What did anyone think of the Oxford debate?

[tiswas]

As much as I detest Irving and the other man, I think they should of had their 'freedom of speech' because if they did not, they will be maytrs for their wretched cause.

But I was glad in a way, that the talk was disrupted and it show that folk will oppose them.

[fruitfly]

As soon as they were invited to participate it was inevitable there would be protests. At that point to cancel the debate would have allowed them to take the moral high ground and claim their right to free speech was being denied. When the debate went ahead, and the inevitable protests took place, it again allowed them to take the moral high ground and claim free speech was being threatened by those opposed to their politics.

I have not seen any reports on the debate so don’t know what actually was debated and how the sides fared. Though, as far as I can tell, nothing much was debated, so we didn’t get the chance to see their views challenged. All I have seen are reports of the protests and claims by Irving and Griffin that the protesters were trying to deny their right to free speech. This has allowed the extreme right to paint their opponents as the true extremists who threaten freedom of speech in this country. It was inevitable this would happen and the Oxford Union, by inviting these bampots to speak in the first place, handed them a propaganda victory on a plate.

[bobdezon]

I see it as debate not propaganda. I seriously doubt that anyone would agree with them. There is a danger about stifling free speech though even in a matter as odious as this. For example after ww2 germany banned everything to do with the war, nazi themes were punishable by jail terms, even computer games had to have certain content removed because they couldnt display swastikas (wolfenstein german patch anyone?) . I met a german girl when I was 18 who informed me she knew nothing of germanies role in ww2 except there was a war and they lost. She knew nothing of the attrocity perpetrated in the name of the master race. This is the end result of keeping information like that secret and not open to debate. In short people will forget, and it will repeat itself ad infinitum.

[fruitfly]

I see it as debate not propaganda.

Ostensibly it was a debate, but the BNP certainly see it as propaganda: http://www.shortenurl.com/8yruw

There is a danger about stifling free speech though even in a matter as odious as this.

I haven’t seen a single report of what was actually debated. There was an inevitable media furore that gave Irving and Griffin publicity they would not otherwise have had. The debate itself was largely ignored. This allowed them to pose as champions of free speech without any of their ideas being scrutinised or challenged. Free speech is a fine thing and censorship is bad, but the Oxford Union should have thought of the consequences before inviting this pair. The BNP has long sought “respectability”. Should the OU pander to this desire by giving them a platform and the implied respectability of an Oxford debate? I would defend anyone’s right to free speech, but defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as inviting them to do so.

For example after ww2 germany banned everything to do with the war, nazi themes were punishable by jail terms, even computer games had to have certain content removed because they couldnt display swastikas (wolfenstein german patch anyone?. I met a german girl when I was 18 who informed me she knew nothing of germanies role in ww2 except there was a war and they lost. She knew nothing of the attrocity perpetrated in the name of the master race. This is the end result of keeping information like that secret and not open to debate. In short people will forget, and it will repeat itself ad infinitum.

Irving is a proven falsifier of history and a Holocaust denier. Griffin is the leader of a racist political party who once criticised Irving for not going far enough in his denial of Nazi atrocities. Ironically they were invited as defenders of free speech when both actually oppose it and are apologists for a regime that actively and brutally suppressed it.

I met a german girl when I was 18 who informed me she knew nothing of germanies role in ww2

I don’t know when you met this German girl but the Nazi era has been taught in German schools since the 1950s, with particular emphasis on the Holocaust since the 1960s. It is a mandatory part of the German curriculum.

Holocaust Education in Germany

The treatment of the Nazi period in all its aspects -- Hitler's rise to power; his establishment of a dictatorship in Germany; the abolition of the rule of law; the persecution of all kinds of political opponents; the racially motivated persecution of the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust; the reticence and opposition of German citizens; and, Germany's instigation of World War II -- is compulsory teaching matter at all types of schools in Germany and at all levels of education. The Holocaust is treated as the most important aspect of the period of Nazi rule.
http://www.shortenurl.com/1eajs

Exactly the sort of teaching Irving and Griffin would seek to suppress.

[bobdezon]

[quote=fruitfly;26305]Ostensibly it was a debate, but the BNP certainly see it as propaganda: http://www.shortenurl.com/8yruw

I haven’t seen a single report of what was actually debated. There was an inevitable media furore that gave Irving and Griffin publicity they would not otherwise have had. The debate itself was largely ignored. This allowed them to pose as champions of free speech without any of their ideas being scrutinised or challenged. Free speech is a fine thing and censorship is bad, but the Oxford Union should have thought of the consequences before inviting this pair. The BNP has long sought “respectability”. Should the OU pander to this desire by giving them a platform and the implied respectability of an Oxford debate? I would defend anyone’s right to free speech, but defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as inviting them to do so.

The BNP are a joke, they are trying to create an atmosphere of terror mistrust and fear so they can gain political power. Can you imagine what would happen if they became the government? It would be a facist dictatorship.

Irving is a proven falsifier of history and a Holocaust denier. Griffin is the leader of a racist political party who once criticised Irving for not going far enough in his denial of Nazi atrocities. Ironically they were invited as defenders of free speech when both actually oppose it and are apologists for a regime that actively and brutally suppressed it.

I am familiar with his "work" I just dont understand how he can sleep at night.

