JEW HATERS TO ATTACK HOLOCAUST DENIERS?
Monday, November 26, 2007 at 01:59PM Now here's a thing. Undercover police will mingle with students at Oxford University tonight after historian David Irving and the British National Party leader Nick Griffin were invited to take part in a debate there. Up to a thousand protesters are expected to gather when BNP leader Nick Griffin speaks alongside Irving, who was once jailed for denying the Holocaust, at the Oxford Union debating chamber. A possible riot is being speculated upon by the chattering classes.
Now I have several points to make;
1. Remember all those protestors who wore the "We are all Hizbollah" t-shirts and waved such placards last summer when Israel defended itself against those Lebanese-based terrorists? Are these the same people who may go ape when Griffing and Irving appear tonight? If so, isn't this a tad hypocritical?
2. I think Irving is a nutter. As for Griffin, I'm not sure why he is sharing a stage with such a creature as Irving but I see little difference between Griffin and those such as George Galloway, the darling of the UK media for his anti-Western views. Why is there no outcry every time Galloway appears anywhere? Griffin is portrayed as the anti-Christ and the BNP as hellspawn. But the like of Respect, and groups such as the MCB are somehow lauded for their views which seems a double standard to me.
3. Do you think that this debate should actually go ahead? I happen to think that there are many more interesting people the Oxford Union could have chosen to debate but I also believe that once invited, these two have the perfect right to attend and to be heard.
4. Is it Irving or Griffin or both that is the problem?
Over to you.... !
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (75)
David,
There is no problem, as far as I am concerned. Whether it's Irving & Griffin at Oxford or Ahmadinejad at Columbia, free speech is free speech.
People have confused the issue of outrageous speech with free speech. As I said before, each man is enitled to speak as he wishes, and Oxford is entitled to play for publicity rather than serious discussion if it chooses. But it should know better.
Agreed Alan.
Griffin is a jumped-up little thug with unpleasant views and Irving holds even more unpleasant views and is a proven liar about the greatest crime in human history.
Nevertheless, I agree with Oliver Wendall Holmes' belief in the free market of ideas. I sincerely doubt that Irving or Griffin will persuade the good students of Oxford to come over to their odious ways of thinking!
Anyone care to speculate why Galloway does not attract the same outrage - esp amongst media circles?;-)
David: It is possible that outrageous statements from Galloway simply aren't news anymore. Sort of a ho-hum attitude probably prevails.
Mahons,
Isn't the subject of the debate 'Free Speech', and all that it pertains to. If the debate goes as expected, the result will be a win for your concept of free speech, as against outrageous speech. Isn't the purpose to define the line between the two?
When you hold a debate, isn't it right that there should be defendants for both sides of the argument? if there isn't it can hardly be called a debate.
The two 'figures of hate' are there not to push their promary agendas, but to argue for free speech - as they see it.
There is nothing like a bunch of lefty students to throw a fit of dramatics at the drop of a hat. No boulder too large, or stone too small to turn, as long as they get the opportunity to display their narrow minded bigotry...
David Vance -
The Oxford Union previously has invited those who are leagues beyond Griffin in holding unspeakable views: communists, Fabians, multiculturalists, pious muslims and EU supporters have all addressed the Union.
The faux outrage at the BNP is because it represents the only anti-ruling class front with even a tiny chance of making inroads into the establishment citadel. BNP success would represent a collapse of the century-long Fabian project to dismantle Britain. In a stroke immigration, multiculturalism, the EU and internationalism would be history.
The Tories aren't subject to this opprobrium because the Conservative Party supports the anti-British agenda, yet usefully attracts most right wing votes. For this reason the Left wouldn't welcome the collapse of the Conservative Party: all those votes would go to existing or new parties which present a threat the governing class agenda.
David,
It could be that the 'right' are not that interested in the inconsequential, such as Galloway, and really they have no shortage of fresh 'hate figures' to lambast...we have a government and a civil service to throw stones at, even a blind man couldn't miss hitting a idiot could he?
David Vance -
Re. Galloway - he's a communist, a pro-immigration multiculturalist. He can even openly agitate in support of our enemies and call for them to attack our troops (for which he was ejected from the Labour Party) and be welcomed into TV and radio studios.
