other race." That's because you're a racist. Get over it. You say you're "willing to fight" for your "race and heritage," yet you whine and snivel in the mere presence of people who recognize you for what you are.
You say you only want the right to be free to decide with whom to associate, yet here you are, associating with people who have each in their own way expressed their hostility to and disgust with your kind.
So you're a crybaby, a coward, and a liar, as well as a racist.
How lovely for you.
Anonymous
Maybe you're right
Maybe I am a racist. At least I have the freedom to be a racist. Why is it such a bad thing? You have your opinions and I have mine. Why should you express hostility and disgust with me just because I don't agree with you? It just seems that you want to force your beliefs on the rest of the world and anyone who doesn't agree is evil and must be punished.
Terry Glavin
well that's where you're wrong
"Why should you express hostility and disgust with me just because I don't agree with you?"
If I express hostility and disgust with you it isn't because you don't agree with me. It's because people like you invite the hostility of all decent people, and because you are disgusting. You always were disgusting, and you always will be disgusting, and that is how history and the people have always condemned you, and will always condemn you.
Sorry, but I'm not one of these "live and let live" types. If you want some post-modernist "all texts are equal" crap to make you feel better about yourself, you're not going to get it from me. We are not equals.
You're a crybaby, a coward, and a liar, and a racist.
I'm not.
Post new comment