Why the Union are wrong, and what free speech is.

[raven]

This is the post I wasn't going to make, at all, being made in the middle of the night, because now it's on the national news and I am enormously, enormously pissed off. As everyone who's talked to me in the last two days knows. In brief: Oxford Union president Luke Tryl has invited Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP (note for non-Brits: the British National Party is a racist, fascist, extremist right-wing political party) and David Irving, convicted Holocaust denier, to speak.

(The Oxford Union is a very old, very well-respected debating society in Oxford - it's not officially affiliated with the University, but almost all of its members are students here. It's hosted such people as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Bill Clinton. Speaking there confers legitimacy, in other words.)

The history is long and convoluted, but as said before, it's on the national news: on the Guardian, on the BBC. The row started at the beginning of term, and has been going on ever since. On Friday, they held a referendum - following much controversy - about whether or not to rescind the invitations. I was fresh from a Cold War tute, wandering through college when a couple of historians whom I know slightly bounced on me with placards and said, "Have you voted?"

"No," I said, trying to hold off the spiel, and failing; they immediately started on the first line:

"You know, it's not a free speech issue..."

"YES!" I yelled, much to poor Liam's surprise. "Yes, yes, yes, I AGREE WITH YOU."

And because it was very cold, and I was very angry, I took a placard and helped them out for twenty minutes or so. It was freezing, but it's amazing how righteous anger can keep you warm.

Well, here's the spiel. It's not a free speech issue. I believe in freedom of speech, passionately, fervently, believe in it every day of my life. I believe in free speech in the cold and the wet, I believe it when the sun's going down and you have an essay to do and you're still out there with your placards, I believe in the right to grab people at a doorway and say, "Have you thought about how it's not a free speech issue..."

I believe, also, that I am a human being, a free autonomous individual, and that I have the rights conferred on the individual by the liberal democratic state. And Nick Griffin does not believe this. There is no starting point for debate with someone who doesn't believe you have the requisite personhood for debate.

So when I believe in Nick Griffin's right to free speech, I believe in his having to stand in the cold and the wet, with passing cars splattering dirty puddle water over him, while he acts on this right. I don't believe in the Oxford Union inviting him in, giving him central heating, wine and an audience, effectively indicating to him that his opinions are worth more than the crap on someone's shoe. That's my money, too, that's paying for it - I am, to my considerable discredit, a member of the Union - and this is just so very wrong.

Also, thank you very much, Cherwell, for publishing an opinion on free speech (that I can't find a link for - anyone?) that is so drenched in unanalysed privilege that made me angry all over again. Free speech, it babbles on about. And then it says - paraphrased here; really, I would like the exact words, if anyone has them - that the presence of Griffin and Irving is no physical danger to students in Oxford.

Well. Quite apart from anything else, they're wrong on that - thousands of protesters are expected, and Balliol, bless them, have democratically ordained that their usual scheme is to be extended tomorrow (the day of the debate), and anyone feeling unsafe anywhere is to take a taxi home and be reimbursed by the college.

But. More than that. Physical safety, yes, okay. All right. But how arrogant do you have to be, to leave the nuances of that unexplored? Maybe I've as little chance of getting attacked on the street tomorrow as I do any day. But here I am, thinking about it. Here I am, going to sleep at night thinking, there are far-right groups in Oxford tomorrow, oh dear. And why should I have to think that? Why? See above where I'm a human being, where I deserve to feel safe every second of the time in my home city, where white people don't have to worry about visual indicators and I do. How dare the Union blithely invite RACISTS into my city, so safe in their straight white male privilege that they don't have to think about the consequences of what they're doing? I am not straight, white or male, and I have no uncomplicated identity, no simplicity or belonging - but I am an Oxford student. No one is allowed to contest the basis upon which I'm here, at this place and at this time. How dare they take the one thing that I have all of my own, my home, and compromise that?

(And here's the ironic thing: two years ago, I would have been as angry as this, but a mass of inchoate rage rather than remotely coherent. That's what PPE has done for me.)

It has not been a good term for not being white.

Comments

[soupytwist.livejournal.com]

This is one hell of a post.

