THAT Nick Griffin Email

[Eliot Wilson]

Donald Findlay was Rector of St Andrews from 1993 until 1999, and, in the view of many of us whom saw him, an exceptionally fine Rector. For what it's worth, I don't think he hates Catholics, but I think Dr Griffin (as I believe he is) probably does hate non-white people. I see no moral equivalence between the two, and actually find the idea preposterous. But freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[quarterstaff]

[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 00:40, 4th Feb 2005:
Donald Findlay was Rector of St Andrews from 1993 until 1999, and, in the view of many of us whom saw him, an exceptionally fine Rector. For what it's worth, I don't think he hates Catholics, but I think Dr Griffin (as I believe he is) probably does hate non-white people. I see no moral equivalence between the two, and actually find the idea preposterous. But freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.




i must disagree with you there, eliot. i however think it is entirely irrelevant. all should be allouwed a voice. i do hope the debates stand up to this pressure from the university and get other controversial extremists to come and speak. to hear a nazi apologist! or an israeli refusnik! bigotry in all its forms against all groups is bad... but it would be ace to see them argue here.

[David Bean]

I can tell that this thread is going to run and run, so as the immediate past Convenor and President I think it's important that I set out my views on this matter immediately.

I can say that pressure is being brought to bear, by the University and by the national press, upon the UDS to cancel this debate. I should make it clear that I am no longer anything to do with the Society's heirarchy - I am just a private citizen - but I cannot and will not condone attempts to censor our freedom of speech.

Having said that, it is important to note the pressure that those who run the Society - the Board of Ten - has been placed under. The Board of Ten, and specifically it's President, Peter Blair, are good, honourable people who want to see issues debated here that are relevant to the students of St Andrews, and to the world as a whole. In inviting the leader of the BNP they have taken the controversial decision that the correct response to opinions and ideas that we consider odious is not to bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend that they do not exist, but rather to confront them head on and, if we can, to defeat them through strong, reasoned arguments. This position is deceptively simple: it sounds intuitive, but there are many who would not agree, and would not only not do the same themselves, but would also seek to prevent others from doing it. Far be it from me to suggest that in taking that stance they render themselves little better than those who hold the ideas to which they claim to be opposed.

Yet if the pressure becomes too strong, if the weight of opinion swings too far away from those who believe in confrontation over abstention, then the risk is that the Society may be forced to postpone the debate indefinitely - essentially to capitulate. Should this happen, I must urge everyone in the strongest terms not to condemn Peter or the Board. After all, they are as human as the rest of us: they have feelings and concerns about their futures and the way they stand to be portrayed, and there is only so much pressure that an individual can bear. If this debate does not go ahead as advertised then we must support and celebrate the fact that this issue was even brought up in the first place, but we must respect the fact that any decision was taken after having been considered with the utmost care and respect.

If, however, the debate is able to go ahead, we must be supportive. We cannot join those who would try to defeat our opponents by blithely hoping that they will go away; we cannot take the view that 'I shall not dignify that with an answer' is a meaningful response. The Society, after all, will not tolerate incitement; our Standing Orders allow the Speaker to rule out of order any remarks that contravene the law, and all speakers, internal or external, are bound to stand by the Speaker's rulings. It therefore become imperative that we turn out and exercise the freedom of speech that we all hold so dearly, that those opposed to us - both in the context of the debate, and those who would have it cancelled - would like to stifle. That the BNP opposes freedom does not mean that we can safeguard ourselves by denying to them what they would deny us; we must not cut off our nose to spite our face, but should honour the values we hold dear before we even think of trying to promote them.

I urge you all, then, to stand by the Union Debating Society. To disagree with their final decision on the matter if you do, but in any case to respect it. After all, as big an issue as the press has decided to make of this, it cannot be more important than the individuals whose futures may be at stake here.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Eliot Wilson]

I think, quarterstaff, we may be agreeing. Donald Findlay aside, I think it would be wrong to prevent Nick Griffin from speaking on the grounds that I/we/the Debating Society find his beliefs and policies disagreeable. After all, democracy is (or should be, at any rate) about people making informed choices.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Manic23]

[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 00:40, 4th Feb 2005:
For what it's worth, I don't think he hates Catholics, but I think Dr Griffin (as I believe he is) probably does hate non-white people. I see no moral equivalence between the two, and actually find the idea preposterous. But freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.


Why sing such a ridiculously offensive song then? I know he was pished but that's hardly an excuse.

Plus it's not just about comparing the two as similar re. fascism, but more to do with the fact there was never as big an outcry against Finlay as there is now against Griffin. I fail to see how its acceptable to sing such an offensive song about Catholics and not face any repercussions, or at the very least a bigger vocal reaction from the public.

