Oxford Union: Private Eye's take on the event

Private Eye, the satirical magazine, has a great take on this event.

Oxford Union; London Jewish Chronicle on debacle

Here is the London Jewish Chronicle's report. While there is not much new in it, the report stresses that the event has lead to closer relations between the Jewish and Muslim students at Oxford.

Oxford Union: Media coverage and winners and losers

Here is a good description of and news report on the rally which preceded the debacle at the Oxford Union. Some other coverage includes Independent and the Guardian.

So who were the winners and losers in Monday night's debacle?

In fact, I don't think there were any winners, except possibly for Griffin who can now say that the invitation, in the words of the Independent, "breached an unwritten agreement observed for years by the mainstream political parties – not to give the far right a public platform."

I don't think Irving was a winner. He apparently looked pretty pathetic and will now be linked not just with the term Holocaust denier but also fascist. Hollywood likes to say, "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right." In this case, I don't think this was good PR for David Irving. He is, as I describe him in History on Trial, the Court Jester.

I don't think the Oxford Union was a winner. It engaged in a big publicity stunt. It displayed really muddled thinking [inviting the two not to discuss their views but then saying their views have to be exposed to be defeated] and it caused tremendous pain and anger.

I don't think the students who stormed the Union looked very good or were winners. They engaged in the kind of strong arm tactics which people should eschew. [I differentiate them from the thousands of students who quietly protested before the event, but then dispersed.]

This did not have to be. One student, Luke Tyrl, the man of the open mind, created a maelstrom, left a lot of people feeling vulnerable and hurt, and showed that you can be smart enough to win entry into Oxford and dumb enough to engage in some terribly stupid behavior.

I will be in the UK next week and hope to meet with some of the Oxford students involved in this matter. More on that next week... Until then I hope we have heard the end of this affair.

Oxford Union: David Irving a champion of free speech? Hardly.

According to the BBC, the Independent has described David Irving as an The Independent describes him as "An inconvenient champion of free speech".

Nothing could be further from the truth. He sued me for libel to silence me. He threatened to do the same to Gitta Sereny and to John Lukacs. In fact, Lukacs had to eliminate some of most severe criticism of Irving from his book in order to get it published in the UK.

But, as I have repeatedly predicted in this blog and in other places, laws outlawing Holocaust denial turn the person against whom they are directed into martyrs.

David Irving is neither a martyr -- he chose to go to Austria even though he knew there was a warrant for his arrest -- nor a champion of free speech. To describe as such is to engage in self-delusion of the first order.

Oxford Union: An eyewitness account

For those anxious for a blow by blow account, click here

Oxford Union: My statement to pre-"debate" rally

At the request of the organizers , I wrote the following statement which was read to the pre-debate rally:

Why should the Oxford Union give one of its coveted places to a man such as this or a man such as Nick Griffin, who spews hatred and racial prejudice? I am firm believer in free speech. In my country the much maligned First Amendment gives everyone a chance to make a complete “arse” of themselves. However, the right to free speech does not mean that everyone is deserving of a platform at the Oxford Union. If the Union wanted to debate the issue of free speech and laws against expressions of Holocaust denial and racism, there are many good people with severely opposing views who could have been invited to do so. Inviting these two men smacks of a stunt which gives them what they most need to survive: publicity.

The President of the Union has claimed that they are not being invited to spout their views. What then is there for them to say? That they have been denied the right to speak? Griffin has a platform anytime he wants it and David Irving used and abused your courts as a platform to spew his distortions of history.

Some of those who have defended the Oxford Union have called for open minds. The problem with people with open minds is that sometimes their minds are so open their brains fall out. And that is the best that can be said of the organizers of this evening’s debate

Oxford Union: Mini-debates in place of one large show

Instead of one main debate, the Oxford Union conducted two mini-debates. Irving was in one room and Nick Griffin in the other. According to one student who was in the room with Irving, "it was a very balanced argument and both sides did really well. I'm pleased it went ahead."

Balanced??? My deepest fears have materialized. Count that as a win for Irving....

Oxford Union: Debate delayed 1.5 hours but eventually takes place

The protestors who forced thier way into the Oxford Union managed to delay the "debate" until 10 p.m. when it finally began. No additional details are available right now.

Oxford Union: Lipstadt interview on BBC World Newshour

I did a BBC interview BBC World Service Newshour programme. Here's the link they provided. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/). Go the box Watch/Listen and click on the Newshour/GMT 20:00

Oxford Union: INterview with students who dissent from Union's decision

Excellent interview with four students who are members of the OU but who oppose their appearance. Click on the upper right hand side of this page.

Oxford Union: Protestors force way into hall

According to the BBC about 30 protestors forced their way into the hall and are conducting a sit down strike at the debating table.

As I said in an earlier post, what a circus.

Oxford Union: Irving and Griffin to appear shortly

For my posts on the Oxford Union circus click here.

For my posts on the debate about making Holocaust denial illegal, click here.

Oxford Union: BBC debate

There was a debate on the BBC's Radio 4 about tonight's Oxford Union event. [Scroll down to the 7:30 slot.]

The MP speaking against the invitation kept stressing, correctly to my mind, this is not a matter of "right" to speak at the Oxford Union but of "privilege."

