Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Oxford divides 'free speech' debate after protesters break in

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 November 2007
PROTESTERS last night failed to halt a debate featuring the controversial historian David Irving and Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party despite breaking through a security cordon and bursting into the Oxford Union.
The two main guest speakers were forced to debate in separate rooms for safety reasons. University authorities considered it was too dangerous to walk Mr Griffin and Mr Irving across the quadrangle between the main Union building and the debating hal
l.

Instead Mr Irving, who was jailed for three years in Austria for denying the Holocaust, spoke alongside broadcaster and author Anne Atkins and Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris in the debating hall while Mr Griffin was among debaters speaking in the main Union building.

Earlier demonstrators staged a sit-down protest at the debating table, while others danced on chairs and played jingles on the piano after shoving their way into the hall.

The Oxford Union had been under significant pressure to cancel the debate, which protesters said would give a platform to racists. However, supporters of the debate insisted a "confident democracy" should be able to stage such events.

Both Mr Irving and Mr Griffin arrived two hours early for the event, scheduled for 8:30pm, and were bundled inside. Protesters greeted them with shouts of "Keep Oxford fascist-free; we will defend democracy".

The rally organisers, including Unite Against Fascism and Oxford-based community groups, had hoped that at least 1,000 people would turn up, but estimates put the crowd numbers at closer to 500.

Those arriving for the debate had to get past heavy security and faced jeers of "shame on you". Some with tickets for the event scaled the fence to get in and had eggs thrown at them.

The decision to invite Mr Griffin and Mr Irving, made after a vote among members of the debating society, outraged Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and prompted a senior Conservative MP to resign his life membership of the union.

Julian Lewis, the shadow defence minister, said the students should be "ashamed" of themselves. In a letter to the union's officers and standing committee, Dr Lewis, MP for New Forest East, said he was rescinding his life membership "with great sadness". He wrote: "Nothing which happens in the debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored."

The presence of the pair on the list of speakers prompted a series of high- profile withdrawals from the platform, including Des Browne, the Defence Secretary. Martin McCluskey, president of the Oxford Student Union, said it was "disgraceful" that the pair were being given the same platform as past speakers such as Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama.

But Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP, also billed to speak at the event, said banning Mr Griffin and Mr Irving would risk turning "bigots into martyrs".

Protester Peter Simpson, a 22-year-old Essex University student, said he and his fellow students had travelled more than three hours to be at the protest.

"We wanted to make our point, not outside but in here. I hope that we're not giving Griffin further publicity by doing this but history has shown that you need to draw the line with fascists."

Mr Griffin has repeatedly insisted the BNP is not a racist group. He was convicted in 1998 for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.

• THE Oxford Union Debating Society, founded in 1823, has a worldwide reputation and is famous for its cut and thrust.

It is a separate body from the Oxford University Student's Union and the university.

Well known speakers have included the Dalai Lama, Winston Churchill, Mother Teresa and former US presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Actors and celebrities have also been given a platform - their numbers include Clint Eastwood, Stephen Fry, the TV talk show host Jerry Springer and the magician David Blaine. It prides itself on freedom of speech, most famously by debating and passing the motion "This House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country" in 1933.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 November 2007 12:20 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Far Right in the UK
 
1

,

27/11/2007 00:20:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1176347, Article id was mapped to record!
2

subrosa,

27/11/2007 01:03:38

Karim I think you could word your statement better. It sounds more of a threat than a request. Who is going to boycott a poster? You?

3

Sanny,

Portugal 27/11/2007 01:32:33

1. karin m
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment I believe your choice of words will put peoples back up and you will have a negative response.

Back to the subject of the column:
I totally and unreservedly support the Oxford Union. They are exercising that most precious of all our freedoms: - Freedom of Speech. The best way to deal with prejudice, whether is is sectarian, racial or simply political, is to expose it the the bright light of public scrutiny.

The people who will listen to this debate are of sufficient intelligence to have been accepted one of the worlds leading universities, therefore it is reasonable to assume they are capable of judging this pair of misfits.

We cannot silence people just because we do not agree with them. No! We should take their arguments and hold them up to the cold light of reasoned argument and expose their flaws.

I've long held the opinion that Alf Garnet in "Till Death us do part" did more for racial harmony than all the quango's and laws put together. Alf exposed racists as bigots to be laughed at. It is very difficult to be taken seriously when people are laughing at you.

4

Disgusted Reader 3,

BOYCOTT THE SCOTSMAN NOW!!!!!!!!! 27/11/2007 01:33:39

At least Oxford adhere to free speech unlike this paper!!!!

5

Four Fox Ache,

27/11/2007 02:01:28

I called my teddy bear Mohammed Golliwog.

He's cuddly.

This on the other hand, is total shi'ite!.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1857892007

We can all figure out whodunnit!

6

Scullion,

Canada 27/11/2007 02:07:09

#1 and #4-am I missing something?
Granting only some people the right to free speech is in itself fascist and belies the term "free speech". Freedom means being offended quite often; have faith in your fellow men that they will see the stupidity of this pair.

7

Stockbridge,

27/11/2007 02:09:30

5. Four Fox Ache

You could have that other hand off if you stole the teddy!

1. karin m

I think your campaign will be as noticeable as a nipple erection in a duffle coat.

8

Gnasher,

27/11/2007 02:13:35

I read karin m's words as a threat, and am scared. What will she do to me? Will she stalk me? Will she send National Party goons after me if I dare to defy her? Oooh. Scarey biscuits.

9

An Australian of Scottish Ancestry,

27/11/2007 02:37:53

Oh, the irony!

10

langtonian,

scotus 27/11/2007 02:55:35

#1
Hypocritical intimidation

11

master mariner,

at sea. 27/11/2007 03:20:10

Freedom of speach unfortunately requires that you defend this right for people who's views you find abhorrent, and whom you would expend your last breath in order to prevent them gaining power and / or influence.
The debating Union is right, let these people attempt to defend their views and destroy them and their arguments in the public arena. The Oxford students Union is wrong, they (the students ) should have relished the opportunity to debate with these people and triumph over them.

12

Bad Yin,

Roon the Coarner 27/11/2007 03:39:16

Fascists are the ones who want to stop other people speaking.

13

Bad Yin,

Roon the Coarner 27/11/2007 03:43:20

master mariner, at sea:

How old are you now?

Agree completely with your post. We can't just shut debate down - that's fascism. Defeat your enemies with logic - if you can't - get lost.

14

tismyself,

North Carolina 27/11/2007 03:52:55

I'm surprised by the students behavior, the lack of thought behind it. It's depressing. Well said # 11.

Ya'll - I reckon Karin M was making a joke.

15

Pinelands,

PINELANDS. Where the heart is 27/11/2007 04:38:20

#1Karin M

I think this posters sums her up

Childish.

Stupid

No point

Who even wants to comment on what she as to say

She as to be all of ten years old

To think, she thinks there will be no posters on the 30th because of her command

Tell you what if ther are not more than the usual amount of posters I wont send anymore

16

Bad Yin,

Still Kickin 27/11/2007 05:49:16

Karin M. has a very serious point - she is trying to force the Scottish media to be balanced and objective in its delivery - an impossibe job.

Howevr, I will observe the boycot - guid oan ye Karen - gie thum hell hen!

17

,

27/11/2007 06:33:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1176720, Article id was mapped to record!
18

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 06:34:30

17 - I haven't read Irving but from what I've been told he doesn't deny the Holocaust only it's scale.

19

Pinelands,

PINELANDS. Where the heart is 27/11/2007 07:10:34

#18 pilrig

Too long I'm afraid

Another one who as no knowledge of the English lanquage to be able to make a point without using the gutter.

His utterances should not even pass the editor.

Editors should know it as made his day to make such a wonderful contribution to the poster board

20

Hugo, Ayrshire,

27/11/2007 07:17:37

There is surely a difference between having something to say and how you say it.

Thus I support Pilrig at #18 in his right to castigate Griffin, but I find how he says it to be highly objectionable.

If I want gutter language then I would expect to go elsewhere to find it, not in the Scotsman.

21

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/11/2007 07:18:20

"David Irving was a well respected Historian until he dared to examine the facts."

QED.

22

de Hairun,

27/11/2007 07:20:09

The irony of an equality and human rights chairman trying to attempting to prevent people from having what most agree is a basic human right

23

karin m,

27/11/2007 07:55:37

To all those who disagree with me about the boycott at 1. This boycott
is to ensure freedom of speech the scotsman has been pulling legitimate comments that highlighted discrepancies in the scotsmans stories. The comments were pulled and the stories changed.

24

Pinelands,

PINELANDS. Where the heart is 27/11/2007 07:57:14

#21 HUGO AYRSHIRE

My whole point was not what he had to say, but how
he said it

He points out himself (pilrig) that is wording is not suitable, but is unable to express himself with a word that is suitable to the poster board.

Therfore it should not even reach the poster stage

THE RULES ARE QUITE CLEAR BY THE EDITOR

25

Nikostratos,

27/11/2007 07:58:27

FREEDOM TO SPEAK IS A RIGHT EVEN KARIN M CAN.T TAKE AWAY.. LITTLE Miss FACIST. YOU CAN EVEN SHOUT on the 30th be there.

26

Nell,

The Presevation Hall 27/11/2007 08:02:37

Why are we not allowed to post comments on the article about the teacher who allowed a teddy bear to be called Muhamed?
Back to the article, is it a criminal offence to deny something?

27

Nikostratos',

27/11/2007 08:06:56

25

I have changed my mind and i will follow your boycott.

28

,

27/11/2007 08:11:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1176875, Article id was mapped to record!
29

Ichabod,

27/11/2007 08:12:57

I did not know there was to be a boycott, but since I have been threatened if I do not fall into line with the totalitarian one I will be here!


The fact is that in a debating chamber folk should have the chance to put forward their views. This way they can be exposed for what they are, something that cannot happen at closed meetings or by having slanted leaflets pushed through your door.
Allow Irving and the BNP the chance to state their case in this paper and allow their opponents to put forward an alternative point. The reader is well able to choose who is right. Whether their bias allows them to is of course another thing.

30

Nikostratos',

with Karin m 27/11/2007 08:14:47

FOLLOW US ON THE BOYCOTT NOV 30TH

31

Nikostratos',

with Karin m 27/11/2007 08:22:58

BOYCOTT THE SCOTSMAN ON 30TH NOV

32

Calum Crubag,

27/11/2007 08:40:55

#33 - both Muslims and the BNP have so much in common. Both want to take advantage of our free speech and democracy to deny it to others. Those who would use our freedoms do deny us it, should not have it. Simple. Shame on Oxford for actively promoting these fascists.

33

Nick_Byrne,

Glasgow 27/11/2007 08:42:33

It's the old adage - I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Freedom of speech is just that - the road of censorship is a slope and a slippery one at that.

34

mk-ultra,

Edinburgh 27/11/2007 08:44:50

"If I want gutter language then I would expect to go elsewhere to find it, not in the Scotsman."

To the poetry of Robert Burns perhaps?

35

Boy Wonder,

27/11/2007 08:45:05

As I said befor Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of Democracy.

It's a pity the Hootsmon publishes articles practically begging for comments ... such as the McCann article and the supercilious Superorangeman ... yet we are disallowed from posting comments on them.

What price Free Speech in YOUR pages, Hootsmon??

36

de Hairun,

Aarhus 27/11/2007 08:46:02

#33
Well said.
In Denmark there seems to be little tolerance for those who wish to harm their country and the rights of the many to free speech. Its just a pity the scotsman dont espouse the same values and allow the right to criticise what is clearly wrong, cruel and barbaric.

37

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 27/11/2007 08:48:35

Why would the Oxford Union Debating Society invite Nick Griffin to speak about free speech? Were they wanting the publicity, or do they really believe the he has something useful to contribute? Surely there were more interesting candidates.

