Oxford Union Debate

This story about BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier David Irving speaking at the Oxford Union has troubled me. It gets to the very heart of the limitations of free speech. Just because people's views are abhorrent - and blatantly wrong - does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to express them?

Generally I would say I come down on the side of freedom of speech, but I have real mixed emotions with this one. Partly because while I think anyone should be able to express an opinion I think there has to be limitations on being able to insult other people. Holocaust denial, for example, is not a matter of opinion. The Holocaust happened and to deny it is not simply to challenge historical wisdom but is a form of particularly nasty anti-semitism. We shouldn't stand by and allow people to be blatantly racist or offensive.

Of course, freedom of speech and allowing someone to be able to voice their opinions is not the same as inviting them to do so or engaging in debate with them. Nick Griffin and David Irving do have the right of freedom of speech but I have the right not to listen to them or take part in debate with them. This is the right the silly little boys of the Oxford Union should have exercised when considering who to invite to speak at their debate. To invite one Holocaust denier to your debate is bordering on distasteful, to invite two is opening yourself up to queries about the reasons behind your invitations.

Oxford Union should be ashamed of themselves today - as should everyone who legitimises the opinions of these men by taking part in debate with them.

Protection of minorities or destruction of freedoms?

I've been meaning to blog for a few days about the proposed bill banning incitement of homophobic hatred in England and Patrick Harvie MSP's campaign to extend race hate laws to encompass discrimination against LGBT and Disabled people.

I'm torn on this. I truly believe that there is no place in any civilised society for the kind of abuse these laws are designed to stop. But will it just be abuse that is stopped or will it be used to stop genuine debate or expression of religious and moral beliefs? I have my suspicions that the laws will be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner which will crack down on genuine debate and not do anything to stop the spread of homophobia, racism etc.

There is a real conversation needed on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt. My opinion is absolutely yes, but I respect the right of someone who says the opposite to say that in a measured way. Just because someone's religious or moral beliefs are totally opposite to my own or I find their views unpalatable doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to express those views. When we stop one side of an argument from speaking out we only encourage the extremists. The stifling of the debate on immigration is a perfect example. By accusing anyone who mentioned immigration in a negative manner of racism only the BNP was left speaking from one point of view. We've seen a Church of England vicar visited by the Police for expressing an opinion about Muslim women wearing the veil - I'm sure that this wasn't the kind of comment that the race hate laws were designed for, but that's what they are being used for.

I want to see an end to homophobic comments, I'd be quite happy to see certain rappers in jail for their song lyrics but I don't want someone visited by the police because they say in a reasonable manner that they don't approve of gay relationships. I think I'll reserve judgement on these laws until we see how they work in practice....