Oxford Union: More muddled thinking

I have been reading the British blogs on today's "debate" at the Oxford Union. Some people have argued that everything should be open to debate, i.e. that there are two sides -- however abhorrent -- to every issue.

This may be true if both sides are telling the truth. If one side makes things up, falsifies their facts, invents claims, and the like then you are not debating an "other" side, you are debating people who are engaging in fiction. [NOTE: I originally wrote non-fiction (it was too short a night) and have corrected it. My thanks to the readers who noticed.]

The only thing this entire matter proves is that some Oxford students do not know how to think logically.

Oxford Union: Controversy Growing

According to the Guardian the controversy over the appearance at the Oxford Union by David Irving and Nick Griffin is growing.

There probably will be an ugly scene there tonight when it takes place. Irving is blaming the Jews, whom he dubs the "traditional enemies" for the opposition. Truth be told, my guess is that he is LOVING every minute of it. The bigger the crowd through which he will have to push his way tonight, the happier he will be.

The shame should be directed at the Oxford Union. If they wanted a debate on Free Speech there are many acredited experts with various views on the topic they could have invited.....

They may be smart but they have trouble reasoning... or. as some folks would say. they are missing a measure of sechel [wisdom]

Oxford Union: Muddled reasoning

The statement issued by Luke Tyrl, the president of the Oxford Union, is a clear example of really muddled thinking. He begins by arguing that Griffin and Irving are:

not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech.

If they are not being given a chance to expound on their views then why does Tyrl go on to say:

What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner.

Obviously he expects them to use the opportunity to expound on their views. He then contends that "that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing." Mr. Tyrl seems not to understand that there is a vast difference between pushing views "underground" and simply not giving them a platform at the Oxford Union. Would he say that anyone with a controversial view who has not been privileged to speak at the Union has been driven "underground"? Clearly not.

Moreover he argues that the best way to deal with these people is "to crush these people in debate ." How does he propose "debating" someone such as David Irving who is a proven liar and falsifier of history?

He contends that "it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people."

Challenging someone such as David Irving has little to do with intelligence, it has to do with knowing how he is lying and distorting the facts. And as smart as Oxford students may think they are, just because they are at Oxford does not mean they have the knowledge -- Mr. Tyrl does not seem to recognize the difference between intelligence and knowledge -- to catch a liar who distorts and falsifies.

It is simply hubris to assume that just because you are an Oxford student you automatically have the expertise to pinpoint his lies.

More distressing than the invitation itself is the confused reasoning -- if one can call it that -- of the president of the Union.

Oxford Union: Irving and Griffin to appear

Well it looks like it is official. The members of the Oxford Union, one of the most prestigious debating societies in the world, have voted to invite these two men to appear at the Union on Monday night.

The vote was 2-1 in favor.

The Union's president keeps justifying the invitation in that they were not invited to share their views but to speak about free speech. The president of the Union told the BBC that

"They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner."

The fallacy is that on issues of free speech I doubt whether there will be any difference of opinion.

In some perverse fashion I would rather they had been invited to express their views and then, rather than to debate them, to have them properly demolished by the students.

Truth be told, neither of these men deserve this platform. Maybe the students who invited them will go study with the professors at Columbia who thought a coveted platform at that university should be extended to Holocaust and homosexuality denier Ahmadinejad....

Oxford Union: A perceptive observation by The Half-Blood Welshman

See The Half Blood Welshman's comments on the absurd invitation to David Irving, whom a BBC official has stupidly called a "controversial historian."

Someone should remind this BBC dolt that three different judicial entities in England called him or affirmed his being called a liar and a falsifier of history who misrepresents, misconstrues, omits, and perverts the available evidence. According to the judgment, he "treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian."

The Judge had many other less than complimentary things to say about him all of which would essentially disqualify him from being considered an historian.

Oxford Union: Vote today on whether David Irving should appear

The Oxford Union members will be voting on whether David Irving should be allowed to speak.

The outcry against his appearing has been pretty widespread including 2000 people who apparently signed a petition. In addition, Defence Secretary Des Browne and Television presenter June Sarpong withdrew from participating at other events at the Union to express their opposition to the invitation to Irving and Griffin.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams condemned the invites in an exclusive Jewish News interview. The President of the Union, Luke Tyrl, told the online paper, the Jewish News:

“I decided to invite Griffin and Irving to take part in a free speech forum to show that we are not afraid of taking on their views. I find both individuals to be odious, their ideas awful and abhorrent."

Regarding the students who support Irving and Griffin coming he said: These are not people who are sympathetic to the far-right but students who believe in tackling extremism head on."

This is an example of really muddled thinking. No one at the Union seems to support either Irving's or Griffin's views.

By inviting them to a forum on free speech the students tied their own hands. They were presenting them as victims who have been silenced. More importantly, the students at the Union essentially support Irving and Griffin's right to express their opinions. Therefore the end result of the meeting would be a vote for them.

In the end probably neither will appear but they will have gotten more column inches in the press than many more newsworthy topics.

Oxford Union: David Irving's invitation hanging by a thread

Today's Independent suggests that it is quite doubtful whether, when all the protests are said and done, Irving will still be welcome at the Oxford Union.