Nick Griffin is a vile individual who has a history of hatred. His BNP organisation is also a foul group. They've tried to cleanup their outward apperance in recent years but the smell remains. If he wants to exercise his right to free speech, let him arrange his own meetings.

Ironically, I've read that Griffin once attacked Irving for suggesting that *some* Jews were killed during World War 2.

38

SometimeHippy,

Edinburgh 27/11/2007 08:53:14

#35 - so the people protesting and trying to have the speakers silenced last night weren't trying to deny freedom to others as well? They can't have it both ways.

It's much better to let extremists broadcast their own stupidity far and wide, as when their words are masked, it is much harder to denounce them and to show them for what they are.

39

Nell,

The Presevation Hall 27/11/2007 09:03:39

Should we be jailing members of the Flat Earth Society for denying that the Earth is actually a deformed spherical shape?

40

carrottop,

Dumfries 27/11/2007 09:11:31

If freedom of speech is denied people with extreme views they tend to go underground where they are much more dangerous. At least when they are in front of an audience they can be forced to justify their views and through time possibly become more moderate.

41

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/11/2007 09:15:50

-- Whilst I have nothing but revulsion and contempt for Griffin and Irving ...

Irving could be criticised as being a man "too full of himself". He courted money and publicity as does Niall Ferguson who I rate far lower as a historian. But Niall's part of the Oxford orthodoxy. Which some people - or sensible thinking people - view with "revulsion and contempt".

You take your choice.

Do you want a historian or a PR man?

42

Otterspotter,

Glasgow 27/11/2007 09:18:26

Anyway it all worked out in the end...

THE far-right British National Party is to abandon racism after listening carefully to the opposing arguments during last night’s Oxford Union debate.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/news-headlines/bnp-aba...

And because we aren't allowed to comment on the teddy bear story here's another for good measure.

MUSLIM TEDDY BEAR HAS PAWS CHOPPED OF
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/muslim-t...

43

Queen D,

Glasgow 27/11/2007 09:20:10

For a country which allowed a dangerous radical to preach in the street,with police protection,I find this stramash at the Oxford Union disturbing.

They were supposed to be debating free speech yet denied a political party that right,very ironic!
One may vehemently disagree with that party,but surely within a closed debate, they should have been allowed to speak?
I thought students were supposed to be capable of handling ideas,no matter how abhorrent,debate them in a (relatively) civilised way,and then draw their own conclusions.

44

Albina,

Harrogate 27/11/2007 09:25:47

We either have freedom of speech or we don't.

We can't have freedom unless we're prepared to fight for it.

Albina

45

,

27/11/2007 09:27:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1177041, Article id was mapped to record!
46

IJW,

Edinburgh 27/11/2007 09:55:29

#48 - inter alia. You've hit the nail on the head. All these posters have been banging on about the right to free speech no matter what your views are. That's a given in this country and very few would dispute that. However, last night's event could have gone ahead if they had just invited the two speakers along without telling anyone who it would be, and just give the title of the event. That way about 50 folk might have turned up and it would have got two column inches in the local paper.
Instead, those who were behind the event turned it into a national media circus and will no doubt appear in 5-10 years time as parliamentary candidates, PR executives, or both. So they weren't offering freedom of speech to racists, they were offering free publicity

47

de Hairun,

27/11/2007 10:09:43

if there hadnt been groups demanding that Oxford ban these prats noone would have cared much. If noone cares the bnp are left to fester in their own bile all this has given the bnp more power than they deserve.

48

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:24:40

For all the carefully cultivated "reasonableness" of his public persona today, NicGriffin has a similar far-right background to John Tyndall, founder of the BNP.

He was a national organiser for the NF in the 1970s, and in the 1980s was heavily influenced by Roberto Fiore, a leader of the Italian fascist organisation the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR), who fled to Britain to avoid prosecution over the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station in which 85 people died. Throughout the 1980s Griffin was a leading figure in what remained of the NF, promoting a NAR-inspired "Third Positionist" ideology that claimed to offer an alternative to both capitalism and communism. Griffin and the Third Positionists advocated a "political soldier" strategy which rejected the 1970s NF’s objectives of mass membership and electoral success in favour of building an elite corps of professional fascist "revolutionaries".

However, as the NF fragmented in an outbreak of political infighting, the Third Positionists broke away in 1989 to form a separate grouping, and by 1991 Griffin had abandoned organised fascist politics altogether. After a brief period in the political wilderness he joined the BNP in 1995 and became editor of Tyndall’s magazine Spearhead. Ironically, in view of subsequent developments, Tyndall brought Griffin into the BNP to act as a counterweight to an opposition headed by Tony Lecomber and others who favoured playing down the fascist character of the party in order to establish a broader popular appeal.

Griffin used Spearhead to denounce the "spiral of sickly moderation" and scorned the idea of the BNP projecting an image of restraint and respectability. Commenting on the party’s earlier success in a council by-election in Millwall in 1993, Griffin wrote that the voters had not backed "a Post-Modernist Rightist Party, but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ab

49

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:25:37

(continued)

But he insisted:

"National Socialism was the best solution for German people in the 1930s.... When people say ‘Do you take any inspiration from that?’, I mean, I honestly can’t understand how a man who’s seen the inner city hell of Britain today can’t look back on that era with a certain nostalgia and think, yeah, those people marching through the streets and all those happy people out in the streets, you know, saluting and everything, was a bad thing ... would you prefer your kid growing up in Oldham and Burnley or 1930s Germany?"

In October 2004, when the BNP contested a council by-election in Dagenham, an Evening Standard reporter infiltrated their campaign. He quoted Tony Lecomber, who as we have noted was one of the earliest proponents of the current "modernising" project, expressing similar pro-Nazi sentiments to Collett’s. Lecomber asked: "Do you remember Cabaret with Liza Minnelli, the part where, one by one, the Hitler Youth, our fellas, stand up and start saluting and singing? That is right stirring that is, gets the blood up every time."

On the eve of the 2005 general election the Yorkshire Evening Post reported details of a video made at a BNP social event "in which its members and supporters sing neo-Nazi songs, praise the leadership of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, and give Sieg Heil salutes accompanied by shouts of ‘Auschwitz!’." One of the songs sung in the video is "a re-write of the Kenny Rogers 1969 chart hit ‘Ruby, don’t take your love to town’, except that the words have been changed to ‘N*****, get the **** out of my town’."

As a convinced Nazi, Griffin was until his latest political turn an unabashed anti-semite. In 1997 he co-authored a pamphlet entitled Who are the Mindbenders? which asserted that the British people had been brainwashed by Jewish-controlled media. It was a typical paranoid fascist fantasy about a world dominated by cabals of sche

50

walter,

27/11/2007 10:26:43

Protesters greeted them with shouts of "Keep Oxford fascist-free; we will defend democracy.

Just goes to show how unintelligent these so called intelligent people are.
Free speech and open debate are just two of the building blocks of democracy.
These people call for the fascist tactic of preventing free speech and open debate and call it defending democracy.

#1 I see fascism is alive and well with you, these protester and Griffin would be proud to have you with them.

51

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:26:50

(continued)

In his defence Griffin reasserted his stand on Holocaust denial in unequivocal terms: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat.... I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria."

In 2003 Steve Batkin, who has stood as the BNP's candidate for mayor of Stoke, caused Griffin severe embarrassment during the local elections by asserting that Jews had made money out of the Holocaust and had lied about the death toll. Griffin publicly reprimanded Batkin, who was instructed not to confuse "personal hobbyhorses with the party line" or else the BNP’s backing for his candidacy would be withdrawn. A chastened Batkin was forced to inform the press: "I stated my personal view on this occasion and not the view of the Party. It was a mistake."

The mask slipped again in June 2006 when Liam Birch, the BNP’s candidate in a Plymouth council by-election, was exposed as having posted racist comments on his weblog in which he referred to the "alleged" gassing of Jews by the Nazis and asserted that the chimney of a concentration camp crematorium was "a Soviet dummy". Birch also wrote: "The Jews declared war on the Nazis, not the other way round."

The fact that the Griffin-led BNP has publicly dispensed with the Nazi trappings of the past does not mean that it has evolved into some sort of post-fascist right-wing populist party, as has arguably been the case with Le Pen’s Front National. This is not to say that such an evolution is theoretically impossible, but the BNP’s organisational and ideological roots in the British Nazi movement are so deep that any such development must be seen as a very long-term prospect.

If we are to argue over defi

52

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:29:47

(continued)

The way the BNP operates has not fundamentally changed over the years - it is still a clique within a clique that runs the organisation - many of their grunts are completely ignorant of the historical background and political idealogy of the BNP. That is entirely deliberate - the BNP grunts can deny that they are a fascist party whilst the directorate knows damn well that they are.

Griffinsupporters claim he is not a Nazi yet cannot explain why he addressed an NPD (Germany's leading Nazi grouping) rally in August 2002.

Or what about when he spoke to the conferenmce of American Renaissance in February 2002? - AR is far right US based publication that supports the notion of the biological superiority of white people. Each edition is packed with the theories of race-science, and grim statistics showing the moral degeneracy of black people.

Or when speaking to a private nazi meeting in the US in 2001, Nick Griffin admitted that the party’s new-found respectability was simply a tactic to con the British people. “My politics have not changed,” he told the audience of racists and nazis. “I still believe in fighting for this,” he added, pointing to his white skin.

(to be continued)

53

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:30:14

(continued)

The BNP claims to be the party of law and order but its ranks are full of people with serious criminal records.

Here are some of the most recent cases where BNP members have been convicted:

March 2007 David Copeland
The Appeal Court increases David Copeland's sentence to a minimum of 50 years. The London nail bomber, who had been an active member of the BNP, had originally been sentenced to a minimum term of 30 years for the three bombs he set off in 1999 which killed three people and injured 139 others.

February 2007 John Laidlaw
John Laidlaw is sentenced to life after going on a shooting spree in north London in May 2006. He shot Abu Kamara in Upper Street before accidentally shooting Emma Sheridan at Finsbury Park Tube station, as he aimed at a second man. Laidlaw had a string of previous convictions starting at the age of 14. They included property damage, public order offences and 16 counts of theft and possession of knives. He also carried out seven armed street muggings and had been in and out of jail several times. In October 2004 he attacked a black motorist, hurling racist abuse at him. A police report written after Laidlaw was arrested for the attack said he behaved violently in front of officers and was "foaming at the mouth". "In the presence and hearing of the black female gaoler the defendant made racist comments and remarks, stating he was a member of the BNP and that he hated all black people," the document says. He also said he was going to "kill all black people". He was convicted of racially aggravated actual bodily harm and using racist language.

February 2007 Robert Cottage
Robert Cottage, a BNP member and former council election candidate, pleads guilty to possessing explosives. He denies, however, as does his co-defendant David Jackson, conspiracy to cause an explosion. The jury are unable to agree a verdict. A retrial will take place in July.

54

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:31:01

(continued)

And there's more:

December 2006 Richard Mulhall
Richard Mulhall, the BNP's council group leader in Calderdale, was sentenced to do 200 hours of unpaid work on four counts of benefit fraud. Branding him "thoroughly dishonest", Recorder Felicity Davies said he only escaped jail because relevant legislation was not yet in force when he committed the offences. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs and to repay £603.18 in jobseekers' allowance. He had already repaid the housing benefit and council tax benefit. A jury had found him guilty in October of falsely claiming a total of £3,002.95 in benefits by concealing the fact that his partner was working.

November 2006 Darren Francis
BNP member Darren Francis is given a five-year restraining order after being found guilty of harassing Sally Keeble, the MP for Northampton North.

September 2006 Robert McGlynn
Robert McGlynn, a Swansea BNP activist, is fined £200 plus £200 costs for shouting racist abuse at an Asian woman. He was convicted on evidence from a passer-by. He later loses his appeal against conviction and is ordered to pay a further £140 in costs.

