Yesterday I heard an interesting quote. “Freedom of speech must have limits” this was made by the MP George Gallaway at the protest at Oxford University yesterday. Personally I wonder if that is very true. Of course freedom of speech comes with responsibility but does it have limits? What about what happens at Speakers Corner? Are there limits there? Within the context of a debate (as opposed to a lecture, sermon) surely there is a space for all political persuasions to put their point across.
I often receive emails to boycott events, people or organisations on religious, political and racial grounds and because I prefer to think these things through, will not be on the first train to wherever with placard in hand just on someone’s say so. Monday night was a case in point. For those who missed it there was an event put on by the Oxford Union. A debate which involved two right wing spokespeople Nick Griffin of the BNP and David Irving who denies the holocaust existed. The protests started with a resignation by an MP, the usual rebuttal from Trevor Philips (yawn) and some serious protesting at Oxford University.
Now you see for me I really think that the majority of the views that I have read or seen by both of these men on issues of politics and race are quite abhorrent. The leader of the Oxford Union who invited these two to the debate wished to create a platform to highlight this but through the channels of reason and argument. In that sense I totally agree with him. In the same way I find extreme Islam or black nationalism abhorrent I would welcome debate with those who support those ideas. Whilst we are on the subject I would love to have a debate with Richard Dawkins, but that’s a whole other.
Those who violently protest against those who hold these abhorrent views in a country were democracy is something often taken for granted are largely missing the point. Would you not rather have an open space where the arguments of a short sighted and hateful politic are disected and examined using logic, reason and a well structured rebuttal or would you prefer to witness an ever increasing majority for a legal political party to go unchecked because it can and because it is clandestine?
Funny enough, Dave, was reading the 2003 British Attitudes Survey this week (don’t ask why, lol) & there’s a chapter in there charting tolerance over the last few decades. One of the points in the literature is that tolerance isn’t really tolerance unless you’re happy to apply it to your diametric opposition — the people who hold a position that’s the complete inverse of yours. So those who support gay rights aren’t really tolerant unless they can give due time and respect to an anti-gay religious fundie. The reverse is also true: an economic conservative isn’t pro-freedom at all unless she can also respect the discourse of a die-hard Marxist.
But you’re right. That’s not a palatable truth, so people just tend to spit it out and keep on keeping on.