There goes any chance of writing anything else tonight...

Yikes.

I'm all for freedom of speech, just not for nasty little men like Irving. The man (and I use the term loosely) really has few redeaming features.

But then, I'm bound to be biased when it comes to holocaust deniers.

I think that if we are to defend the concept of freedom of speech, then we must apply it most rigorously to those we disagree with most. However, while I will defend to the hilt Irving's right to spout his poisonous opinions, that does not mean that I have to actually listen to them, nor does it mean that I need to approve of anyone who buys into them.

It's so hard to believe that anyone could actually hear what he has to say and lend it any credence at all. Especially a student who must surely realise the value of researching a topic before forming any opinions on it.

And especially an oxford student, who, no matter how geeky and unversed in real life, must have a high IQ and the ability to properly assess information or he wouldn't be there in the first place.

The problem actually isn't Irving; he must be allowed to say what he wants.

The fault is in our society that we have clearly failed to educate the next generation properly, leaving them open to manipulation in this way.

For me, Irving is rather like that man (may be before your time) who used to walk up and down Oxford and Regent strreets wearing placards saying 'The end is nigh!' and handing out leaflets of gobbledegook. He couldn't upset people or cause panic because everyone knew he was wrong. At most he was a gentle amusement, part of the London scenery.

We should have the same response to Irving.

Leaving aside that in Europe we do have laws about antisemetism and holocaust denial, and when he oversteps those he should be prosecuted, the rest of the time we should either ignore him or treat him like one of those batty people who tries to convince you that Elvis is still alive.

I expected the Oxford debating society to have people with enough brains to give him the shredding he deserves. That students were leaving the debate thinking that he was raising valid points is deeply worrying; it suggests that there were a significant proportion of sympathisers among the audience.

However I also wanted to go over there and shake the jewish students who claimed they were 'too scared' to leave their rooms on the day of the debate. Get a grip, kids, and join the people who were protesting on your behalf!

I was mostly joking about freedom of speech not applying to Irving, because I do believe everyone should be able to say their piece.

The two arguments about teaching history, for and against, have always been that, on the one hand, dwelling on the past doesn't make us look to the future, but on the other (and the argument that I fully agree with) that if we don't look at the past we can't learn from our mistakes.

I think that WW2 and the holocaust is a vital subject to teach in schools, especially in the current political climate where the likes of the BNP are gaining more power and 'nationalism' is growing. Kids should be shown what taking all of that too far can lead to. I'm not saying that we're heading anywhere as bad as Germany in the 30s and 40s, but I do think that showing the worst possible scenario might make people (and most importantly the next generation) take a serious look at our current state.

Wow, where did that come from? I blame tielserrath :)

I'm fairly sure that the placard guy was never invited to speak at Oxford.

As for the jewish students at Oxford, I can see both sides of that argument, and understand both. Yes, they should have been there to help tear Irving to shreds (figuratively, not literally. Maybe), but also, with Griffin also being there there might well have been a fair few BNP supporters, along with the deniers supporting Irving. Unless I was with a large, strong group, I think I'd have been afraid too. I went to a CU debate at uni to argue with a creationist (and wone a few points, too - go me), but creationists (and the speaker was a vicar) are less likely to turn ugly than a bunch of right wing nutjobs.

Do BNP supporters know where Oxford University is?

In fact, I don't think there were any white supremacist nutjobs there. From looking at pics and news reports all the protesters were anti-Irving.

I deleted a post about this subject last night - unsent. Because, IMHO, Nanowrimo isn't really the right place for this discussion.

OTOH, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "La, la, la, I can't hear you" is part of the "fault in our society" too. Maybe there shouldn't be any escape from politics ...?

Firstly, I'm in favour of free speech and against censorship.
Secondly, equally I can see the problems this causes (e.g. brain dead people preaching to the fatally gullible).

But to try and relate this to writing, as well as politics:

I see two errors: firstly, we have a weird notion of "balanced reporting" which means that any argument reported on the news gives equal time (on any debate) to both sides of an argument. Even if one side is a nutter. Everyone is entitled to form their own opinions. That doesn't mean their opinions have to have equal weight in any reporting. Doing this automatically teaches that "free speech" means letting nutters have their say. Which many people see as obviously wrong. So they believe that "free speech" must be bad (hence the attempt to censor, instead of ignoring, nutters.)

Secondly, (writing related) we have Hollywood movies that rewrite history all the time. If you blur the distinction between lies and stories, between stories and history, how can you expect "the next generation" to distinguish reality?

I'm not a historian. And I know it. So I also know that my knowledge of WW2 is mostly based on Hollywood movies. How reliable is that knowledge? To be honest, if that's all I had, then I could be persuaded that the Holocaust might not have happened. The problem with propaganda - and Hollywood is often (unintentional) propaganda - is that eventually people realise this and stop believing any of it. The boy who cried "wolf".

