If this were truly, as Tryl pretends, about ‘challenging and attacking their views in a head to head manner’, then Irving would be speaking on the holocaust, and Griffin on immigration. The fact is that there is no room for dircet confrontation on the subject of free speech - the argument has already been won for them by the very process of their invitation. They have been handed, not only a platform, but an automatic victory, and an automatic credibility.

You might argue that the fact that Irving and Griffin will be unalbe to voice their most controversial views without straying off their remit is a sensible precaution. The problem is that though you will only hear, and be able to interact with, the speakers’ thoughts on ‘free speech’, they carry the rest of their views onto the platform with them, and any credibility, any victory, cannot help but be transfered. There will be no space for the accademic refutation of these obnoxious views, but they will still be there, and will still benefit from the shared publicity of a debate that they cannot lose. their argument on freedom of speech has already been endorsed before they begin, and so, by proxy, have the rest of their arguments.

Part of the reason for this is, on top of the fact that the Oxford Union has already won them the debate of course, that they are unopposed. There is no counter speaker in place to argue against them. The biggest challenge they get will be from the floor, in the form of short questions, and ultimately they will have the dominant voice of the platform, and of course the last word.

It has also been argued that there is no real link between Griffin and Irving’s ideologies - Irving’s words are only likely to ferment anti-semitism, Griffin’s aim is fixed far more squarely on the Muslim population, and so between them they don’t provide any fixed political direction. The problem with that is that far-right politics isn’t really an ideology, but a state of neurotic xenophobia, and this combination is perfectly designed to promote it.

The reason it is the role of SUs and the NUS to intervene in ways like this is that there are many other human rights being put on the line for the sake of this talk. For many students, this talk will represent a serious threat to their sense of safety and security in their own homes - the University, is , after all, their home, and inviting figures like Griffin and Irving will do nothing to promote the seurity of a significant portion of the student population.

The pros of any talk that does this would have to seriously outweigh the cons. I agree that freedom of expression is an immensely important issue - but there are many other speakerswho could have been invited as its exponents. Freedom of expression exists mainly for us to have the ability to compain when things aren’t right, as a tool for us to shape the world. There are so many inspiring figures that could have been invited as examples of people who have suffered for their right to freedom of expression in an attempt to make the world a better place. These people make us feel the value of freedom of expression, and encourage us to defend it. Griffin and Irving do not, they are the people who abuse freedom of expression to promote racism, bigotry and insult to millions.

At the end of the day, a lot could potentially be lost with this talk: Griffin and Irving will score a victory; will have gained more publicity, but this time with the added bonus of the credibility afforded them by the Oxford Union; a lot of students will feel less secure in their homes and undermined by the Union; and worse still, some listners might be impressed by the pair, read their other writings (not challenged in the talks), and go on to be involved in racist activity, even violent crime. All this to extend an invitation to two of the worst arguments for freedom of expression. Whatever the motive - whether a desire to appear edgy, unafraid of controversy, a wish to bring publicity to the union, some kind of careerist ambition, or a genuine desire to defend freedom of expression - a bad decision has been made here.

Perhaps the NUS would like to comment on this fact or just admit they copied and pasted this comment from the labour funded anti BNP group UAF (Urinate Against Freedom)

http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/