I don't know how some people manage to not realise - or just deny away to themselves - that inviting that fuckhead to the Union is a sign of status. I saw somebody say that 'you don't have to agree with every speaker' on... the Guardian comments, I think, and I am sad the internet doesn't have a 'WAY TO MISS THE FUCKING POINT' button. The Union didn't have to let him in, they're not stopping him from speaking elsewhere. Saying 'I'm sorry but Mr Griffin's views are sufficiently incendiary and potentially harmful that we are not going to give him time to speak over [x, y, z, whoever]' is NOT THAT DIFFICULT, people.

I'm sorry.

[msilverstar]

You are beautifully eloquent and make an important point that I hadn't considered, about your selfhood and safety in your own city. I do agree that it's not a free speech issue, especially if it's not even presented as a debate. It's giving crazy nasty assholes the attention they want. BOO.

[jacinthsong.livejournal.com]

I love you. And Liam. Mostly you.

[chiasmata]

Beautiful post. You know I agree with you on this, but I just thought I'd say. xx

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

ohgod

i'm sorry

loveyou

xxx

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

Once one of our debating societies invited Irving, that shithead. The resulting student uproar against it was successful, and I hope yours is too. Fuck. I hate this whole "And now for balance we must bend over and give the hatemongers a stage" crap.

[amchau.livejournal.com]

What confuses me is if it's a debate, why has no opposing speaker been invited? Will questions and challenges only come from the floor? Will it be closed, so that both sides will report it as a win with nobody knowing any better? In short, will it be fair speech, and free in the sense of open? Probably not, I suspect.

The groups of demonstrators who follow these people are another question. They need to be contained in clearly-defined areas so that people see them coming and are safe; I bet it won't happen like that, though.

It bothers me that the BNP are getting so much publicity, and the London Reclaim the Night march got none. Plus I'm angry because I don't like thinking that you're feeling unsafe or upset. I won't even start on what I think of Holocaust deniers.

In conclusion, much love and many hugs (as if that helps).

[tmpe5t.livejournal.com]

I saw that on the BBC news and thought of you... I also often wonder why white supremacists are always short podgy blokes trying to hide a bald patch? Surely they should all look like Arnie?

That BNP bloke is such a smug smirking git... And as for holocaust deniers don't get me started. I look pretty aryan (thanks to some ginger DNA on my mums side apparently), but at least three of my grandparents would have ended up in Auschwitz had the war gone differently...

[absinthe-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oh GOD this whole thing just makes me want to bite people. Because how could they EVER have thought this was a good idea, or, you know, OKAY as a thing to do? Both LT and the people who voted in favour... if they'd thought for a just a moment, about the effects of those choices. I'm so sad and angry about this; it's just... the opposite of how things ought to be, for you and for us all.

[marymac.livejournal.com]

Oooooo. Thats not going to end well.
Seriously, you take care of yourself. And possibly get your membership of the Union refunded, because really, how stupid could they be?

I can't believe that the police don't have quite strong opinions on the Union bringing a potential riot down on the place. Because if the Union don't have a clue, you'd think the council and University and police would.

[ktroo85.livejournal.com]

See one of the things that has always confused me about how the Union could possibly even consider inviting these people is the fact that the current union treasurer is neither white nor straight and I'm pretty sure the president isn't straight either. On the otherhand having worked with the treasurer in the past on another committee I know how much he cares about getting publicity rather than actually thinking through the logistics of things properly and this is more of the same just on a much larger scale.

I'm really sorry that you won't feel safe today, I personally had been thinking about making sure I avoided that area of town today (partly also because crowds scare me anyway)so I can't begin to imagine how you feel. xxxx

[pinkishmew.livejournal.com]

I hadn't even thought of that. All I could see was the free speech issue, as I was picturing two stupid men being torn to shreds by intelligent Oxford students in a debate.

Oh dear, my white priviledge is showing. [hugs] Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

God I love you. You are brave and awesome, and you deserve your personhood and your belonging, and you write beautifully and coherently on topics that leave me spitting and sick with rage, and I love you for that more than I could possibly express.

Reading through Tryl's comments in those articles, I can see male-dominated communication tricks at work again here, actually. All that stuff about you have to give someone a forum in order to be able to shout them down. Not acknowledging the power of silence. Debate, not communication. We can communicate on ideas without giving people forum for debate. People don't have the damn right to a forum for debate. Some people have simply grown use to thinking that they do. And of course you know all this already.

