Comments:Students protest Holocaust denier's appearance at Oxford debate
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Why have Irving talk about free speech?
It doesn't make much sense. If it was just about the issue of free speech and debate solely about that, one could have had anyone else argue that side. There doesn't seem to be any reason to use Irving other than to generate controversy. And the notion that letting him take part in a debate at a major university won't give him additional credibility is absurd. JoshuaZ 03:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The obvious reason you'd pick these two are that Griffin is the leader of a "real" political party continually denied a platform by the mainstream, and that Irving is one of the few prominent (god help us) Britons to have been imprisoned on free-speech charges.
- Inviting them to speak is still unbelievably stupid, but there's a comprehensible reason to pick them... Shimgray 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Although such people are disgusting souls with little grasp of rational reality we must remember that maintaing freedom of speech is only viable if we allow even the more crazed wing-nuts to speak as well. Excluding a particular topic from this Umbrella of Freedom is the thin edge of wedge. I disagree very much with Irving, but I do so with many other politicians as well who are allowed to speak their minds- sometimes even to listening audiences. -Farooq Jahan, Surrey, Canada
- I agree. Fephisto 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am astonished that the students of these bastions for free thought are so opposed to free speech. The same happened at Columbia University in NY, a little over a year ago. I mean, really, these students, who purport to be indundating their minds with the sum of human knowledge (not a reference to WP), don't think that they themselves can withstand the persuasive characteristics of a couple of anti-semites/racists? Why else would they disrupt these things; they're the only ones in attendence. Open minds, don't think so. --SVTCobra 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The matter is more complicated than that. There really is a dilemma about how to interact with people who have no interest in open and honest discourse. The case you compare it to was a particularly good example; Achmenijad didn't care about having an intellectual dialogue with the students at Columbia. He was playing for propaganda purposes back in the Muslim world. In that regard, he got exactly what he wanted. There's a serious problem giving platforms to people to talk when they aren't really interested in talking with you about issues. JoshuaZ 23:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I wasn't referring to when Ahmadinejad came to Columbia. He was allowed his free speech and the protests were outside. I am referring to when Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak at Columbia. Students charged the stage and shut the whole thing down.
- Griffin and Irving were to debate against another team (students?) in this case, which to me sounds like an opportunity to expose their logic instead of just letting them write their books and speak in front of audiences that already agree with them. --SVTCobra 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A country that boasts of freedom of speech for everyone and is blocking someone to speak his mind at one of World's best Universities for education, where such narrow-minded people keep freedom of speech aside. What a shame that denying holocaust is thought as being superior than defying religious figures of Islam. Pathetic!
Did the Spanish inquisition really take place, or has the story been invented to discredit the Catholic Church in Spain? Such a question can, without a doubt, be debated by historians, who should have little difficulty in presenting their facts and arguments.
I hold that whatever arguments are used to refute or accept this statement are the same ones that apply to the murder of several million people in Nazi Germany, Poland and Russia during the Second World War.
By the same measure, if historians must refrain from investigation, or temper their discussions so as to avoid hurting feelings, they should not be allowed deny the Inquisition, or such events as the Soviet Gulags where some 25,000,000 were reportedly murdered. Personally I don’t believe that any of these atrocities can be denied, though they can be manipulated or publicised for propaganda purposes, but I do feel strongly that any person who feels that they may have something to add to the discussion should not be prevented from doing so. That is what free speech is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)