As long as you are no threat to the Fabian/Gramscian agenda you will get away with anything.
Pete Moore
As an evident BNP supporter / fellow traveller you must be pleased that your leader is getting a platform courtesy of the Oxford Union. I'm sure our friend from Aberdeen / Oslo will be as well.
There is nothing to chose between Irving and Griffin when it comes to holocaust denial, just that Irving is more open about it. Griffin has been more circumspect since his conviction in 1998, but he has loads of anti-semitic form.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin
EY -there are far more deserving figures whose comments on issues in which there are strong passionate views would surley be a better example of free speech. The two speakers invited are really invited not because they represent some "side" in debate, but because they represent some sensational publicity.
Mahons:
"Oxford is entitled to play for publicity rather than serious discussion if it chooses. But it should know better."
First, this is not "Oxford", the university, it is the Oxford Union, a private student debating society.
Second, it's interesting that you again suggest that Messrs Griffin and Irving should not have been invited, without bothering to give any reasons for this (you did the exact same thing in the last thread on this issue, and when challenged about it, dodged the question). Irving served time in jail under Austrian anti-free speech legislation; Griffin was twice brought to trial in this country for remarks made about Islam in a speech. One might have thought that this would give both of them a somewhat greater insight into what free speech means than most people, and certainly provide them with something more interesting to say than the usual tired platitudes. But perhaps you would rather have some unthreatening liberal-leftist trotting out these done-to-death platitudes, rather than hear anything interesting from a wicked thought criminal?
Peter -
I'm delighted at the invite only because it annoys those who deserve to be annoyed and flushes out those who will defend to the death our right to agree with them.
In truth, the invite is a juvenile stunt from people who ought to know better. It was done to raise publicity via an 'edgy' act of dissent by people who wouldn't dream of either standing in front of a Chinese tank or going on strike at a Gdansk shipyard.
Mahons,
By 'more deserving', do you mean more politically correct? surely anyone who has fallen foul of the legislation on this matter are likely to be of a similar ilk to the two speakers mentioned, and who better to take the opposing side than someone who has ' been there, and done that'...
I just don't understand why (that is, if) Griffin is associating himself with Irving. There have been links posted here to Griffin's recent musings where he states clearly that the Holocaust happened, and why he believes it happened. Irving, on the other hand, is the genuine article - a distilled Holocaust-denier. I don't have any problem with Holocaust-deniers: I like to know who they are and why, with such a huge quantity of human misery as evidence, they choose to ignore it and exculpate the nazis of their greatest crime.
I'll make things clear to Peter: I currently support the BNP because there is nothing better. The Conservatives no longer believe in the concept of the nation state and none of the 'mainstream' parties differs om the key question of membership of the EU. Thus, for the moment, I'll vote BNP. BTW, I've seen Griffin on TV and he handles himself rather well. He is challenged by the interviewer in a way that Gordon Brown is not and comes out rather too well for the BBC.
Fulham Reactionary: Your first point strikes me as rather immaterial, except perhaps to Oxford. I'd hold the same opinion if the inviting entity was the Oxford Tea Biscuit Company.
On the prior thread as I recall my opinion was layed out rather clearly. I don't ever recall dodging anything in my tenure here at ATW, but perhaps by dodge you mean "failed to dumb down my writings so an intellect of the Fulham Reactionary who embodies in his person the argument against Darwin's theory of survuval of the fittest could begin to comprehend." In which case you could have some point.
Here it is - I don't wish that either gentleman be denied his right to free speech. Indeed, free speech has exposed each for the idiot he is (and in good turn, the idiocy of their few sad followers). I would also not deny some deranged Maoist leftist, apocalyptic foot fetishist, or Druid skateboarding enthusiast. But I don't think that their lonely delusions qualifies them as suitable invitees.
Now, digest that, but don't spend too much time, you'll be late for your Dungeon and Dragons Club meeting!
EY - No. I don't care for political correctness. Political relevance would be a more proper consideration.
Maybe they'll invite some global warming "deniers" to debate some global warming believers next. That would be a valuable use of debate space.