And in case there is any confusion, I think Griffin is a fascist bastard, a disease that should not be given the oxygen of publicity to aid the spreading of his vile 'Nationalism'. But I do hope the debate goes ahead, because I have the utmost faith and confidence that others will feel this way as well, and will actively demonstrate this against him.

[Eliot Wilson]

Have no fear, Mr Bean, that if the debate is cancelled, it shall not be Mr Blair nor the Board whom I condemn. But your tone intrigues me; it suggests that you know that the debate will be cancelled.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[David Bean]

I don't know that it will, no. I just recognise that there's the outside chance - there's an ill wind blowing - and I'm concerned that people might criticise Peter if that did happen, which they shouldn't. It's more a case of covering bases than really expecting it.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[md25]

I do not wish to see the debate cancelled. While Nick Griffin and friends may be attepmting to justify "it's all them damn negroes' fault!" attitudes we can not deny them the right to hold and air their views without sinking to their level.

This debate is an opportunity to further illegitimatise their position with arguments based on fact and logic; to cancel is not only cowardly and wasteful, it is foolish.

[Eliot Wilson]

Fair enough. I hope no blame will attach to the Convenor; he is a top bloke, and - as it is late and he is, I suppose leaving soon - let me say one I have been honoured to count a friend these past four years. And, as it turns out, a damned fine Convenor to boot.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[quarterstaff]

[s]David Bean wrote on 01:07, 4th Feb 2005:
I don't know that it will, no. I just recognise that there's the outside chance - there's an ill wind blowing - and I'm concerned that people might criticise Peter if that did happen, which they shouldn't. It's more a case of covering bases than really expecting it.

[hr]"[i]Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)
[/i]

if the debate is cancelled, there is nothing stopping mr. griffin hosting a rally for us to hear his ideas. far better they are heard through debate, no? at least this way we have some rational discussion, and exposure to the opposing views.

[hr]
god damned mongolians!

[Eliot Wilson]

Indeed so.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[David Bean]

Peter and I have had our ups and downs, but in the present situation I support him unconditionally.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Eliot Wilson]

(Forget the "Dr" Griffin; if the Internet is any guide, I may have been misinformed.)

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Intolerant Bastard]

nothing wrong with him coming to st Andrews. He has only committed speech crime.

[underworlddreams]

I disagree with everything that you've all said, but I'll defend until death your rights to say them...

Or some such thing...


On a more serious note (and not having much knowledge of who Mr Griffin was half an hour ago, nor much at all about the BNP) I'd like to say that such a debate would be more newsworthy for its cancellation than its happening. Saying that, I'm sure the media would love to twist it around in a similar way to Mr Work's email; it was as if the he was saying that the Debating Society was supporting Mr Griffin's stance (on the topic of multiculturalism) simply by inviting him to talk. And of course, if that were the case, they had to get the first word in, didn't they?

[hr]I am not your saviour, I am just as fucked as you.

[Manic23]

Bastard- You beat me to using Voltaire and appearing intelligent

[Cain]

[s]underworlddreams wrote on 01:41, 4th Feb 2005:
Saying that, I'm sure the media would love to twist it around in a similar way to Mr Work's email; it was as if the he was saying that the Debating Society was supporting Mr Griffin's stance (on the topic of multiculturalism) simply by inviting him to talk. And of course, if that were the case, they [i]had to get the first word in, didn't they?
[/i]

exactly.

if griffin was here to address the Convervative Society or a similar group THEN there might be cause for concern. but he's here as part of a 2 sided debate. and you can't have a 2 sided debate with just the opinions that are "acceptable".

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[Ben Spiers]

After a quick Google search, this popped up, taken from a letter resigning from the BNP by a David Michael:

"Let me begin with a digression. I have been involved in nationalist politics since 1979 when I distributed copies of the National Front
election manifesto to my classmates at school. I joined the NF in 1980 as a student. In 1982, as a result of a slick campaign involving
the co-operation of senior members of the St Andrews University Conservative Society, I seconded the then leader of the NF, Andrew
Brons, in a debate at St Andrews University -- a phenomenal breakthrough in clear defiance of the NUS 'no platform' policy. As a result of this my remaining years at St Andrews were not happy.
Nevertheless I succeeded and went on to study for a doctorate at Keele..."

Who is planning to be Griffin's seconder? Lessons from history...

[Mohawk]

ah mighty martyr Quarterstaff, how great you are for standing up for the rights of the debating society


sorry, couldn't resist it,

[tintin]

Things like this really p*ss me off. Why do they have to be so politically correct all the time? If they got a controversial black or Asian speaker nothing would be said. And what previous posters have said about it being a DEBATING society is only too true: free speech should not be suppressed.