I don’t know when you met this German girl but the Nazi era has been taught in German schools since the 1950s, with particular emphasis on the Holocaust since the 1960s. It is a mandatory part of the German curriculum.

Her name was birgit, and I dont know if she was thick, but she assured me she knew about the war but not the camps etc. She insisted she didnt know until she came to england to be educated.

Exactly the sort of teaching Irving and Griffin would seek to suppress.

Irving is a liar with an agenda to clean up the image of the nazis, and Griffin is an ex gay porn director (some say star) who thinks he is Oswald Mosely. Neither men have the image they hoped to have.

[tkingdoll]

While I agree with both of the speakers that they have every right to hold and express any opinion they wish, that's not the same as being guaranteed a prestigious platform from which to do it.

My concern was that by giving the invitations, Oxford was legitimising their viewpoint. All opinions are not equal. For example, holocaust denial does not deserve equal debating time because it is simply factually inaccurate. The holocaust happened.

My other issue is that some people were supporting the invitations because one of them is a politician and the other is an academic, as though that somehow makes them the same as any other politician and academic. However, both are recently-convicted criminals, which to my mind kind of overshadows their reputations as examples of their professions.

The final concern I had was that when James Watson recently made some unfortunately racist comments, his talks were cancelled. But these two racists whose opinions are abhorrent at best and dangerous at worst, are held up to a different standard. It's particularly frustrating because these two were invited to talk about those very opinions while Watson's talks were not related to his racism and so his scientific opinion was being censored as punishment for his racism. Different standards, and it's a pity.

As for the OP, I haven't read much about the actual content of their talks but would be interested to, if anyone has a link.

[brodski]

My other issue is that some people were supporting the invitations because one of them is a politician and the other is an academic, as though that somehow makes them the same as any other politician and academic.

Irving is not an academic, he does not have any academic qualifications (other than A levels, and a partially completed BSc in physics) and he holds no academic position. He is a “popular” author, not a historian.
This underlines the main point of your argument, that inviting a fraud like Irving to speak at the OU gives him a level of credibility which he in no way deserves.

[tkingdoll]

Irving is not an academic, he does not have any academic qualifications (other than A levels, and a partially completed BSc in physics) and he holds no academic position. He is a “popular” author, not a historian.

Interesting. My quote is literally the argument put forward by some the people supporting the invitations. And the media and his own website call him an historian. But then...how are we defining historian?

[brodski]

Interesting. My quote is literally the argument put forward by some the people supporting the invitations. And the media and his own website call him an historian. But then...how are we defining historian?

He is what I would term an “amateur historian”, or he would be if he didn’t let the facts come a poor third to his ideology and his bigotry.

In some regards he has done some sterling research, and has uncovered many useful primary sources.
For instance aspects of his book on the bombing of Dresden was groundbreaking and well supported, however other aspects where literally just reprinted Nazi propaganda. Unfortunately some of that propaganda (the upper estimate of the death toll) has now entered the popular historical mainstream.
Irving was free to do pretty good research on Dresden, as it’s pretty easy to spin the bombing to make eth Allies look pretty bad, which suits his goal of rehabilitating Hitler. Historical Tu Quoque in effect. However, whenever the facts contract his ideology, the ideology wins out.

And this is the important difference between Irving and an academic, Irving is subject to no peer review, indeed when his work was criticised by an academic in print, he sued her for libel.

[Legaleagle]

I have read Irving's "Nuremburg" which is in many ways an admirable book, detailed, readable, displaying breadth of research. "Hitler's War" is also very readable. Unfortunately, the impression that the reader comes away with from these books is that the Germans were not so bad, the allies were worse, Hitler was no monster, and that history has been falsified by the Victors.

Anyone who reads any of his books should also look at the Lipstadt trial judgement which is available online and whilst it is horifically long, it is well worth sticking with. It details many instances where Irving has mis-translated, mis-represented and simply made up the documentary "evidence" in order to support his own argument.

I think there is a pretty good argument that Irving is not a historian at all, but a polemicist who falsifies and cherrypicks history to support his polemic.

[tkingdoll]

I notice Wiki calls him a 'discredited historian'. I like that definition.

[Mojo]

And this is the important difference between Irving and an academic, Irving is subject to no peer review, indeed when his work was criticised by an academic in print, he sued her for libel.

Not an entirely appropriate person to be speaking in favour of free speech.

[fruitfly]

Not an entirely appropriate person to be speaking in favour of free speech.

That’s the irony of it. He also recently threatened to sue the Jewish Chronicle. http://xrl.us/bcjbj

I notice Wiki calls him a 'discredited historian'. I like that definition.

He is what I would term an “amateur historian”

I think the Austrian state prosecutor, Michael Klackl, put it more appropriately: “He’s not a historian, he’s a falsifier of history.”

[Sceptic]

What I find interesting is that the Oxford Oiks couldn't put forward a reasoned counter argument and had to resort to demonstration and the curtailing of free speech. Furthermore, I consider the statist BNP to be fundamentally 'Left' rather than 'Right', so perhaps this was why the debate was killed off ...because the tree hugging Trots caught a glimpse of their own souls

Cardinal Sceptic (Eng).

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I say! Were you Cardew's fag at St Jim's? He swears he'd know that arse anywhere.