The title of the debate could be: The Great March Towards Totalitarian Government Control Via the AGW Hoax
Regarding David's question re: Galloway ---
I suspect that the media likes Galloway. They agree with his politics, and outrageousness sells alot of papers.
Allan
You say that Griffin has reneged on holocaust denial. Have you any links to suport this?
This is from Wikipedia:
"Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial
In issue 12 of the BNP publication The Rune (see above) he called the Holocaust "the Holohoax" and criticized the Holocaust denier David Irving for admitting in an interview that up to four million Jews might have died in the Holocaust. Griffin wrote: "True Revisionists will not be fooled by this new twist to the sorry tale of the Hoax of the Twentieth Century." [7][8][9] Griffin was eventually prosecuted for his articles in The Rune (see below).
In 1997 he told an undercover journalist that he had updated Richard Verrall's Holocaust denial book Did Six Million Really Die?. He also described his former MP, Alex Carlile, QC, who had reported The Rune to the police, as "this bloody Jew... whose only claim is that his grandparents died in the Holocaust."[3]
In his defence during his 1998 prosecution (see below), Griffin said: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."[10]"
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin
Both of these men have faced the full onslaught of Leftist ideological political correctness, in all it's brutal mindlessness. Whatever they are, both are brave men. Who among our ruling political class exhibts one tenth of the guts of either?
Both have faced the full-on hostility of the British and European ruling political elite class, with it's numerous "verboten" areas of social discourse.
Irving went to prison in Austria for defending his beliefs for God's sake, when no one but his lawyers defended him. Who in Westminster would suffer such pain for a belief, assuming they had any?
Could one find anyone better placed to understand free speech?
Holocaust-deniers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose except your hatred of jews.
Merely because one's beliefs are outrageous or have subjected them to various persecutions (real or imagined) does not in and of itself qualify them as experts on free speech.
Peter
Perhaps you should read the entire wikipedia page you have at the bottom of your comment.
"Nick Griffin has also revised his holocaust-denial, now accepting that there was a programme of extermination during WW2. Griffin went on record in 2005 stating "This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon." The BNP currently has a Jewish councillor, Patricia Richardson, and has stated that it has Jewish members"
And on Nick's own blog we have this
Tuesday November 6th 2007
Then we have an hour plus of Q&As and debate. The Muslim in traditional garb tries to convince people I’ve taken things out of context, several of the leftists try to sidetrack the debate down the Holocaust road although that does at least allow me to set the record straight and deal with the combination of Wikipedia lies and out-of-context propaganda and to put on record the fact that – while I used to be very angry at (and rude about) the way the left-liberals use the Holocaust as a moral club to silence debate on the key issues of our time – I have never denied the fact that the Nazis murdered huge numbers of Jews in one of the great crimes of a century of terrible inhumanity.
Peter, I would have to trawl the BNP's web-site and I'm not doing that in work. I remeber that Guardian Apostate had posted links so he's a better bet. Note that Wikipedia is open to amendment and it's unlikely that the likes of Searchlight etc. would let anything which gets Griffin off the denialist hook to see the light of day.
One thing that I did see on the BNP's website: a wish for the IDF to "annihilate" Hezbollah. Is it not a bit strange that 'holocaust deniers' would support the IDF?
Uh-oh, LibDem MP Evan Harris will speak at the debate also.
Here we have a multiculturalist, a traitorous supporter of the EU, a homosexualist and a supporter of abortion.
The man is filth. Cancel the event.
BN and Allan
You two really are living in la-la land if you think your party is not profoundly anti-semitic. As for Griffin, what BN posted, assuming it is sincere, does not amount to a repudiation of holocaust-denial.
Didn't we have this same debate on the Jerry Springer thread? That's it! This is the Jerry Springerization of Oxford.
Charles - that is a valid comparison. Nice work.
Holocaust-deniers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose except your hatred of jews.
Monday, November 26, 2007 at 04:26PM | Peter
Peter, are you assinine enough to attempt to include me in that quip?
Allan
Don't be an ass. It was aimed at the stupid comment that immediately preceded it.
Pete Moore
What did you think of Enoch Powell?
Well Peter, I consider you assinine enough to attempt to label anyone who currently supports the BNP (through lack of better) as a 'Holocaust-denier'. We know who they are: I'm not one and I now doubt that Nick Griffin is one. But hey, what's in a smear?