It makes me want to cry and throw things, alternately.

marymac has a good point. Is there any way that all six hundred odd of you who voted against could attempt to get your membership refunded?

[jacinthsong.livejournal.com]

The worrying thing is that neither of them are stupid. Wrong, hideous, but not stupid - they would not have got where they are now by simply being stupid. Conversely, Union members cannot be relied upon for an insightful debate, precisely because they will assume I&G are stupid and go for the cheap point and mockery over a serious question. It's a pretty lethal combination - both speakers have been discredited in debate, multiple times, they know how to handle this kind of situation and if the Union speakers mess this up it would be a great propaganda boost. More than they have from being invited into a venerable organisation, that is. I simply can't believe how irresponsible Tryl is.

[frightened.livejournal.com]

Hey. jacinthsong told me about this post, in a thread where we seemed to be the only two dissenting voices on the topic. You're awesome and so eloquent, and I'm really sorry you're having to put up with this crap.

[frightened.livejournal.com]

I can see male-dominated communication tricks at work again here, actually. All that stuff about you have to give someone a forum in order to be able to shout them down. Not acknowledging the power of silence.

Mmmm... I remember reading an introduction to a huge anthology of lesbian separatist material. Whatever anyone feels about that particular topic, the editors made a very good point - that debating with someone allows for the possibility that they might have a valid point. And sometimes, you really shouldn't do that. Sometimes, you should just walk away in disgust. There's a reason for the existence of the phrase "I am not dignifying that with an answer".

[pinkishmew.livejournal.com]

Ahh. Eeek. [nods] I'm understanding the issue a lot better now.

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

Yes. Yes, exactly.

Priveledged people are so used to assuming that both sides have a point worth making, because for them, that point is never 'you do not have a right to exist'. For those of us who don't have the luxury of never being told that we don't have the right to exist, debate just doesn't mean the same thing.

[anotherusedpage.livejournal.com]

Which thread, just out of interest?

[lilka.livejournal.com]

Wow, how absolutely sickening. I'm so sorry that anybody thought it was a good idea to give these horrible people a platform. Considering racist scum to be worthy of debate is always a bad move, I think. We've got a debate on this topic at our Union on Friday (by the way, is it Rise Against Racism week at Oxford this week too? Because if so that's just doubly sickening.) Do you mind if I rip off all your excellent points here for it?

[femalequixote.livejournal.com]

Here from jacinthsong's journal, and just wanted to say thank you. I think we were coming from the same page already about it not being a freedom of speech issue, but you've also helped me think more about the privilege involved in the invitation by white men of the BNP to our town. As a white person, I hadn't thought of it like that, but you've really broadened my perspective on the issue - and made me even more angry.

[frightened.livejournal.com]

Oh, over on spiritof1976's journal.

[marymac.livejournal.com]

They've both come out looking well from encounters with the ilk of David Dimbleby, not to mention many many eminent historians and Holocaust survivors. Putting them on a platfrom together...argh.

Its not often my home university comes out better in the idiocy stakes, but I think the Union has just beaten them flat.

[casirafics.livejournal.com]

I just said this to jacinthsong, but I'll repeat as I like the quote.... :)

It's really not a free speech issue, you're right. Still, it reminds me of a quote I jotted down once during a media law class, attributed by the teacher to Thomas Jefferson: The right to free speech does not include the right to be taken seriously.

In many ways, it's also reminding me of the furor over Columbia University inviting Ahmadinejad to speak. The arguments about it were remarkably similar to this case, and as for the event itself, other than a lot of bizarre clips and soundbites wending their way onto the evening news, along with much pontification by pundits left, right and center, I can't say it became anything much more than people shouting opinions at each other (kind of literally, judging from the footage) and each side leaving the venue completely unbowed. And thus goes "debate" these days. sigh.

[casirafics.livejournal.com]

(That wasn't structured as an actual debate -- it was more of a q&a at the end, I think -- but you know what I mean. I'm just getting so sick of the whole butting-heads mentality where no one actually listens to each other, in any context...)