July 2006 Allen Boyce
The former National Front Remembrance Day parade bugler Allen Boyce, 73, now a BNP supporter, receives a two-year suspended sentence for giving bomb-making instructions to Terry Collins, a BNP member, who was sentenced to five years in 2005 for conducting a racist hate campaign against the Asian community in Eastbourne.

May 2006 Angela Clarke
A former BNP councillor Angela Clarke is fined £200 for resisting arrest during a fracas.

May 2006 Kevin Hughes
Kevin Hughes, who acted as election agent for the BNP Redditch councillor David Enderby in May 2006, is sentenced to 30 months in prison for assaulting an Iraqi asylum seeker. The sentence is later reduced to two years on appeal.

March 2006 Luke Smith
A former BNP Burnley councillo

55

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 10:35:10

(continued)

November 2005 Roderick Rowley
Roderick Rowley, a former BNP candidate in Coventry, is imprisoned for 15 months after admitting 14 charges of making, distributing or possessing obscene images of children. He is also ordered to register as a sex offender for ten years.

May 2005 Karl Hanson
Karl Hanson is fined £400 for possessing heroin and crack cocaine. News of his arrest broke a few days before the May 2005 local elections in which he was a BNP candidate in Huddersfield.

April 2005 John Cope
John Cope, a Cheshunt BNP member and election candidate, is fined £750 and ordered to pay £104 costs for harassing an anti-racist campaigner.

March 2005 Terry Collins
Terry Collins, a BNP member, is sentenced to five years in prison for a year-long campaign of terror against Asian families in Eastbourne. He claims the BNP "brainwashed" him. Collins, a former Territorial Army soldier, admitted charges of arson, racially aggravated harassment and criminal damage. He also admitted the possession of bullets found in his home and asked for 11 further offences of racially aggravated criminal damage to be taken into account.

Sorry if i have gone on a bit but some people need to have their eyes opened up to what the BNP are about - whereever they go and "speak" or rather incite there follows violence, intimidation and thuggery. It is they who abuse freedom of speech - many here forget that with freedom of speech also comes responsibility.

56

de Hairun,

Supporting the boycott 27/11/2007 10:43:49

#59
many here forget that with freedom of speech also comes responsibility.

This is true and the best way to stop them is to let them run off at the mouth and then people can go back to discrediting whatever rubbish falls out of their hateful mouths without having to defend their rights to say it (and in the long run preventing everyone else being silenced). Everyone has a responsibility to ensure this lot dont get in to power by voting against them and to be honest everytime Nick Griffin or someone like that opens their mouths they damage their own cause.
Being dictated to by the bnp or the anti facist groups amounts to the same thing, dictatorship.

57

IJW,

Edinburgh 27/11/2007 10:51:07

may I thank the Federalist for that short history of the BNP. Their rebranding in recent years, and their grasping at knee-jerk, grievance policies for the pursuit of local electoral success, should never hide the facts of who they are and what they are really about.

58

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 11:12:37

What utter leftist drivel. Every party has law breakers - Aiken, Archer, Mike 'firestarter' Watson etc etc.. These idiots held senior posts, not just 'membership'. The BNP are the only party willing to grasp the immigration nettle. They are under constant attack from violent leftists, hostile Media and pro immigrant groups. Power to them!

59

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 27/11/2007 11:28:16

Limiting free speech because one group finds it 'offensive' is itself a form of facism. (Obviously incitement to violence/crime is not free speech).

If a person supports limiting free speech because a group finds it offensive, then you get to a stage where you arrest someone for calling a teddy bear 'Mohammed', because some people find this offensive.

60

,

27/11/2007 11:32:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1177358, Article id was mapped to record!
61

FLUB,

A rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 27/11/2007 11:55:39

And another thing...it's not just the free speech angle; those who would ban Griffin and Irving from speaking are doubly culpable, as they don't want us to hear their ideas, evaluate them ,and in all likelihood, dismiss them. How patronising is that?

I've asked this elsewhere, and I see a few doing the same here - why aren't we being allowed to comment on the arrest in Sudan of the teacher in the teddy bear naming saga?

62

Grandson of Winged Messenger,

27/11/2007 12:06:37

This is not a question of free speech.

It's a question of these twerps being INVITED to speak, which is quite another thing.

These bitter and twisted little men are free to speak as much as they want.

But to invite them to speak at institutions that supposedly exist in order to educate is a tasteless publicity stunt.

Oxford's reputation will suffer because of this.

63

GP,

27/11/2007 12:07:37

63# you should never deny the right of free speech.
Plus remember there were british SS troops.

64

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:14:49

Those who want to ban Griffin and Irving speaking are nothing but recruiting sergeants for the BNP. The more they ban them, the stronger they get.

Lee Jasper of a Socialist Worker front organisation claimed on TV that he has spent 30 years fighting the BNP - well not very well he hasn't, if their electorial success in recent years is anything t ogo by. he also refused to condemn the invitation of the racist fascist anti-semite who holds power in Iran to Columbia University in the US. He holds identical views to Griffin, but because he is anti-Bush, he was acceptable to these lefty fascists.

On the radio I heard an elderly jewish woman who had visited Auschwitz demanding that Griffin and Irving "should be wiped from the face of the earth" - the lack of understanding of some people is just sickening.

65

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:16:47

#68

So the lengthy parade of communists and fellow travellers who have spoken at the Oxford Union over the decades should all have been banned as well?

66

FLUB,

A rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 27/11/2007 12:16:51

#67 - so we should be protected from it because we're not intelligent enough to process, evaluate and determine the potential harm of the information?

I don't think Nic Griffin of the BNP is dangerous - I think he's there to remind politicians that there is an electorate out there who are not being listened to and having their concerns addressed. The BNP will never be elected to Government in the UK

David Irving is a historian - all he can do is offer a viewpoint which is so far wide of accepted historical statements, he is unlikely to influence many people to alter their views about the mass murders during WW2 - even if he did, what's going to happen?

Is some lonely skinhead in a single end in somewhere like Leeds going to suddenly create a fourth Reich and reopen the camps? Doubt it.

67

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 12:18:23

#68, it *is* a question of free speech - something we should defend and, if need be, fight for.

I applaud the courage of the Oxford Union and thank them for helping to keep the UK a free country.

68

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 12:18:26

68. More utter leftist drivel.

Ahmadinejad, a representative of a dictatorial regime that executes woman for adultery, was given the right of addressing the University of Columbia faculty. Has this event damaged that institution? No, of course not! I somehow think Oxford's reputation will survive Griffen.

69

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:19:20

#59

"many here forget that with freedom of speech also comes responsibility."

Now what exactly does that pompous phrase actually mean?

Is being responsible saying only stuff that everybody agrees with? Or are you just not allowed to attack a class of people in words? Who decides what is offensive? Who decides what is responsible?

70

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 27/11/2007 12:19:25

#67 wrote:
"It is not a question of 'finds it 'offensive', or of 'How patronising is that' It is a question of being actually dangerous, to us all."

Some people find naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed' not only to be offensive, but actually 'dangerous'.

Limiting freedom of speech for reasons of 'offense', 'dangerous viewpoint', or for any other adjective is simply facism.

71

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:22:42

#35

Both Muslims and the left have so much in common. Both want to take advantage of our free speech and democracy to deny it to others. Those who would use our freedoms to deny us it, do not understand it. Simple. Shame on the loony left for actively promoting these fascist demonstrators.

72

Nell,

The Presevation Hall 27/11/2007 12:23:18

I HAVE just returned from a diplomatic trip to the Congo and I can testify that at no point did I see anyone drinking Um Bongo.

73

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 12:28:09

#76, yes, it does seem that some people find naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed' not only to be offensive, but actually 'dangerous'.

Of course it was in a foreign country, and there's the old maxim about 'when in Rome'; but IMO such people are idiots and deserve to be offended.

74

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 27/11/2007 12:38:48

No not idiots extremists who must be opposed at every step.

75

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 12:43:26

The BNP are NOT extremists, let's be clear. Their manifesto is a pragmatic and rational - to protect the integrity and security of the UK.

76

Calum Crubag,

27/11/2007 12:45:39

Quite simple, whether it's BNP fascists or Muslim supremicists, we should not allow people who plan to supplant democracy and free-speech with totalitarianism that privilege. If someone uses free-speech to stir up hatred (and violence amongst some) then they should not have that right.

In a similar way, those who commit crimes bad enough are sent to prison.

Look at what happened in Germany. Look at Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Have we learned nothing?

"Defend their freedoms to the death". Ironic. Death is the outcome of their beliefs.

77

Calum Crubag,

27/11/2007 12:51:49

Really Kobi?!! You're welcome to your opinion. I don't wish to stop you.

Unfortunately, as we've seen with numerous attacks against asylum seekers, there are large swathes of the population who will swallow the hatred and propaganda from not only the BNP but gutter tabloidism that propagates scare stories aimed at certain minorities.

Probably most of fall into some 'minority' or other which would be deemed 'impure' by political and religious zealots - not only 'immigrants' but the disabled, 'sexual' deviants be they gays, adulters, sex before marriage, Irish, Catholics (themselves victims of predjudice, how ironic?!), Gaelic speakers, single-mothers, trade-unionists, atheists...

Give them an inch...

78

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 12:53:39

#82, you should deny free speech to people who, in your view, threaten free speech?

Doesn't that make you every bit as bad as they are?

79

Allan(handofgod137),

27/11/2007 12:55:26

#59 Perhaps you would now like to publish similar lists containing details of the crimes commited by other party's candidates and elected representatives? Judging by the hysteria displayed by the leftists whenever the far right get the oppertunity to put their views directly, rather than have them interpreted by some lie monger in the leftist gutter press, one is led to believe that Griffen and his ilk have them scared of the truth comming out. Also if you look at the details of his conviction for inciting racial hatred, the "evidence" against him was far weaker than that against phoney tony in the cash for honours.

80

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:55:27

#82

"we should not allow people who plan to supplant democracy and free-speech with totalitarianism that privilege"

Sez you. How do people know that that is their plan? They are stopped from articulating it by fascists.

So would you ban all communist views in the same way as the racists?

81

Kobi,

27/11/2007 12:58:29

The golden rule is that those who seek to ban someone from expressing an opinion disagree with that opinion. You do not find people trying to ban stuff they disagree with.

Meanwhile, those anti-fascist campaigners who seek to preserve free speech, do not particularly care what is being said, only that the person has the right to say it.

82

C.U. Jimmy,

27/11/2007 13:01:03

If we're so keen on freedom of speech around here, why does every post on these boards have a "Report as Unsuitable" (meaning, have it removed) box on it?

Just a thought.

83

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 27/11/2007 13:02:05

#81

Yep its all the foreigners fault. cretin.

84

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:02:52

#59

If we are in the business exposing the truth behind orgasinations perhaps you would do a similar expose on all the plethora of so-called "anti-racist" but pro-fascist groups protesting the debate. How many of them are in effect fronts for hard-line marxists? How many of their members have convictions for violence or other criminal acts like attacks on property? Who was it that was breaking the law on Monday night with their violence and breach of the peace? It was the fascists ouside.

85

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 27/11/2007 13:13:31

As I expected, there are a lot of right wing nationalists on here today.

86

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 27/11/2007 13:15:13

63

Wini, you seem to know a lot about the National Front.

87

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:20:06

#87

Sorry, typo. I should have said:

"You do not find people trying to ban stuff they agree with."

88

TheSmith,

27/11/2007 13:20:12

The protestors just wanted something to fight for so, at some point in the future, they could tell fellow dinner party guests about their 'subversive' time at Oxford. They'll be sitting under their Che Guevara poster in their flat now, fiddling with their 'vintage' make poverty history wristband, without a thought for how their chant of "Keep Oxford fascist-free; we will defend democracy" actually contradicted the free speech argument.

