Opinion - News Analysis   

Oxford liberals stumped by free speech

Oxford Union’s reputation for pushing the frontiers of free speech rests largely — some say solely — on one brave moment 74 years ago. In 1933, defying the heavily charged nationalistic mood, it famously (or infamously, depending on the viewpoint; The Economist last week settled for “infamous”) debated a motion that “This House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country.”

There was a national uproar when the motion was carried by a majority of more than 100 votes. Winston Churchill denounced it as “that abject, squalid, shameless avowal” — a view still held in some quarters. Later some of the Union’s leading lights including Churchill’s son, Randolph, made an attempt to expunge the motion from the records but it was defeated by an overwhelming majority.

Among the many folklores that have come to surround the motion is the crackpot view (ironically, the Union gloats over it citing it as an evidence of its “worldwide impact”) that it “encouraged” Hitler to invade Europe.

That historic debate, alas, was the Union’s last real hurrah though it still likes to bask in the glow of Harold Macmillan’s description of it as “the last bastion of free speech in the Western world.” Although it has continued to revel in controversies, there have been few 1933 moments.

Last week, however, it appeared to regain some of its old form when it put to test the liberal intelligentsia’s commitment to free speech by inviting two (deservedly) hated figures — Nick Griffin, leader of the Far-Right British National Party (BNP), and the notorious Holocaust-denying historian David Irving — to speak at its Free Speech Forum.

It might have been a foolish venture or designed to grab headlines, as critics have alleged, but what it did succeed in doing, even if inadvertently, was to expose the confusion over the limits of free speech among British liberals. Such was the hostility of those opposed to the Union’s decision that they nearly caused a riot as they laid siege to the venue of the debate in a bid to sabotage the event. The scenes, witnessed outside the Union building that day, could have come straight from the menacing anti-Taslima Nasreen protests in India with the important difference that the noisy banner-waving protesters hurling abuses at those who wanted to attend the debate were not right-wing fundamentalists but proud liberals avowedly committed to free speech.

There was an air of intolerance over Oxford that evening. Scuffles broke out, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Irving were heckled and there were attempts to intimidate anyone who did not share the protesters’ view. Some managed to sneak into the venue and disrupt the debate forcing the organisers to move their controversial guests to safer places.

The national media had turned up in full strength and the protest was “breaking news” on national television channels including the BBC. A young Muslim girl student, struggling her way through the crowd of protesters, said she wanted to attend the debate to challenge the racist views of Messrs Griffin and Irving. She was angry that her colleagues were preventing her from doing that.

One Oxford historian said he was saddened by the atmosphere. “Tonight I fought through crowds of anti-BNP protesters, agreeing with everything they said yet being taunted ‘Nazi scum’ for wanting to debate the boundaries of free speech. As a historian I was greatly affected and the atmosphere created by my fellow students had me scared for the first time in my short Oxford life,” Mathew Shearman of Lincoln College wrote to The Times.

The protesters, who included the Oxford Students’ Union president Martin Mcluskey and representatives of Jewish and black student groups, claimed that they were not questioning Mr. Griffin and Mr. Irving’s right to free speech but were against the Union giving “legitimacy” to their poisonous views by offering them a platform.

“By having them speak, the Union legitimises their views,” said Stephen Altmann-Richer of the Oxford University Jewish Society.

Julian Lewis, the Shadow Defence Minister, resigned his membership of the Union in protest, denouncing the Griffin-Irving pair as “a couple of scoundrels” and calling the decision to invite them as “thoughtless and self-indulgent.”

“I think there are people who are confusing this with an issue of free speech. It’s not an issue of free speech to offer someone a privileged platform from a prestige organisation,” he told the BBC.

Among the other high-profile figures who condemned the Union was Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Like others he also insisted that it was not an issue of freedom speech. “This is a juvenile provocation,” he said.

The Union defended its decision saying Mr. Griffin and Mr. Irving were not given a platform to “extol” their views but to provide an opportunity to the Oxford academic community to “challenge and attack their views.”

Union president Luke Tryl said the way to take on fascism was through debate.

“It is my belief that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing. Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free speech martyrs,” he argued.

At the debate the two guests reportedly faced a torrid time and ended up looking “pathetic” and “exposed.”

The president set the tone when, introducing Mr. Irving, he described his views as “despicable and abhorrent.” Others then joined the “mauling” making the pair wish they had never come.

It was an unnecessary controversy and raises questions about the selective interpretation of free speech even by those who attack the Right for its intolerance.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Missile defence a long way off
Bloodied but determined
Afraid of text and democracy
Behind the sparkle in Gujarat
Oxford liberals stumped by free speech
French parents back smacking
Corrections and clarifications
Modi's remarks
On December 6
Malaysia imbroglio
Caring for the aged

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu