THAT Nick Griffin Email

[Bonnie]

[s]Unregisted User Charlie B wrote on 21:04, 4th Feb 2005:
Just a quick note to the people who have been all about freedom of speech above all else. To them i say lucky you, you have clearly never been persecuted for your religion, sexuality, beliefs or the colour of your skin. As the child of a parent who came to this country to escape a war, and as someone who has been bullied for the colour of their skin, i find it deeply offensive that the sheltered, pretentious brats who attend this university would give a platform to any person so utterly odious.

To give a person like Mr Griffin a chance to put foreward his point of view is to give him the opportunity to convert others to his small-minded intolerance. And those of you who advocate freedom of speech for such a man clearly don't understand what it is to be persectued just for being yourself. Where is the space for freedom of speech in Nick Griffins world for those who stand for that which he seeks to erradicate from a nation made great by its diversity??!



Speaking as someone who has been discriminated against because of her sex or religion (personally, not just sommeone I know), I say that this is one of the most important debates of a lifetime.

You're as bad as the people your parents fled and should be ashamed of yourself. Politics of retailiation with equally oppressive policies is never the answer.

What should I do, never let a man or a Protestant speak to me again?

[flarewearer]

[s]Unregisted User Charlie B wrote on 21:04, 4th Feb 2005:
the sheltered, pretentious brats


i attended this university and am neither sheltered nor pretentious. I do not agree with Nick Griffin in any way, shape or form, but think it is vital that free speech should be exactly that.

[hr]
...We sing of landscape and memory and the urgency to do it now; in the street and in the fields...

[yank]

In my hometown in the States, there was, a couple of years ago, a white supremicist rally in a park near my house. Only a couple of racists showed up, but a lot of people did show up to protest the rally. Local media reported how the racists were clearly outnumbered, and, to be honest, they were completely ridiculed and embarrassed by their poor showing. However, if the rally was banned in some form or another, they could have easily benefitted in that they would have been seen as a victim of a repressive censoring government. This actually allows for further recruitment of dissatisified white people who are untrusting of the current federal government (at the time, Clinton's administration). Allowing their ideas to be expressed and showing on television how few supporters they really had was much better for my community.

I think the same applies for here.

[hr]"I am responsible to only God and history." - Francisco Franco

[LonelyPilgrim]

To refuse to engage publically with the likes of the BNP, or the KKK, or any other such group is an extreme act of public cowardice. If we believe that these groups have a message that will actually be spread by allowing them to preach it, then that is exactly what it becomes as our fear of them grants their argument legitimacy. After all, why are we afraid of it, if we aren't at least a little afraid that they might be right, or at least able to turn popular opinion their way? It is only by standing up to them, publically, in an exchange of views, that it can be clearly shown how inferior their views are... otherwise, how are people to judge accurately?

If you are afraid of the BNP, and their message, then they have you right where they want you. Do you really want to grant them that victory?

[CrisisLoan]

By disallowing these fascists to speak publicly, is to force them underground, therefore increasing thier threat to society as it is less clear where they are coming from and who is behind thier policys.

[exnihilo]

[s]Unregisted User Charlie B wrote on 21:04, 4th Feb 2005:
To them i say lucky you, you have clearly never been persecuted for your religion, sexuality, beliefs or the colour of your skin.


What errant, and palpable, nonsense. You really ought to think before posting - then you might not assume so much that is simply not the case.

[Ben Reilly]

I've been in Glasgow all weekend arguing with Mel Ward and haven't had access to the internet.

If anybody has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

[moomin]

Unregisted User Charlie B wrote on 21:04, 4th Feb 2005:
"Just a quick note to the people who have been all about freedom of speech above all else. To them i say lucky you, you have clearly never been persecuted for your religion, sexuality, beliefs or the colour of your skin. As the child of a parent who came to this country to escape a war, and as someone who has been bullied for the colour of their skin, i find it deeply offensive that the sheltered, pretentious brats who attend this university would give a platform to any person so utterly odious.

To give a person like Mr Griffin a chance to put foreward his point of view is to give him the opportunity to convert others to his small-minded intolerance. And those of you who advocate freedom of speech for such a man clearly don't understand what it is to be persectued just for being yourself. Where is the space for freedom of speech in Nick Griffins world for those who stand for that which he seeks to erradicate from a nation made great by its diversity??"

It's terrible that you and your family have been treated in such an awful way and I for one am certainly not about to condone those who seemingly removed your parent's right to free speech. However, two wrongs don't make a right and it's impossible to say that line about those supporting the debate have 'clearly' never experienced 'persecution for just being yourself'. Everyone experiences this at some point of their life and these are exactly the sort of people that this debate - in my eyes- has been set up for. In a BNP meeting or convention such rights for equality and celebrations of each other's differences are not given a chance to be defended, but here in St Andrews, Griffin would be on our turf, as it were, thus giving US the platform to speak where Griffin would otherwise not tolerate this.

Personally I would love to challenge mr griffin's point of view on multiculturalism and would hate to give him the satisfaction of not appearing and using our university as sending out a message of intolerance for free speech. We need to play with the head here - by cancelling the debate it leaves us wide open for attack from him and his supporters whereas if we listen to what he has to say and then challenge it there would be less of an excuse for him to twist things.

Hope that makes sense!