89

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:21:16

#94

The protesters were probably bunged a few quid by the BNP for their efforts in promoting the BNP cause.

90

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:23:10

#83

One of the more prominent opponents to the debate going ahead was Perter Tatchell. The same Peter Tatchell who during the 1980s used HIS right to freedom of speech to "out" prominent people who he suspected were gay. The same Peter Tatcehll who is a screaming hypocrite.

91

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 13:25:26

89.

No , it's the politicians fault: Labour, Conservative and heaven help us, the Liberals who want amnesty's to atttract millions more illegal migrants.

Hope that clears that one up 4u, cretin.

92

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 13:28:46

Thought it would not take much to rattle the cage of the rabid nazis - the usual abuse of being a lefty is thrown at you.

Anyone who knows me on this board knows that I am not exactly fond of the far left either - but given a choice I'd rather stand shoulder to shoulder with a Trot than let the scumbags from the BNP spread their hate.

93

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 13:33:07

John Tyndall founder of the BNP (on the left) in his SS uniform:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_MxkmAs_foW8/Ripz54F8MuI/AAAAAAAAA...

94

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 13:34:48

#98, so you don't believe in free speech, then?

95

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 13:38:11

The way the BNP operates has not fundamentally changed over the years - it is still a clique within a clique that runs the organisation - many of their grunts are completely ignorant of the historical background and political idealogy of the BNP. That is entirely deliberate - the BNP grunts can deny that they are a fascist party whilst the directorate knows damn well that they are.

Griffin in many ways is a nastier piece of work than Tyndall ever was - Tyndall never pretended what he was - Griffin pretends he is not a nazi, anti-semite and racist but he is. Every time the BNP organises in an area racial attacks increase - that is no coincidence.

96

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 13:42:27

#101, so what if the BNP are a nasty bunch? They should still have the right to free speech, because if we deny it to them we show ourselves as intolerant and closed-minded as they are.

Unless they break the law by what they say, they must be allowed to say what they like, where they like. Otherwise our claim to be a liberal democracy is a sham.

97

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 13:44:05

101. Like all leftists and ethnics, your own ignorance of the bnp is evident - know doubt fed by the ANL and other leftist thugs. And who are who are the 'directorate'?? Some thuggish Stalinist group?

98

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:44:20

#98

The only nazis and fascists are on the left.

99

Kobi,

27/11/2007 13:46:17

#101

"Every time the BNP organises in an area racial attacks increase - that is no coincidence."

Every time the BNP sets up in an area the level of attacks on the BNP and its supporters increases. Two different groups of fascist thugs clashing.

100

Odin,

Scotland 27/11/2007 13:55:13

It seems only speakers who are approved of by the Jewish, non-white and Islamic community are afforded freedom of speech.

Even the chief oppressor of the white community in Britain, Trevor Phillips advised that whites should not be afforded the opportunity to be exposed to the freedom of thought that would flow from the Oxford debate.

It now becomes apparent why according to Government stats Leicester will have a non-white majority in a few years and Birningham will be a Muslim City in ten.

Protest against the constructive genocide of the native population since the landing of the Emperor Windrush in 1948 is not permitted.

Trevor Phillips will persecute you and the Police will prosecute and incarserate you if you dare to protest.

Paris burns today with the flames of anti-white race hate, Britian tomorrow?????
Today British teacher in the Sudan to get 40 lashes for insulting the Profhet.

Tomorrow this will happen to a teacher in Britain, no doubt somewhere in Birningham.

The denial of free speech leads to the denial of protest, the denial of protest leads to tyranny.

101

! BOYCOTT ON NOVEMBER 30 !,

27/11/2007 13:57:28

To protest at the policy of censoring and deletion of legal and non-offensive posts, please join the boycott of the forum on November 30th!

102

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 14:03:40

#100 There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech - there have always been laws that restrict or at least deal with the consequences of an individuals' speech. For example we have laws on:

* Defamation (slander and libel)
* Product libel or product disparagement
* Obscenity
* Lying in court (perjury)
* Contempt of court
* Subjudicy
* Speaking publicly without a permit
* Limits on the size of public demonstrations
* Profanity on television
* Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
* Noise pollution
* Speech that contains a copyright infringement
* Company secrets, for example, how a product is made or company strategy
* Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest
* Terrorism - for example those jailed for causing bomb scares or public panic
* Treason

103

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 14:06:03

#103 " And who are who are the 'directorate'?? Some thuggish Stalinist group?"

No the thuggish leaders of the BNP.

104

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:10:42

#108, it doesn't seem to me that the leader of a legal political party and an historian would be likely to breach any of the things you list. If they did, then the law could take its course.

Let them speak. Otherwise, our so-called liberal democracy is a sham.

105

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:11:36

#109, the thugs last night were the ones trying to stop the BNP and Mr Irving from speaking.

106

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 14:13:46

106. Excellent post. But the fact seems to be that many would prefer to see the creeping Islamification of Leicester, Birmingham and the whole country than give the BNP the time of day. I call it media conditioning, primarily by the BBC and Guardianist press.

107

Shamus,

Glasgow 27/11/2007 14:27:28

THE BNP WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS PROTEST. It will not be long until Sharia Law is demanded in parts of England.

108

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 14:31:32

For the non right wingers on here, I think Federalist has a point. You are treating Griffin as if he is the leader of a legitimate party when in reality he heads a bunch of thugs. When the BNP get publicity, life gets tough for muslims, asylum seekers, anyone who appears on their hate list. That is not to deny freedom of speech, but that is the reality of the situation. It is irresponsible for people to give Griffin and his ilk a platform so they can pat each other on the back and congragulate themselves for being liberals and defending democracy. They are unlikely to be the ones who are going to get a brick through the window. Mind you the protesters are the ones who gave them publicity, they should just have been ignored.

109

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:34:21

#114, Nick Griffin *is* the leader of a legitimate party. You may not like what he says. I certainly don't like what he says. But I believe passionately in his right to say it, as long as he refrains from breaking the law.

I was ashamed to see the mindless thugs last night trying to stop Nick Griffin from speaking, by using exactly the same tactics as they claim the BNP use. Don't they see the irony of it?!

110

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 14:36:02

114. a brick through a window of a house supplied by some local council rent free to an undeserving migrant no doubt! Nick Griffin is far more likely to be attacked or killed by a leftist or Islamist, that's why he has heavy security - he needs it!

111

Lock,

27/11/2007 14:37:28

'I hope that we're not giving Griffin further publicity'

Hmmmmm.

Sharpest tool in the box? Probably not.

112

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 14:41:23

#110 Irving is not a Historian but a Historical Revisionist.

Historical revisionism is not about historical enquiry but ignoring the facts and trying to shift the blame for the death of 6,000,000 million Jews (as well as many Romanies, Slavs, Clerics, disabled people, homosexuals etc) away from Adolf Hitler and the NASDP or denying it happened altogether.

113

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 14:48:37

Why is speech a special case?

I am not allowed to physically harm other people, so why should I be allowed to make statements that are intended to bring harm to others?

If certain statements are deemed to be inflammatory and risk the safety of other members of the society the state has a duty to protect those members.

114

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:52:01

#118, if he talks a load of rubbish, why not let him do so in public? Then it will be evident that he doesn't know his stuff.

Why be afraid of the truth?

115

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 14:52:50

#115 I said I disagreed with the protesters actions, but I also disagree with giving Griffin a platform. It is all very well debating the rights and wrongs of free speech, are you likley to be a target for an invigorated BNP ?

116

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:53:10

#119, how can a statement possibly harm someone?

Feel free to call me a steaming idiot, if you like. I don't mind. It's your right to do so!

117

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:54:05

#120, the Oxford Union is a private club and isn't owned by the University.

118

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 14:56:00

#122, if the BNP break the law in some way, the law can act. If they're just speaking and articulating their policies, what on earth is there to be afraid of?

119

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 15:03:36

#123 Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offense by the provisions of 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986.

It was first established as a criminal offence in the by the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.

This offence refers to:

* deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
* distributing racist material to the public
* making inflammatory public speeches
* creating racist websites on the Internet
* inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent

120

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 15:05:32

#125 Oh come on, what is there to be afraid of ? Do you think the BNP are nice chaps who enjoy articulating their policies in a blokey way down the pub ? Then you all shake hands ? Any publicity is liable to set them off, and if you were an asylum seeker or wore muslim dress you would know what I am talking about. There is a balance to be struck here, and I don't think the Oxford Union got it right.

121

Alan, Editor,

scotsman.com 27/11/2007 15:10:11

I've been following this thread with interest.

For the record: The Scotsman is all for free speech. This is obvious to any reasonable reader of our comments threads where posters can, and often do, publish views which are extremely critical of The Scotsman.

We don't allow posters to be abusive and we reserve the right to remove comments which state speculation or rumour as fact.

We don't do this to shackle open and honest debate; we do it to prevent a tiny minority of posters from abusing the platform scotsman.com offers.

Our guidelines for posting are clearly laid out in our terms and conditions.

If anyone has a specific issue they wish to discuss regarding comment moderation, they can email me via enquiries@scotsman.com.

Alan

122

,

27/11/2007 15:11:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1178274, Article id was mapped to record!
123

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 15:12:10

#126, of what racial group has Nick Griffin provoked hatred?

#127, I may not like what the BNP has to say, but - as long as it remains within the law - I will defend to the death their right to say it. Don't you remember Niemoller's famous, "First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing ... " etc.

124

Odin,

Scotland 27/11/2007 15:17:43

My post #129 is in response to post #118

125

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/11/2007 15:23:24

-- Historical revisionism is not about historical enquiry.

Yes it is. It's examination of facts - as well as you can know them - from first hand sources and writing from the viewpoint of people involved who generally didn't have any agenda to change history.

Am I denying that the Earth orbits the Sun? (It's a useful concept). Flat Earthers will present the same (historical) facts as me and offer their own theory or myth. Unlike some, they don't make their own concocted story, the only one you can legally believe.

Historical revisionism is doing your job, v. hooring for democracy, journalism, etc etc ...

126

Joanna,

Cambs, England 27/11/2007 15:29:38

Unpalatable as they both undoubtedly are if we have freedom of speech in this country then Griffin and Irving have a right to be heard also.

The whole point of a debate is to give opposite views. They may not be saying what most people think or agree with but suppressing them is as bad as book-burning and achieves nothing but an oppressive society.

The only thing this protest has achieved is to give a lot of publicity to two dubious individuals and their malign causes. Let them debate and then shut them up with a better argument.

127

Silence of the Yams,

27/11/2007 15:30:55

It's my view that illegal immigrants should be compelled to return their country of origin. These people have all come through many democratic free
countries to reach these shores. Why? Benefits, health and housing I suspect. I'd see no need for the BNP if immigration was under control - it isnt.

128

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 15:32:30

#130 Grrrr how many times can you say the same thing ? Yes I defend their right to free speech, I am familiar with the concepts you refer to. Whether it is wise to invite this particular speech is another matter, particularly if the defenders of free speech are unlikely to suffer any consequences from inviting the speech referred to. Now you have made me feel like I am back in school, I am going back to work instead.

129

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 15:34:19

#134. Excellent post, Joanna. My view entirely. Thanks.

130

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 15:36:54

#136, Ms Fiona. I agree it wouldn't be wise to invite it, but I think it's wiser to permit it than to suppress it.

131

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 15:52:34

#139 we don't have anything to worry about in scotland they are not (yet) a siginifcaNT presence here. England is another matter. Unfortunately Griffin makes links to his scottish ancestry.

132

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 27/11/2007 16:01:53

106

you speak with much wisdom ............

