Multiculturalism Debate

[RJ Covino]

OK, we've all got the e-mail from the Secretary to the University Court regarding Nick Griffin of the BNP coming to town for next Wednesday's LPH Debate.

While I am admittedly pleased that it has already attracted a significant amount of attention to and publicity for the oldest and finest society of its kind in the world (a very good thing, considering that the Society has been seeking additional sponsorship for its endeavours for a while now), I'm curious as to how the other readers feel about Griffin's having been invited to speak.

Speaking for myself, I think it was a very brave thing for the Convenor and the rest of the Board of Ten to do and I am very much looking forward to the debate as it will give the students of the University a very public opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter of multiculturalism and, perhaps, by extension the BNP and its policies.

That which I am less pleased about is the involvement of the NUS in the press concerning this event. But perhaps that is another issue for another time.

[harmless loony]

Well then couldn't we invite Abu Hamza to join in? Both have been charged with incitement to racial hatred (with Hamza having terrorist charges too) i'm sure he could give us his opinion on multiculturalism.

In fact why don't we invite some Nazi sympathisers as well to give us thier view? The point is that no one would ever do that because of sensitivities but it seems ok if the people being trashed are those who are brown and Muslim.

And yes the Uni can do something about it. Not stop it from happening as I would not agree with them intervening in an independent society's events but rather distance themselves from it by not allowing it to take place in LPH.

If the uni is very much committed to equal ops then it wouldn't allow filth like him to grace their buildings.

[Raindance]

What the hell were they thinking? Am I right in thinking this is the same guy who was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred? And they asked him to speak on multiculturalism?! This has the potential to damage the reputation of the whole University and not just that of the Arguing-For-The-Sake-Of-It club.

Also, I wouldn't call it brave, it's blatant attention-seeking. Hope it backfires to be honest.

[hr]Where I'm from is not who I am

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

[s]harmless loony wrote on 19:19, 3rd Feb 2005:

If the uni is very much committed to equal ops then it wouldn't allow filth like him to grace their buildings.



So we should discriminate against people and their beliefs if they do not coincide with ours? That is to say, the man in question should not be allowed to discuss his views while someone more sympathetic to immigrants might be more interesting?
We cannot discriminate against the discriminators without joining their ranks, or swelling the amount of useless rhetoric that abounds in this kind of politics at the moment anyway.
We've all heard the pro-stance on immigration, I for one have never seen a stance against it been given a change to voice its opinion.
Freedom of speech and all that, it's all or nothing - you can't just ignore people with views you don't like, they will remain there and they should be heard, just as your view that they are 'filth' and shouldn't be allowed inside university buildings has been considered.

[Marco Biagi]

As I've just said on my lj, I'd protest a BNP rally but not the BNP participating in a debate. As with any other cancer, ignoring the BNP won't make them go away.

[hr]Hello mum.

[harmless loony]

Freedom of speech does not exist. Wake up and smell reality.

So allowing someone to stand up on a platform and tell the world their views with aim to convert and incite more racial hatred is ok then?

In that case why not invite Mugabe to give us his views and let him be heard? But wait we can't have that cos he's a big bad man hurting inciting racism against white people and that's not ok.

If you're going to allow one extremist to air his views, then open the platform to others. Invite black/asians/etc with extreme views too and then I'll be ok with it. But it seem like the debating society only wants one extreme view aired!

[Mr Comedy]

We wouldn't be able to pay Mugabe's travel expenses.
I think that the idea of giving the BNP a platform to preach their ideas from is not what is going to happen. If they speak in a debate, then they can explain the reason why they think what they do. If this then they either compound people's opinion of them, or make light of an issue that people do not know about.

[firewire]

I think this is a great idea for 2 reasons:

i) The debating society recieves some national press coverage. Even if the press make it out to be a controversial decision to allow this man to speak, surely for a debating society the primary goal is to start debate on the subject?

ii)Surely the best way for people to argue with this man's views is in just such a debate as is being planned here? I am in no way supporting racist behaviour or suggesting we should listen to those trying to incite racial hatred, but it appears to me that this debate would give those who object to his views a chance to respond with arguments of their own.

This seems a perfect opportunity for equal opportunities campaigners to argue against him and blow his racist arguments out of the water.

I for one will be attending my first debate in my 4 years here, and many other students I have spoken to are much more interested in this debate than previous topics.