Fortunately, I tend to watch and read more factual stuff too. But a lot of people don't.

I don't believe in censorship - but thare are movies I would like to censor. And not to cut out sex or violence.

Chromomancer

For a surreal experience of censorship, go and see Beowulf.

Firstly. it's a cartoon. A sophisticated one, but still a cartoon.

It has a 12A certificate.

It has people being torn in half, having their heads bitten off, being crushed to death, impaled and otherwise mutilated.

It has a head-to-toe camera pan of a naked woman.

But it does not, despite there being several scenes with Beowulf starkers, have full-frontal male nudity.

Apparently in the UK its OK for kids to see extreme violence and female nudity, or to give holocaust deniers a media platform in the interests of 'balance' , but to see a cartoon penis will corrupt our minds forever.
We really have our priorities screwed up.

Now, this I take a little bit of an issue with. There are always going to be intolerant idiots, and to generalize from a single example to an entire genration seems somewhat unreasonable.

Personally, I'd argue that either ( a ) nothing's changed, and previous generations have been just as open to manipulation, or ( b ) that the "next generation" (children of today? generation Y?), are - on the whole - actually better at realizing when they're being manipulated. Advertising isn't working any more, because the kids of today - once they reach a certain age - are ending up immune, scaring the hell out of advertisers; politically, they're more tolerant than their parents; and - with the internet - they have access to a broader range of opinions and viewpoints.

Just a thought.

History obviously isn't being taught like it should be.

"He who cannot draw on three thousand years of history is living hand to mouth" - Goethe

("Was that from the back of a beer mat?"
"Yep. Guinness Extra Cold.")

On a serious note, though, it's worth remembering that there have been all sorts of controversial speakers at the Oxford Union (Ron Jeremy, Kermit the Frog and OJ Simpson among them, according to Wikipedia). One can only hope that the students present who did know their history gave him a damn good grilling.

Meant to say "bonkers", but then replaced it with "controversial" conveniently forgetting Kermit was in there. He's never been controversial as far as I know (outspoken on green rights, maybe).

I wouldn't worry over much about what a University student says. From the experience of my own kids who are about that age, what they say and what they believe are not necessarily the same thing. They like to shock, they like their parents to think they are rebellious, they like to upset.
And if he did mean it, just point out a few facts - like it takes more than a couple of months to reduce millions of people to the starved and crazed walking skeletons that were found in Belsen and Auschwitz. So did Hitler have a crystal ball that showed him the Russians were coming so get his finger out? Ask him why the Russians coming made those nice, cuddly Nazis suddenly devise these death camps - or did they exist prior to the Russian invasion? And if so, what would he blame the earlier tortures and deaths on? Hitler's men may have escalated the pace in 1945, but they didn't start the killing then. Making peace with us in 1940 would have ensured we turned a blind eye to it, allowing him to kill more, and we would have been guilty by our inaction. Perhaps the young man in question would like to hold his head high in a society that stood by and let others be tortured and killed?

we should either ignore him or treat him like one of those batty people who tries to convince you that Elvis is still alive.

You mean, he isn't?

For me, Irving is rather like that man (may be before your time) who used to walk up and down Oxford and Regent strreets wearing placards saying 'The end is nigh!' and handing out leaflets of gobbledegook. He couldn't upset people or cause panic because everyone knew he was wrong. At most he was a gentle amusement, part of the London scenery.

Ah, but how do you KNOW he's wrong? He didn't say it was coming on Friday at 8pm. He said it was nigh. It could go on for a thousand more years. Or it could be gone before I finish this sente -

Patronising much?

Wow, I think you've just managed to make me as angry as Tiel was at the beginning.

I speak as I find. I have three children, aged 20, 24 and 26. They say things to me that I know they don't believe. At their age, I did the same.
If you don't do the same, I apologise to you. But I did say the comment was based on my experience.

Surely it's always worth questioning and re-questioning the values that underpin our society? It's when we assume that what people say is true that we're in real trouble. I often miss the fleet thinking of my student years, when I still had the ability and the courage to re-appraise my entire world view, to 'try on' alternative views, think them through and discard them if they didn't work. I don't suppose I could do that now - things are much more clouded, more complicated, more crystallised.

That said, one of the panelists on Question Time last night likened the battle between Oxbridge debating societies as being akin to an unofficial boat race - maybe Irving and Griffin are the real pawns in this!

maybe Irving and Griffin are the real pawns in this!

Of course they were. If they invited the Lord Mayor and the local constituency MP, where would be the headlines in that? The Union probably couldn't care less about Irving and Griffin. But they got the front page.

I am Press Officer for a big Church. For the first three years that I was in my job, it was frustrating. The press in all its forms blithely ignored us. I was lamenting my lack of success in getting column inches to the Vicar and he said "I could get you headlines tomorrow, if I had it off with the choir mistress." Rather unhelpfully (from my career point of view) he didn't. But he was right. Shock them and you're in..