133

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 27/11/2007 16:03:27

Of course there are limits to free speech - we all know that. There are already laws in place concerning 'incitement to violence'. But we aren't talking about that.

We are talking about banning speech that is actually legal. Should we ban speech that is legal?


Federalist's position is that the BNP propaganda is 'dangerous'. Well as someone has already mentioned I think communist & marxist ideology is 'dangerous'. These ideologies have led to more people being killed than any other ideology in the history of mankind.

So let's ban marxists and communists from speaking because they are dangerous.

Someone else thinks pro gay voices are dangerous - so lets ban them from speaking.

Others think anti gay voices are dangerous - so lets ban them from speaking.

I know - lets ban everyone from voicing any opinion not deemed legitimate by our glorious Leader.

You see who decides what opinions are 'dangerous' or 'offensive'?

(Speech that incites violence can be objectively seen to be so. 'Let's kick their heads in comrades' is a bit of a give away. Speech that is simply 'offensive' or 'dangerous' has no objective qualification - it is simply your opinion that it is so.)

In the real world, where opinions can be challenged, if person X is talking garbage it can be shown up as such.

As long as opinions can be freely challenged I see no problem.

134

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/11/2007 16:05:31

-- a lot of publicity to two dubious individuals

Tony Blair? Gordon Brown?

135

Disgusted Reader 3,

27/11/2007 16:10:39

.

136

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

27/11/2007 16:17:03

#128 - Alan, Editor, scotsman.com / 3:10pm 27 Nov 2007 I've been following this thread with interest.

For the record: The Scotsman is all for free speech. This is obvious to any reasonable reader of our comments threads where posters can, and often do, publish views which are extremely critical of The Scotsman.

We don't allow posters to be abusive and we reserve the right to remove comments which state speculation or rumour as fact.

We don't do this to shackle open and honest debate; we do it to prevent a tiny minority of posters from abusing the platform scotsman.com offers.

Our guidelines for posting are clearly laid out in our terms and conditions.

If anyone has a specific issue they wish to discuss regarding comment moderation, they can email me via enquiries@scotsman.com.

Alan


RESPONSE:
"We don't allow posters to be abusive and we reserve the right to remove comments which state speculation or rumour as fact."

You dress up editorials as fact even though the figures come from 2006? Should you not ban yourself from the office? If your integrity is to be upheld?

137

Kobi,

27/11/2007 16:20:48

#114

"You are treating Griffin as if he is the leader of a legitimate party when in reality he heads a bunch of thugs."

#119

"If certain statements are deemed to be inflammatory and risk the safety of other members of the society the state has a duty to protect those members."

So we are going to ban Solidarity (the nutty Scottish version, not the freedom fighting Polish version) and all the rest of the left wing loonies who preach "struggle", "class war", "smash the rich" etc etc? Their language and their creed are every bit as violent and inflammatory as that of the BNP. Should society not be protected from their fascist violent views, or are they special in some way?

138

Kobi,

27/11/2007 16:25:14

#142

Agree totally.

I heard Tatchell talking about how allowing the BNP to spout forth anti-gay views would lead to an increase in attacks on gays.

What this means is that once he has silenced the easy hateful targets, he is coming for another belief system next. If you are a memebr of any of the presbyterian churches of Scotland (Free Church, Associated Presbyterian, Contiuing, etc), you are going to be targetted, as apparently having a view along the lines of hate the sin, love the inner is an incitement to violence and your religion should be banned.

139

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/11/2007 16:28:03

-- next we will be told Michael Portillo had a scottish granny!

He had sex with a scottish granny in Morocco.

This doesn't make'm scottish tho any offspring (subject to DNA testing) are duly considered.

140

Kobi,

27/11/2007 16:30:00

#114


"It is irresponsible for people to give Griffin and his ilk a platform so they can pat each other on the back and congragulate "

It is even more irrepsonsible to make Griffin and Irving out to be martyrs and reasonable liberals being savaged by a hate mob, which is what these fascists have just done.

Either (1) they are very stupid people, or (2) they are in the pay of the BNP, or (3) they are deliberately trying to bring about violent confrontations as part of the class struggle that will lead inexorably to revolution, and the blacks, Asians, gays and everybody else they claim to be defending are merely being used by them for their despicable political ideology.

141

Kobi,

27/11/2007 16:31:40

Anybody who wants to ban them from speaking and who has not done so, should go away and read 1984.

142

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 16:31:50

#146 I would not ban the BNP. Neither would I invite them to a debating club. I don't like the BNP I know what they are like, how they operate in some English cities. Sheridan's mob can be a pain in the erse as can all the other hard left but they don't generally leave people in fear of physical violence. Unless it's to their eardrums.

143

Alan, Editor,

scotsman.com 27/11/2007 16:42:51

#145

If you're referring to this article:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1858222007

The figures were collated during 2006 but were only released yesterday (Monday). The earliest opportunity we had to publish the findings was this morning.

We didn't dress up the figures as fact; the figures were collated and released by the Scottish Government having been comissioned by the then Scottish Executive.

144

Odin,

Scotland 27/11/2007 16:44:40

#141
Sanity is Relative

Why thank you for your complimentary comments on my posting #106

The Lord Odin sacrificed an eye in return for the gift of wisdom for mankind.

That incident illustrates the value that European Paganism placed on knowledge and wisdom.

Democracy and the concept of freedom of thought and speech is also a universal gift from Pagan Europe.

Remember the democratic nature(time period in historical context considered) of the ancient Moot Councils of the Pagan Saxons?

145

Alice S,

27/11/2007 16:44:42

I logged on to the BNP web site earlier and was quite surprised to see what I thought were legitimate sensible debate to accusations of being facist racist homophobians etc.
The overall message was that they wished a better deal for the indigenous population of Britain.
They deal with the populations biggest fear of uncontrolled immigration and have a solution for illegal overstayers.
I could not find one reference to an intolerance of skin colour gender etc.
Gordon Brown has lately taken to trumpetting about Britain for the British while being a member of a government that for the last ten years took every opportunity to try and make us ashamed of being British,is he charged of facism?
Cameron recently changed his whole election manifesto from green issues to immigration.
Why?
I think they are both astute enough to realise that the British people are sick to death of the above issues,and being forced to not only accept other cultures but stand back while their own way of life is trampled in the gutter.
As most of us know they are hollow words from Brown and Cameron,but they are probably genuine issues from the BNP.
Whilst i think the BNP will never be elected I predict a major swing to them in the next election,which might just be the wake up call the other parties need.
It would also be nice to see the odious PC brigade weeping in their eco friendly mueseli.

146

Kobi,

27/11/2007 16:48:51

#151

"the other hard left but they don't generally leave people in fear of physical violence."

You must lead a bit of a sheltered life. I have seen the hard left's violence against people and property in action on several occasions.

147

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

27/11/2007 16:49:38

#153 Alan - Would you agree though the headline was missleading at the very least?

148

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 16:54:45

#156 Yes when they turn up for their riots I agree they are capable of violence, but is it arbitary violence ? Do they attack people because they look bourgeoise ? I am not aware of that.

149

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 16:56:30

#158, does it matter *why* they attack them? Surely the point is that they *do* attack them!

150

,

27/11/2007 17:01:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1178698, Article id was mapped to record!
151

Alan, Editor,

scotsman.com 27/11/2007 17:07:11

# 157

Yes, I take your point. It would have been better to have used the past tense, as the results referred to a survey conducted last year. This was an incorrect use of grammar rather than an deliberate attempt to 'spin' the story.

The article itself was a balanced report of the survey's findings, in my view.

152

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:10:48

#159 I am not an apologist for anyones violence. The point I have tried to make is that it would be better if the Oxford Union had not invited Griffin to speak. It is all very well having airy fairy debates about free speech on the comments page of a newspaper. My point is, based on experience, that when the BNP build up a head of steam life can get uncomfortable for those people whom they target. That is obviously not a concern for you, fair enough, but it is a concern for me.

153

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 27/11/2007 17:13:33

155

I believe you are correct a sizable swing to the (far) right is likeley and more so if "we" are bombed once more by a sleeper cell or worse still home grown convert.

The people in this country who are victimised the most are white, hetrosexual, married (to some-one of the opposite sex) tax paying, law abiding citizens.

154

The Master,

27/11/2007 17:18:21

What I find really offensive is that the best defence for giving a platform to these Neo Nazis is that we are a “confident democracy”. How can any democracy say it is confident when faced with views such as those expressed by these despicable individuals? Let’s just say that Britain is not a “confident democracy” when faced with the likes of them and that this should be a source of pride and is all the reason in the world for banning them. I am just disgusted that any institution of any shape or form has seen fit to give a platform to Griffin and Irving: if anyone has ever speculated as to the limit of democracy then let me tell you where to find it: it’s those two fascists.

On a different note, I would urge all true supporters of freedom to join the boycott of the Scotsman’s online forum on 30 November. This tyrannical organisation has taken to deleting legitimately expressed comment in an arbitrary manner which does not stand up to any kind of legitimate scrutiny and it’s time for ordinary users of this website to make their disquiet known.

155

Duncan in Edinburgh /,

27/11/2007 17:19:18

I thought this might bring the goosestepping tendency out in force today.

For representatives of the so-called master race you all seem to be rather lacking in intelligence. But then those who are involved with such lowlife are usually the dregs of society - fooled into following their Führer by lies, deceit and their own stupidity.

156

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:19:19

#162, had it been up to me I wouldn't have invited them either. But given that they had been invited, I'd do my utmost to defend their right to speak.

Are they any more dangerous than the rioters we had in Edinburgh during G8, or the idiots who called for people to be killed in London because of some silly cartoons they didn't like?

If they break the law, throw the book at them. If they don't, let them speak, even if we don't like what they say.

157

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:26:56

#162, come to think of it, are they any more dangerous than the Orange Order, who march down Princes Street with their gospel of hate? I'd love to ban them, but my principles wouldn't let me!

158

Odin,

Scotland 27/11/2007 17:33:25

#155

Alice /

Remember, Racist, Bigotry, Discrimination and Equality are very poweeful weapons of genocide that have been successfully used to replace the White indigineous population of Britain with people from Asia and Africa.

They consider us inferioir and the inborn hate that they carry in their hearts will always strengthen with each new generation born here.

No African or Asian country will allow immigration to the extent that populations from other race groups eventually outnumber their indigineous race groups in any part of their country.

Multiculturism destroyed Rome and Egypt.

Learn the lessons of history!!

159

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:36:12

#166 You are not comparing like for like. the G8ers, the left in general, organise. They have a riot about 'something'. Religious fundamentalist, be they muslim, christian, whatever will use issues as a way of pushing their agenda onwards, getting it on the telly because of their 'outrage'. The BNP are racist. They target blacks, muslims, asylum seekers anyone who lets face it they do not regard as British, and they do not want living in this country. You can defend to the death their right etc etc, theoretically so do I, but it's not you that's going to get their head kicked in is it ? And that happens I've seen it.

160

Countryman,

Fife 27/11/2007 17:36:47

I believe that the ideas of national identity and the ethnic solidarity of the peoples of the West to which the British National Party are giving their support is the reason for the rising level of electoral success in England in the last year.
I believe that the Liberal Marxist ideology has lost its momentum for want of scientific rationale. They are living a lie and in place of argument in the field of human genetics and behavioural psychology they have to resort to violence as we witnessed last night.
History moves on to a new phase and we in the West have to face the Coloured World Revolution ably led by Militant Islam.
The British National Party is the only political organisation in the UK which has the will to lead the people of this decomposing nation to safety.

161

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:37:22

Jeez the orange order are amateurs ! You don't seem to get it do you ?

162

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:42:26

#169, if the BNP attack blacks for being blacks, that's certainly racist. But Muslims or asylum seekers aren't races. To attack anyone violently is undoubtedly wrong and evil, and should be punished. But I don't see a different here between the G8ers, the BNP and the anti-cartoons demonstrators. Surely it would be neither worse nor better, but equally bad, to be beaten up by any of them.

