Demo agenst extream right at Oxford Union

should be just that. In my opinion these people stopping these people from speaking are playing into the facists hands and syrely acting in a facist manner. Why not allow these people to spout thier rhetoric and let us make up our own minds rather than censor. Is this not a form of dictatorship and self censorship. I may not beleive in what they have to say but I will defend thier right to say it! This is what I deem to be democracy.

'Free speech' might sound like a 'noble' ideal, but in practice it means those in power decide what is within the acceptable spectrum of opinion. The government allows fascists relative freedom to express themselves because they consider them useful. How many people vote new Labour 'to keep the fascists out'? Come to that, 'mainstream' politics is getting ever closer to fascism itself. The ruling class want us scared, and those who resisted the fascists last night are clearly anything but scared. If we are working class activists, we should want our enemies to be scared of expressing themselves.

The protestors wouldn't be so despised and objectionable, if they also had the principle and courage to turn up at black supremacist Nation of Islam gatherings, muslim jihad gatherings, etc. Do you really need to be white to be a fascist? Typical Left-wing discrimination: Huge numbers of muslims want every race or creed wiped out. Not just a couple, like the nazis: It's ironic that dictatorships have almost always been left-wing (Hitler, Stalin, China, USSR, etc etc). Time to redefine the terms?




To all the protesters who didn't want last night's event to take place: will you be protesting the same way when someone wanting to deny the rights of women and wishing to see a country wiped off the map is invited?
Something tells me the vast majority won't, which tells you all you need to know about the bleeding heart, PC liberal state of our country today.
Free speech means just that - I'll make my mind up what my views are after listening to any extreme set of views I see fit.

Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan or Isreal to support the secular opposition & freedom of speech where million are dying Finsbury man?
Didnt see you there did we? you went to Finsbury,wow!
No it seems you cheer on the so called war on Terror & protest those scapegoated nutters like Hamza who is the kindred spirit of Griffin.

Meanwhile over 6million die in Afghanistan &Iraq since 1991.
Why do so many wanna be nazi dictators have one eye or one ball?
In war most of the isms have been funded & used by bankers to play us off against each other escpecially fascism,
has anarchism?
all anarchists oppose war,
anarchists uphold freedom of speech in word & deed,
everyone sane or mentally over 16 knows fascists like Griffin & Hamza are unevolved shite on the colon of humanity.

remember Catalonia before you blubber Winston,

For some the idea of stopping fascists from speaking at the union is a stupied idea as left wing people are supposed to defend freedom of speech. However as everyone knows the fascists if in power would ban all freedom of speech and kill all dissenters. the BNP stand in the tradition of the nazi party. here's a link to a picture of the founder of the BNP if your in any doubt.
 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/images/BNP_JohnTyndall02.gif

Here is a link to redwatch, the website step up to hound anti racists or also people who they will get revenge on when they are in power. I went specifically to the page where are they now? at the top of the page the nazi brag about the death of anti nazi league member blair peach who was killed by police.

The BNP aren't to up on freedom of speech when they have beat up people who have being handing out anti fascist material. The mainstream media gives the BNP an easy time while demonising the left. The BNP would say they have the right to freedom of speech, yet what about the rights of the black, asian, jewish, gay, disabled, socialist and trade unionists who the BNP threaten and utlimately want to kill. Should we let the BNP march through a predominately black area and intimidate people because they should have the right to protest.This is not a abstract moral argument, it is a tactical argument, if the BNP are allowed to grow and be perceived as a viable party everyone one on this site would feel the consequences.

If the oxford union believe in freedom of speech will they be inviting any representatives of Al Qaida to talk about 9/11, of course not it would be offensive, and the person who did the talk would get locked up on anti terror charges, however the BNP who support a "holocaust type solution" to the "problems of britain" are given freedom of speech.

Speech should not be used to threatern or intimidate others, if i said i wanted to kill someone i would be in trouble with the police, whereas a party that wants to kill a whole section of society would not recieve the same punishment.

here's a link to UAF, that might outline the no platform policy better than me.  http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=71105
Marxist?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding left wing dictorships (which doesn't really make sense), nearly all dictorships have not been left wing think about the history of most countries and the dictorships which are called monarchy's, or the fascist dictorships of hitler, franco, pinochet etc the difference is people such as myself and others on this site view china, north korea etc as bad, whereas the BNP think hitlers regime was good. Simple

Shame you have no understanding of of who's who on the left....idiot! Not suprising you prats keep getting slapped.

Claiming to have pictures of "AFA" on your site shows how up to date you are. Once again you missed out on pictures of Antifa. Better luck next time. NO PASARAN!

Apart from anything else, it seems a bit of a short-sighted idea to try and prevent debate going ahead. The 'no platform' concept is frankly a load of bollocks. You either believe in free speech, or you don't. To me a better scenario would have been this: The debate goes ahead, Griffin, Irving etc. get the verbal and factual whipping they deserve in front of a large number of people and then when they get out, anarchists beat the living shit out of them. Apart from being quite OBVIOUSLY directly contradictory to belief in free speech, preventing people from airing their views is shite from a tactical point of view. If the debate is prevented then the fash can play the 'free speech martyr' card as they have done in the past, and if not, then we look a bit crap. Far more effective to beat them in every way possible, both verbally and physically and in the end, far more satisfying... Belief in free speech goes hand in hand with freedom of expression and if we happen to express ourselves with violence against the fash, then that's their problem. Let them say what they want, discredit it, and then make them pay the consequences of what they say.