I was deeply disappointed in the Oxford Union Debating Society’s decision to invite the British National Party to speak at an event on Monday 26th November. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, and Holocaust denier and historian, David Irving are keynote speakers. See BNP to speak to Oxford students
In their role as hosts of the event, the Oxford Union are extending a welcome to the BNP and cordially inviting them to air their racist and anti-semantic ideas. In doing so, the Oxford Union are endorsing these extreme viewpoints and placing them on equal footing with the other speakers.
While it is of course necessary to debate ideas with in a public forum, it is a completely different matter to invite these people as your guests. It changes the relationship from combatant to colleague.
What will the Oxford Union’s next debate be? The Benefits of Under Age Sex? Will the Oxford Union invite paedophiles and the parents of abused children with the McCanns as keynote speakers? It would display the same level as insensitivity!
The Oxford Union Debating Society, who voted 2 to 1 to proceed with the debate, clearly only consider the matter as one of intellectual debate and assume everyone else should do likewise. The Slave Trade and the Holocaust may be cold historical facts for some of their members but for others they are a hideous blight on their family and cannot be addressed without a moral and an emotional response. I would call upon the non racist speakers to boycott the debate . That would highlight to the Oxford Union Debating Society the impact of their decisions.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
‘What will the Oxford Union’s next debate be? The Benefits of Under Age Sex?’
Having underage sex with children is illegal; voting for, or being a member of the BNP, or holding some rather eccentric and repulsive views about the holocaust isn’t [yet.]
What you say is correct about the legality, but only from a British legal standpoint. In Germany, Holocaust denial would be illegal, but the age of consent is 14 so what would be illegal here is acceptable there.
For me, moral imperatives take precedence over legal ones.
In this case that means that just because something is legal does not mean it is acceptable.