163

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:44:38

#171, they're one set of loathsome thugs, and the BNP are another set of loathsome thugs. What's the difference? Let them speak and let them march, because it's a free country. But if they break the law, throw the book at them.

164

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:46:35

#171, and the Orange Order over the years have probably done far more harm than the BNP, who are fairly recent arrivals on the scene and a bunch of no-hopers besides.

165

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:47:44

#172 You are clearly on the wind up, I will leave you with your pals. To them anyone who isn't white is fair game and there are no Queensbury rules in their world.

166

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:51:03

#175, if this is an example from you of responsible debate, I begin to wonder why I'm bothering to defend free speech at all.

167

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:51:32

New arrivals on the scene ? No-hopers ? What colour is the sky on your planet ? They have taken English Council seats, they will take more, they are on the ascendancy in England it is very scary, do wake up. Orange order ? Don't make me laugh.

168

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:54:18

You are not defending free speech you are defending a bunch of right wing racist nuts who want to inter muslims and deport them ! Who use physical violence as a political tool. Who think there is a global conspiracy to push the white man out of his home, which must be resisted at all costs. These are the people you are defending.

169

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:55:08

#177, they're in the ascendancy in England? Don't be daft. They're a bunch of idiots, and the few councillors they elect usually end up in jail for something.

They're as much threat to anyone as a rice pudding. On the other hand, the Orange Order once wielded great power in Scotland and still has too much influence in certain areas.

Read some history.

170

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 17:56:24

#178, you don't get the point. I *am* defending free speech, even though what they say is loathsome drivel. I defend the right of people to say what I don't like, as well as what I do like.

That's...... erm....... free speech!

171

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:57:49

If you think that's worth defending on you go. I'm out of here.

172

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 17:59:06

Take it your white ? A white man ? You wouldnt be so flippant if you weren't. Rice pudding ? Yeah.

173

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 18:03:12

#181, 182 - thank you for such an instructive and illuminating debate. I'm sorry you don't think freedom worth defending, but perhaps when you're older you'll come to see the importance of maintaining liberal values. *I* believe they're worth fighting for, anyway.

174

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 18:05:17

#181,182, and Ms Fiona, remember these words. They're wise, and they explain why free speech must be defended at all costs.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoller

175

Col. Blimp IV*,

27/11/2007 18:08:15

Ms Fiona

When one elects do don the White hat of righteousness and do battle against the forces of darkness.

It is beholden on them do do so within the rules.

The rules of freedom and democracy being that EVERYONE has the right to hold and express whatever view they choose. As long as their actions remain within the law.

The road to Totalitarianism is paved with good intentions and begins with the dilution of a single freedom.

EVERYONES freedom to express whatever view they wish is sacrosanct.

176

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/11/2007 18:12:49

If anyone out there does not believe that someone should not be allowed to express their opinion, then please shut up, and don't bother posting your opinion.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

177

The Master,

27/11/2007 18:13:25

184. Urban Guerrilla

Oh dear! Oh dear! I do hope they never come for you!

178

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 18:17:04

#187, I hope not. But if they do, I'll at least have tried to defend the free speech of others.

179

The Master,

27/11/2007 18:25:57

#188 Urban Guerrilla: surely the rights of those minorities whom these Nazis seek to denigrate override their own free speech. I have to say that, like most rights, free speech only goes so far in any mature democracy. I am proud of the fact that I would deny it to Nazis.

180

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:27:03

#164

So you want to ban people who you disagree with. But you object to the Scotsman banning things that you agree with.

Hypocrite.

181

Conan the Librarian™,

27/11/2007 18:27:39

185
Evening Col.
Your views on the boycott?

182

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 18:29:55

#189, I profoundly disagree with you. I'd fight to the death to allow the BNP to have free speech (as long as they stay within the law), just as I would do for Communists, Maoists or any other such party.

183

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:30:16

#169

"They have a riot about 'something'"

You clearly were not on the streets of Edinburgh when the riots were taking place. I was. Many of them were there to riot, because they could riot, and that is what they wanted to do. They wanted to attack anyone wearing black i.e. police, rather than those who were black.

184

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:32:51

#169

When the boot is crunching into your head, it does not really matter to you the motivation for the swinging foot.

It only matters to those like you who try to differentiate between speech they approve of and that which they do not.

185

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/11/2007 18:33:12

189 Master

I agree ish, but if the BNP operate within the law, while I detest all they stand for, they must be allowed the right to speak. Nazis and others who would encourage violence or incite hatred are outside the law - if the BNP, while being precarioulsy close to the legal limit, operate within it they should be free to do so. I am just not sure anyone should debate with them as that suggests their views have any credibility worth discussing.

186

The Master,

27/11/2007 18:35:54

#190 Kobi: I am a verdant Tartan Taliban Basher, so where do you get the idea that I object to the Scotsman banning things I agree with?

#192 Urban Guerilla: sorry, but in my view, any law that allows free speech to the BNP is “a ass”. I never thought I’d have the chance to discuss the one party in British politics which I despise as much as the SNP, but it seems “it’s time”!

187

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:37:02

#177

"New arrivals on the scene ? No-hopers ? What colour is the sky on your planet ? They have taken English Council seats, they will take more, they are on the ascendancy in England it is very scary, do wake up. Orange order ? Don't make me laugh."

A lesson here.

The Orange Order gets ignored or ridiculed, and it is gradually dying a death, as it seems to have little relevance to today's Britain.

Meanwhile, so-called anti-racist campaigners have spent decades trying to drive the BNP underground, and it is thriving, not because it is relevant, but because igorant people don't get to hear what the true message from the BNP is, but see them as martytrs for standing up to the establishment who tries to ban them.

It is people like you who are the greatest allies of the BNP.

188

,

27/11/2007 18:41:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1178987, Article id was mapped to record!
189

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 18:41:43

#196, what does despising a party have to do with allowing free speech? The whole point of free speech is that we allow that which is unpalatable to us, not just what we happen to like or approve of.

190

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:42:42

#189

"I am proud of the fact that I would deny it to Nazis."

Would you deny it to communists?

191

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 18:42:52

20 & 21 - I knew the word would be deleted, I used it as a device to show that freedom of speech is a mirage. Tbh I only really use the word in the workplace, so if anyone was offended - sorry.
BUT language of the gutter it aint, it's the language of the Merry Muses (impolite Burns), James Joyce, and D.H. 'Bert' Lawrence to name but a few.

192

Kobi,

27/11/2007 18:45:22

#196

Q. "where do you get the idea that I object to the Scotsman banning things I agree with?"

A. "On a different note, I would urge all true supporters of freedom to join the boycott of the Scotsman’s online forum on 30 November. This tyrannical organisation has taken to deleting legitimately expressed comment in an arbitrary manner which does not stand up to any kind of legitimate scrutiny"

193

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 18:46:37

170 - except the people don't want to be led by them - evidence : a mountain of lost deposits.
Anyway Britishness is passe.

194

The Master,

27/11/2007 18:47:45

#197 Kobi: I am perfectly well aware what the true message of the BNP is: it claims that it is not a racist organisation and that there is nothing wrong with putting the indigenous inhabitants of this island first. Well, I for one have no truck with the underlying Nazi philosophy behind all this or the unsavoury characters attracted to the organisation.

#199 Urban Guerrilla: if freedom of speech means giving a platform to Nazis, then I have to say that I am against it.

#200 Kobi: depends what kind of Communism you are referring to. Yes, I find Stalinism repellant, but would not say the same about the modern Chinese reinterpretation of Communism.

195

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 18:50:10

There are two lines of opposition to no platform here today.

One I can respect if not agree with - the liberal tradition of freedom of speech that recognises that with said freediom of speech consequences may follow that have to be dealt with after the event.

The other line of opposition I don't respect. It is the one that hides behind freedom of speech and thinks that people can say what they want without having to deal with the consequences of what they say.

196

,

27/11/2007 18:51:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1179016, Article id was mapped to record!
197

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/11/2007 18:52:41

... and the Federalist appears to be another one....

198

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 18:53:06

Talk aboot freedom of speech - seems I'm banned from this threid presumably cos I used a naughty word ( for which, note Admin, I apologised).
Ah well I'm off to watch Walter's Wallies get gubbed in Stuttgart.

199

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 18:55:51

For you Kobi.

If Griffin is not a Nazi can you explain why he addressed an NPD (Germany's leading Nazi grouping) rally in August 2002?

Or what about when he spoke to the conferenmce of American Renaissance in February 2002? - AR is far right US based publication that supports the notion of the biological superiority of white people. Each edition is packed with the theories of race-science, and grim statistics showing the moral degeneracy of black people.

Or when speaking to a private nazi meeting in the US in 2001, Nick Griffin admitted that the party’s new-found respectability was simply a tactic to con the British people. “My politics have not changed,” he told the audience of racists and nazis. “I still believe in fighting for this,” he added, pointing to his white skin.

Griffin is a Nazi no matter how he paints it - he is playing the political chameleon but underneath is still the same die-hard fascist he always was.

200

Methspaña,

27/11/2007 18:58:59

Nothing against free speech, but if it could lead to a breach of the peace or initiate a riot, then what?

I'm not waiting for an answer, I'm off.

201

The Master,

27/11/2007 18:59:48

#201 Kobi: I have no objection to the Scotsman legitimately banning racist or other offensive remarks, which I think would cover many of the views of Irving and Griffin.

202

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 19:00:43

128 - and why are my inoffensive postings banned Alan ? I knew it would happen with posting 18, but the others, no swearing in them, or abuse either, ism is cos I's from West Lothian, man ?

203

Miss H,

27/11/2007 19:01:09

The thing that actually worries me the most is that I think the whole history of the Holocaust is slipping off the radar a bit. It was certainly part of the curriculum when my daughters were in primary school but I don't know if that is still the case and there does seem to be a concern that younger people are not as aware of the dangers of racism and fascism as they ought to be.

That is the real danger. You cannot actually allow a situation where lies become accepted as the truth. The Holocaust happened and should never, ever be forgotten and we should be aware every day of our lives of the danger that it could happen again. If I felt more confident that most people shared that belief that I would feel less perturbed by these sorts of events. But I just have a sinking feeling that it is starting to be forgotten.

204

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 19:03:23

Alan the editor - you posted them ! Sorry gadgie/mate, who was I to doubt the Scotsman ?
"Without freedom of speech I might as well be in a swamp"
- Bob Dylan.

205

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 27/11/2007 19:04:56

#184 Urban Guerilla

I think you are misusing the poem. It is not about free speech, but about "speaking up". There's a difference. It could be argued that the disruptors at the debate were speaking up. At least we know about the issue.

I'm in favour of free speech, but I'm not opposed to people being angry either, or getting on a bus to go and vent their opinion. It would be rather dull if we all sat quietly while everyone said their piece.

206

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:05:14

#203

"The other line of opposition I don't respect. It is the one that hides behind freedom of speech and thinks that people can say what they want without having to deal with the consequences of what they say."

There are always conseqeunces to any speech. They might not be very noticeable. What gives you the right to grade the level of consequences, and decide which are acceptable and which are not?

Banning speech also has consequences, and one of the consequences of banning the BNP is that they get stronger.

I would much rather they spoke,were listened to and were laughed at, rather than the desire of you and your censorship mob, whose only effect is to increase the influence and power of racists and fascists.

207

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 19:06:22

#211 Agreed.

208

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:07:19

#206

"If Griffin is not a Nazi can you explain why he addressed an NPD (Germany's leading Nazi grouping) rally in August 2002?"

I don't give a flying f**k what Griffins views are. I know he is a Nazi.

The point you don't seem to get is that for freedom of speech to work, it is irrelevant what those views are. It only works when you are defending views that you personally find abhorrent.

209

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:08:53

#215

"It only works when you are defending views that you personally find abhorrent."

Sorry, to make it clear, I do not mean defend the views, themselves, but defend the right to express those views.

210

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:10:24

#209

"Nothing against free speech, but if it could lead to a breach of the peace or initiate a riot, then what?"

Prosecute those who commit the breach of the peace, or riot.

211

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:11:32

#210

"I have no objection to the Scotsman legitimately banning racist or other offensive remarks, which I think would cover many of the views of Irving and Griffin."


See, point proven. You only want stuff banned that you disagree with.

212

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 19:11:50

#213 The law already does grade the consequences through the Public Order Act 1986, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

213

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 19:18:16

Kobi - you or either completely missing my point or being deliberately obtuse.

I said I can respect that liberal tradition that says that you have freedom of speech but take the consequences that go with it.

One consequence of those who make inflammatory public speeches (as the law itself says is illegal) is taht they can be prosecuted.

There some here today who believe that you can have freedom of speech and ignore the law.

That is what I don't respect.

214

The Master,

27/11/2007 19:21:02

#218: I want stuff banned that potentially could impinge on the civil rights and welfare of others. That is not the same thing.

215

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

27/11/2007 19:26:06

#161# Alan - Thanks for taking time out to respond.

I was banned yesterday (username and comments) for highlighting the headline of "Goverment commit £54 million to fight MRSA" When I highlighted it should have read "Scottish goverment commit £54 million to fight MRSA"

I was also banned several times last night for pointing out various spins on headlines (banned and comments removed).

Would you agree this is wrong and in someway is playing a part in a lack of faith in your paper?

I am all for your paper berating the SNP , when justified, however this paper allways credits them with the worst and labour as whiter and white. All we (All persuasions) seek is fair and balanced reporting. Not a journalists own personal axe to grind.
For exapmle Mr Barnes in SOS on sunday spinning loss of documents by the Scottish Goverment into 3 stories and , really making a meal of it in honesty. I note the retraction was not quite a simmillar feast?

Also the number of users banned for the slightest critiscm , whereas users such as AM2 are allowed to liken the SNP too BNP and call all supporters rascist. His username has never once been banned despite thousands of complaints. I recall before the election, he likened a win for the SNP as "border patrols, english people being hunted down" and a litany of other slurs.
If you mean what you say and I quote your own words here "We don't allow posters to be abusive and we reserve the right to remove comments which state speculation or rumour as fact." Why does he receive prefferential treatment and all others are denied simillar?

Many thanks for your time.

216

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:29:27

#221

There is an argument as to where the limits should be set, but at the moment who sets these limits? If it is the state, then the state has already decided that the BNP is a legitimate party and that a private club has the right to invite whoever it wants to speak, so long as the speakers do not break the law.

It is therefore the protesters who last night broke the law - their actions went beyond peaceful protest - and they should be banned, surely?

"The naive and ignorant opinion that Free Speech is a British right leaves me surprised and scornful."

I have never expressed the naive view that it is. I regularly express the view that it should be and all the thought control legislaon should be repealed.

217

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:30:48

#219

Didn't hear of Griffin or Irving breaking any of these laws last night. Saw plenty of offences committed by the protesters though. Wonder how many have been charged?

218

BMeister,

27/11/2007 19:33:06

220 the Fed
'There some here today who believe that you can have freedom of speech and ignore the law.'

Totally agree with you, with rights come responsibilities,with the right of free speech comes the responsibility of not using it to promote violence and hatred as espoused by some here.

219

Odin,

Scotland 27/11/2007 19:33:37

#211

Miss H

Please see post #129

Truth does not need laws compelling someone to believe that what is claimed to be history is true on the pain of imprisonment.

In schools no research is permitted except research that validates that which the Jewish community forces the hated and ignorant goyim (non-Jews) to believe and I emphasise that we talking unquestioned acceptance and unquestionable belief on pain of imprisonment here.

Consequently, we are talking indoctrination here!

Please see post #133

The Nuremberg Joke:

Article 19 of the IMT stated :

The normal technical rules of evidence need not apply.

Article 21:

Evidence of "facts" presented is not required.

How loudly would you protest if you had to be tried under such rules ?????

Please do not take my word for it - check the historical data on file at any University.

220

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:35:21

#222

"I want stuff banned that potentially could impinge on the civil rights and welfare of others. That is not the same thing."

You say potentially. Who decides if it does? Who decides what the civil rights are?

If I get offended by someone walking down the High Street with F**k the ......... on it, and I am someone who believes that swearing is wrong, does that give me the right to rip off that T-shirt or assault the person wearing it?

If I believe in private property, does that entitle me to have communists, anarchists etc banned who do not so believe, as my civil right of property ownership may potentially be infringed?

221

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:38:33

#220

Fed, you seem to be missing my point. I accept that there are always consequences. What I am saying is that the consequences of banning free speech are always worse than the consequences of allowing it.

222

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

27/11/2007 19:41:16

#225 - I am merely highlighting the fact this papers bias. And that in the light of current events is extremely unfair.

Have you joined the SNP yet Wini? Go on you know it makes sense........ ;-)

223

BMeister,

27/11/2007 19:41:57

231 Kobi
I think that that is a fair point, but surely if you are repeatedly inciting violence or extreme law-breaking, to the point where your right to free speech is impinging on the rights of others to safety etc. then you have abused that right?

224

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:44:34

#231

Thanks Wini. Fair points at #221.

While I personally accept the responsibility that goes with freedom of spepch, and rarely would use it negatively, millions do not.

For example, French Connection UK thought it was very clever to run their Fcuk slogan and brand everything with it or variants of it. They just don't realise how offensive it is to older folk, many of whom fought to preserve the rights to do what they are doing.

I would never seek to ban these T-shirts, but why should the BNP be picked on to behave responsibly, when thousands of others refuse to do so?

225

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 19:44:44

#221 > Free speech is an abstract concept without practical or realistic realisation <

This sounds alarmingly like the kind of thing Stalin or Hitler might have said. Free speech is not an abstract concept. It's a living thing - the lifeblood of our society, the core of our liberties, perhaps the dearest thing we possess.

Could a discussion board like this exist in China?

226

Kobi,

27/11/2007 19:48:33

#233

"I think that that is a fair point, but surely if you are repeatedly inciting violence or extreme law-breaking, to the point where your right to free speech is impinging on the rights of others to safety etc. then you have abused that right?"

Perhaps you have. But the consequences of doing something about that abuse are worse than ignoring the abuse.

In any event, inciting through speech does not force others to take the actions incited. We are all free-thinking individuals (no, don't laff), and if someone is telling you that a certain class of people are inferior, that does not mean that you have to go out to then injure someone from that class.

227

Silence of the Yamz,

27/11/2007 19:50:22

#221. You are correct! There is no freedom of speech for the under pressure white majority who have been rail roaded into Multi-Culturism. The rights of minorities have been enshrined and enforced, while the rights of those who built and nurtured this country for generations are trampled.

None of the namby pamby, middle class, self righteous (nice house, nice area) posters on this thread have a clue what it's like to live in places like Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Leicester, Bradford, Oldham, inner London....i.e large swathes of England full of ethnic strife. But rest assured the day will come when all you liberal rogues will have Mosque ghettos and gang banger gunman on your doorsteps. Let's see your liberal froth then!?!? "If only I'd voted BNP I'd still have a life" :-))

228

Alan, Editor,

scotsman.com 27/11/2007 19:51:24

# 223

Re: "Goverment commit £54 million to fight MRSA". Again, you're right - the headline should have read "Scottish Government commit £54 million to fight MRSA". A scotsman.com reader noticed the error in the headline almost immediately and notified us. We updated the headline as quickly as possible so that it read correctly. Comments referring to the previous (incorrect) headline were removed because they were no longer relevant. We didn't do this to try and 'cover up' our earlier mistake (although that was a fringe benefit). We genuinely wanted readers to comment on the substance of the story which was that the Scottish Government had agreed to invest a considerable amount of money to address the problem of hospital superbugs.

On a more general point, moderating the thousands of messages we get each day is not an exact science. We scan the messageboards regularly but we also rely on readers to bring unsuitable/inappropriate comments to our attention.

I certainly couldn't say that we never make a wrong decision regarding comment deletion. However, given the volume of messages we have to deal with, we wouldn't have time to delete them according to a pre-set agenda, even if we wanted to (which, I should stress, we don't.)

If you'd like to go over your specific case, then please email me through enquiries@scotsman.com and I'll discuss it with you in greater detail.

229

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:01:24

#241, why are you puzzled? Without freedom of speech, we wouldn't have much of a society. Indeed, we probably wouldn't have a society at all. We'd have a dictatorship.

230

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 27/11/2007 20:03:11

Out of interest what do people think about the global warming debate?

Some scientists, who have stated that they do not believe global warming is mainly influenced by man, have received repeated death threats.

Do people support banning speech about global warming? After all some people have received repeated death threats.

231

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:15:24

#184 You are a bizarre character. You would quote that in favour of the people who would come for the people you list. Very strange.

There is a balance to be struck. Yes there is freedom of speech but responsible people should not invite speech from the likes of Griffin or holocaust deniers. When free speech can lead to harm to others, responsible people have to consider the implications to others. You seem to think the BNP are a micky mouse outfit. They are not. Neither are holocaust deniers. Be careful who you sup with.

232

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:18:51

#245, I believe in free speech for all - even for those I don't like. What value would there be in defending only those I approved of? Pastor Niemoller wasn't keen on Communists, or even (to begin with) on Jews; but he came to see that in order to defend one, one must defend all.

It's because of this principle (which I share) that I defend the right of the BNP to speak.

233

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:20:40

#245, and yes - I *do* see the BNP as a Mickey Mouse outfit, ridiculous and pathetic. And Holocaust deniers are idiots. But why be afraid of the truth? Let them speak, and let them show what idiots they actually are. Debate - even with idiots - is essential to a free society.

234

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:22:13

Well you live in a very black and white world, forgive the pun, I assume 'though if you'd had a vote you would not have invited them ?

235

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

27/11/2007 20:22:40

#240 & 243 LOL I am not angry or a maryr I am having a respectful conversation with the editor and highlighting some unjust headlines.

I personally would go for an unmoderated board as most posts are folk taking part in the banter and with toungues firmly in cheeks. Not serious at all or needing the sweeping moderation of late.

This is why I feel so stringly about editorial and comment moderation that is overly draconian.

I have never once complained to the Scotsman about anothers posts. I challenge their view here in the forum of the people.

I am glad you are now on board.Welcome to the Herd ;-)

Pull the udder one.........

236

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:23:20

#248, no I wouldn't.

237

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:24:25

Well I am never going to agree with you, I see them as dangerous, admittedly in an English context, and they have done harm to individuals I know. Physical harm.

238

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:26:31

And they were not 'lefties' or 'agitators' theu were just the wrong colour.

239

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:27:29

#251, I'm sure they have, and in this case the law should take its course. All sorts of extremists have done harm to individuals, and no-one should be above the law.

Defending someone's right to put forward views in public (views which don't infringe the law) is not the same thing as saying that violence is justified. It isn't, and I hope that those who did physical harm to the people you know were given the sternest penalties available.

240

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:28:52

#252, why do you say that they weren't 'lefties' or 'agitators'? Have I used those words in any of my posts?

241

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:30:20

Ha ha. That's not how thuggery works. Anyway I will not detain you any more.

242

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:32:10

No what I meant were that they were not ppl out to have a fight. They were just the wrong colour.

243

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:32:19

#255, why do you suppose I approve of 'thuggery' when I repeatedly condemn it and say that it should meet with the full force of the law?