[Nick82]

What is the point of just ignoring people like this and just allowing them to grow and spread their views by allowing them to go unopposed. If the views of any such person are truly offensive to anyone then you have to publically oppose them in order to do them and harm. Whilst not agreeing with the BNP at all I feeel that you have to hear what they say in order to disagree with them and that publically dismissing them is better than alloeing such a group to grow hidden from public view. Lets dace it a signifigant number of people do feel they way they do and refusing to talk to them is not going to change anyones mind. Instead it only makes you as bad as them.

[firewire]

[s]Nick82 wrote on 19:50, 3rd Feb 2005:
What is the point of just ignoring people like this and just allowing them to grow and spread their views by allowing them to go unopposed. If the views of any such person are truly offensive to anyone then you have to publically oppose them in order to do them and harm. Whilst not agreeing with the BNP at all I feeel that you have to hear what they say in order to disagree with them and that publically dismissing them is better than alloeing such a group to grow hidden from public view. Lets dace it a signifigant number of people do feel they way they do and refusing to talk to them is not going to change anyones mind. Instead it only makes you as bad as them.




Exactly.

[harmless loony]

Allowing them to speak on a public platform isn't going to make their views change either.

Everyone is well aware of what the BNP think. Just because they are a political party it does not mean their views are correct. Like I said before, it's onyl valid if you allow the two extremes to speak. If you want a balanced debate, invite someone with the extreme opposing views to speak - then I will have no problem with it. Right now things are just once sided and I don't agree.

Like I've said people on here will not understand until they've experienced the other side. If you have been a victim of racist abuse and violently attacked by people who claimed the BNP were right, I don't think you would be on here talking about their right to speak.

[exnihilo]

It's a debate. There will be people speaking against them, that's the point.

[firewire]

I heard in one of the national newspapers (think it was the herald)that the proposed opposition in the debate was planning to boycot. This is absurd, as the whole point is that by appearing in the debate they can show how much more balanced and reasonable their non-racist arguments are. If those who feel strongly about this issue dont debate then Nick Griffin will have less of a significant opposition and be given a much easier ride.

[RJ Covino]

[s]firewire wrote on 20:35, 3rd Feb 2005:
I heard in one of the national newspapers (think it was the herald)

It was.

However, the debate has been shunned by anti-racist organisations, which have refused to put up a speaker to oppose the motion.

I note, of course, that I have yet to see any list containing the names of these anti-racist organisations or evidence that they had been asked to speak opposite Griffin in the first place.

Similarly, I fail to see how early this afternoon "Students across Scotland have expressed outrage that the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, has been invited to speak at a debate at St Andrews University." as the NUS put it, when the wider student community only found out that Griffin was coming around 5pm today...

Smacks of sensationalism amongst the journos, methinks, and quite a hefty bit of prognostication on behalf of the head of NUS Scotland.

[The Truth]

Its a debate, and thats always a good thing. The whole point of debating is to arive at the truth, although unfortunatly, it usualy endsthe two sides tossing around the same stall retoric they've been cramming around since they first mindlessly made up their minds. But, hey its always good fun andhow, right.

And its creating publicity, and there is no such thing as bad publicity O_-
[hr]
May Christ give you the grace to pick up your scattered wits.
-St. Jerome

[exnihilo]

Were it not for the fact that I'm teaching in Glasgow first thing the following morning I'd be there, and I had volunteered to speak before I realised I'd screwed up the dates. I'm still tempted to cancel my class.

[Guest]

Im not quite sure how I feel about this. I would just rather he was never invited at all. However.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html

Reading the above article, I am not the least bit surprised that he was invited by Peter Blair. I dont know him that well, but on the occasions that we have spoken, I find him to be excruciatingly conservative and completely unaccepting of homosexuals and catholics.

This is yet another instance of the debating society doing itself no favours with the student body and the general public.

[exnihilo]

That comment simply proves you don't know Peter Blair, I count him as a close friend and I don't recall him having any issue with my faith or my sexuality, nor that of anyone else I can think of.

Shut up.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 21:07, 3rd Feb 2005:
I find him to be excruciatingly conservative and completely unaccepting of homosexuals and catholics.

What utter bollocks. He chose me as his Father of the House, after all.

[exnihilo]

On a side issue, we really ought to just bite the bullet and change the name of the place to Prince William's University. Bloody stupid press.