And why do you confuse 'thuggery' with putting forward a political argument? The latter is constructive and to be encouraged, the former is always wrong.

I don't understand you, I'm afraid.

244

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:33:24

#256, well, as I say, I hope the people who attacked them were arrested and severely punished.

245

Kobi,

27/11/2007 20:35:55

#244

Apparently some scientist nut job in the US has called for those who dispute the "facts" to be prosecuted in the same way as Holocaust deniers.

He is a loony fascist, but I defend his right to say that. I don't defend the right of any state to implement what he proposes though.

246

Silence of the Yamz,

27/11/2007 20:36:07

#256 Yeah, post your false accusations. Silly girl.

247

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:37:06

Well they weren't. No you don't understand me. The BNP operate on one level which is their cosy web site and debates at the Oxford Union. On another level they operate as thugs. They put a respectable face on things that people like you don't want to see. When we call them nazis we are not joking. But I can see I will never convince you.

248

Kobi,

27/11/2007 20:37:20

#245

"Be careful who you sup with"

Would you ban communists in the same way?

249

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:38:38

Two comparisons which I believe to be exact and fair:

Because of the 'thuggery' of the Animal Liberation Front, should people be prevented from putting forward the arguments against vivisection?

Because of the 'thuggery' of some G8 demonstrators, should people be prevented from putting forward the arguments against globalisation?

I hope you'll agree with me that in both cases they shouldn't be prevented from putting their case?

250

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:40:03

#261, I'm very sorry to hear that they weren't caught and punished. They should have been, as severely as possible - as should thugs of any description, even if they say their thuggery is 'political'.

251

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:41:06

I don't want to ban the BNP I just think people shoud know who they are

252

Kobi,

27/11/2007 20:41:16

#261

"When we call them nazis we are not joking. But I can see I will never convince you."

It does not matter what they are when they are speaking.

The minute you give in to call for the banning of the BNP's views, you then ask who is next? What about Muslims, who don't approve of gays?

There are sufficient laws to guard against actual acts of violence. We do not need to be told what we can and cannot say as well.

253

Kobi,

27/11/2007 20:43:09

#265

So how are people going to know who they are when they banned from speaking in public?

Or are we going to introduce a second class of citizenship for people we disapprove of?

254

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 20:44:02

#265, IMO the best way to deal with them would be to allow them to speak, and then laugh at their silly views. If people take themselves too seriously, what they hate and fear most is laughter.

This would apply to extremists of many sorts, not just the BNP.

255

Disgusted Reader 4 - BOYCOTT,

BOYCOTT THE SCOTSMAN 30/11/07 27/11/2007 20:50:24

#260 - false allegations? If we extend your mosques and gang bangers phraseology above to the real world then this is what invariably what your supporters will do. Attack people based on religous bigotry and colour of skin.

But I do uphold the BNP's right to free speech. But not incitement to violence. This not how democracy works. it is not a thing you can take some of and leave the rest. it's all or nothing at all.

256

Ms Fiona,

27/11/2007 20:54:35

This is pointless I am away. Urban - in parts of england people are not laughing at the BNP. Their support is growing and they are now influencing mainstream politics. Having said all that I wouldn't ban them, just not invite them to talk, which is me back to where I started, goodnight.

257

Oxgrad,

West Sussex 27/11/2007 21:02:52

Someone said that something to the effect that we had to defend the rights of free speech of those whom we would also prevent gaining power and influence, with our last breath if necessary. Unfortunately this is a contradiction. The use of words can gain these people power and influence - if words were not powerful, free speech would have no value. Therefore we have to restrict that freedom along with all other freedoms, where an individual's freedom encroaches on others' rights. We will never get it exactly right, but my gut feeling is that snubbing the likes of Messrs Griffin and Irving would have been much better than inviting them to speak.

258

Kobi,

27/11/2007 21:09:08

#271

"Therefore we have to restrict that freedom along with all other freedoms"

Who is "we"? Who does the deciding? Who does the restricting? On what principles is this decided? How do we avoid a tyranny of the majority?

259

Calum Crubag,

27/11/2007 21:22:11

Because Kobi, fascism is a threat to all out freedoms. I'd only deny free speech to those to seek to wipe it out. I wonder which minority you belong to?

There's a very high proportion of BNP and NF activists who are gay. Ironic isn't it?

Socialists and trade unionists are not threats to our freedom. Neither are the Tories for that matter who i don't agree with.

260

Calum Crubag,

27/11/2007 21:24:06

#271 makes a good point. No one has actually tried to 'ban' these people from speaking. They are just objecting to the inivitation being offered in the first place.

261

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/11/2007 21:33:07

#274 You are right about the invite - it is all and fine for middle-class liberals sitting comfortably at home sending out such an invite - they don't have to deal with the associated aftermath that any BNP activity brings.

262

,

27/11/2007 21:34:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1179440, Article id was mapped to record!
263

Urban Guerrilla,

27/11/2007 21:39:02

#273, > I'd only deny free speech to those to seek to wipe it out <

Do you really not see the contradiction in this?

264

Oxgrad,

West Sussex 27/11/2007 21:56:21

In this case, it was the Oxford Union who decided. They have the right to run their show as they please (within the law of the land), but I think they made a bad call. No-one has a basic human right to speak at the Oxford Union - you have to be invited. Why invite people who make claims that are not only false and offensive, but likely to stir up mob hatred, possibly even violence, against minorities deserving of protection by the majority? There are voices more worthy to be heard, but maybe less likely to attract publicity, because they lack the glamour of notoriety.

265

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 22:14:12

238 - "We're doomed ! Doomed ah tell ye !" zzzzzzzz (snore)

266

Pilrig.,

Livingston 27/11/2007 22:18:37

Why bother our backsides aboot the bnp ? They have much relevance to Scotland as the late Dave Sutch's Monster Raving Loony Party. And probably foam at the mooth as well.

267

Kobi,

27/11/2007 22:26:47

#274

"No one has actually tried to 'ban' these people from speaking. They are just objecting to the inivitation being offered in the first place."

The protesters and all the angry mob in the media in the lead up to the debate were trying to get it stopped. I fail to see the difference between that and banning them from speaking.

268

Kobi,

27/11/2007 22:29:21

#273

"fascism is a threat to all out freedoms. I'd only deny free speech to those to seek to wipe it out"

So you would be denying it to the protesters last night and to yourself? You all seek to wipe out free speech by certain parties.

Would you deny communists the right in the same way as other fascists? You have still not answered that question.

269

Kobi,

27/11/2007 22:32:35

#278

"fascism is a threat to all out freedoms. I'd only deny free speech to those to seek to wipe it out"

If you are having a debate about free speech and where to draw the line, then what is the point in playing safe? Most people would agree in theory that it is a good thing, but it is only when you invite some obnoxious characters, that you see who truly stands up for free speech.

And it was the protestors that generated most of the publicity for the debate, not the Oxford Union.

270

Kobi,

27/11/2007 22:35:34

#275

"it is all and fine for middle-class liberals sitting comfortably at home sending out such an invite - they don't have to deal with the associated aftermath that any BNP activity brings."

Middle class liberals sitting at home tut-tutting about the nasty BNP men, don't have to deal with (a) the rise in the strength of the BNP due to the efforts to martyr them; and (b) the increased feeling of isolation amongst the white working class who feel that their views on immigration are never ever heard, and turn to the BNP as a result.

271

Oxgrad,

West Sussex 27/11/2007 23:04:05

Legitimate protest is part of free speech. Violent protest is, of course, a different matter, but I gather that at least one of the people guilty of violence on this occasion was a drunk using the opportunity to make an exhibition of himself, who actually aimed his abuse at the protesters.

272

Queen D,

Glasgow 28/11/2007 00:03:37

Aaah! the irony of having a debate on free speech but seeking to prevent that happening!

You cannot have it both ways.
Either there is free speech for all or there is no free speech!

And who decides who should be heard and who should not?

273

KRITGuy,

New York 28/11/2007 04:00:52

Freedom of speech, irrespective of the consequences, the anguish thus caused, and the feeble-minded people who might be swayed into believing or hating...

…cannot possibly justify the invitation to these bad men.

Has it occurred to anybody that freedom of speech is not necessarily always correct?

In the early half of the 20th century, Joseph Goebbels made great use of his "Freedom of speech" to incite hatred and subsequent death of millions.

It isn't all black or white, this FOS issue. To say FOS or death is baloney!

Intelligent reasoning would lend credence to the vague notion that it is indeed possible to cause great harm with vindictive and hateful propaganda.

IMHO Freedom of Speech must be linked to a responsibility to keep to the truth.

Holocaust Denial is simply a bad excuse for Freedom of Speech.

It comprises nothing other than a hurtful and dangerous terminological inexactitude.

The invitation was, therefore, most improper and juvenile at very best.

274

Bad Yin,

Scotland For Me 28/11/2007 04:20:01

KRITGuy,

utter drivel - but you were allowed to spew it.

275

Shug,

28/11/2007 08:23:41

284

I'm with you. Best way to deal with muppets like Irving and Griffin is to let them speak. Then people can see how ridiculous they are.

This anti-facist mob are just as bad as Irving and Griffin.

276

The Bob Campbell,

North Berwick 28/11/2007 10:25:31

223.

I had my comments removed on a couple of occasions after I accused the Scotsman comments of being frequented by 'LM group' shill commentators - if you don't know who I mean, read George Monbiot's blog comments on the ex Living Marxism, Sense about Science and Spiked online.

I still attest that they are present in the comments here, and naturally this post will most likely be removed again when one of them reports it as 'unsuitable'. How's that for free speech.

277

The Bob Campbell,

North Berwick 28/11/2007 10:37:51

Those who argue against giving these guys a platform should remember that when you don't let people like this talk openly, their activities go underground and they gain much more dedicated, and more dangerous followers.

The same anti-nazi league protestors who try to stop this debate also attacked David Icke trying to do a talk in Canada. They insisted that when he talked of reptilian invasion he was actually referring to a Jewish cabal of bankers and politicians....but in fact....he really was talking about reptiles from Alpha Centauri.

Like someone said above, it's only true free speech when you are defending the right of someone who's views are at terrible odds with your own.

It should also be pointed out that David Irving and Nick Griffin were invited to a small debate at Oxford university, not offered a free 15 minute party political broadcast on BBC1, ITV and Channel 4. If you don't agree with their views no one is forcing you to catch a train to Oxford and frog marching you into the debating hall. If it weren't for all the newspaper coverage and the 'protestors' you wouldn't have even known about the debate this week.

278

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 28/11/2007 12:09:57

Of course the State should decide who gets to speak, and who does not get to speak.

We should all trust the State with that responsibility. Words are dangerous, and we must trust our Leaders to decide which words threaten to undermine the State, and which words and ideas are acceptable.

279

karin.m,

support free speech boycott scotsman fri 30th nov 28/11/2007 20:38:40

295 what with the data we trusted them with like. Your having a laugh. Arent you. As for the state deciding who should speak in germany pre 1945 hitler was the state and he defo decided who should speak and who should say what and what books should say and what people should read. That is the point of the boycott. Once you ban someone saying one thing you dont like then where do you stop.

280

karin.m,

support free speech boycott scotsman fri 30th nov 28/11/2007 20:39:42

295 if you dont stand up for free speech befoare you know it we will be having book burning in glasgow and edinburgh.

281

Kobi,

28/11/2007 23:41:14

#297

a book? in glasgow? surely some mistake....

282

P Rayner.,

Latin America. 06/12/2008 13:47:05
Libel laws exist to curtail expressions of untruth.They are sufficient. Over and above this all should have the right to say what they wish irrespective of hurt or offence, which Law cannot measure . To deny the right of free expression serves only the cause of tyranny .
283

P Rayner.,

Latin America. 06/12/2008 13:49:11
THE TIN MAN.Obviously you aren´t serious?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.