>>You have nothing to lose except your hatred of jews.<<
Peter, that kind of comment is the stock-in-trade of perplexed Rightists on this site, and should be left at their level.
>>I'm delighted at the invite only because it annoys those who deserve to be annoyed<<
Pete, yeah, right, screw those who lost family in the Holocaust.
On topic: I'd say that Irving's and Griffin's tastelessness is more offensive than anything Galloway could think up simply because, while Galloway's is just another political opinion, Irving etc. break a taboo and seek to undermine one of the central, and in many ways most sacred, events of modern history, one that has to no small extent influenced the self-image of Western people, the basis where all political opinion is formed.
So...what can one assume from the fact that all the seats to this evenings event went within 24 hours?
Will they all be BNP supporters? Or lefties from rent-a-mob?
The answer is neither. The majority will be those who have never met or know much about either man, and will just have a natural curiosity to see how well they speak, and conduct themselves under a hot spotlight.
If it's not the debate, then it's entertainment, and what is wrong with that? Oxford is'nt Manhatton...it's a pretty dull place if you're not a wealthy middleclass student.
I'd love to go along. Griffin is a tough debater and can fight his corner.....and that's why the Left hate him; THEY would be too scared even to knock the skin off a rice puddin. And they know it.
Assinine Allan
Oh dear. All I can say is if the cap fits...
Just to clear it up here is a clip of Nick Griffin of the BNP denying the holocaust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk&feature=related
And just to undo Henry's 'good work':
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1245
"For reasons of the British national interest, the BNP is moderately and prudently more sympathetic to the Israeli side, simply because a) Israelis are not trying to conquer the world and subject it to their religion, b) their adversaries very much are, and c) Israel is a part of Western, if not European, Civilisation, and the Arab world is not."
Hmmm..holocaust deniers? This is from a brief trawl over the BNP's website - but there's more. In the BNP's website, there is clear support for Israel and there is one article in particular where the BNP wanted the IDF to "annihilate" Hizbollah. Such support for the only western, democratic state in the Middle East will not be found on the websites of the LibLabCON.
If you deny people such as Griffin and Irving the right to free speech, who then becomes the arbiter of what is allowable or otherwise.
Does it rest just with a majority decision? surely a very dangerous proposition, or more simply - just where do you draw the line, who will be the arbiter - the State or just a general consensus. You either have free speech, or you don't, there is no such thing as 'partial' free speech....
Oops, sorry. The BNP didn't use the word "annihilate" when describing what they wanted the IDF to do to Hizbollah. It was:
"I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood."
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=80
Holocaust deniers would surely not write that?
It's fairly obvious Nick Griffin has changed his views over time. As Henry94 points out he has 'denied' the holocaust in the past but as BN highlights he has since made his views clear on the subject. From the same blog we also have the following:
'This group too have realised that the neo-Nazi crankery and ‘This World is Ours’ racial supremacy nonsense have got to be faced down and driven into gutter of defeat a negativity where they belong'.
Griffin's views are evolving and whilst I don't agree with him 100% I still think he has a valuable and much needed contribution to make.
Even with Irving I'd defend his right to free speech. I'd prefer to be able to listen to what he says and then make my own mind up. Pretty much like I have to when I listen to George Galloway incite others to attack British troops; Abdul Bari and his MCB cohorts liken Britain to Germany in the 1930's or Ken Livingstone praise the 'achievements' of Fidel Castro.
Holocaust deniers would surely not write that?
LOL! They'd write anything if they thought it advanced their larger purpose. The BNP wants to appear as a normal respectable party instead of the racist anti-semitic bunch of thugs they really are. Echoes of Sinn Fein's makeover.
I think that Griffin and Irving ought to be allowed to speak at the OU. They won't get an easy ride there; they'll both have to answer lots of straight questions from sharp-minded students. As long as tempers are kept in check, all should benefit from the debate.
Peter, do you consider Nick Griffin's views (whatever they are) on the Holocaust to be more dangerous than the policies being implemented by NuLab? Did you vote for multi-culti. non-Brit, NuLab?
Nick Griffin has opinions and his opinions should be debated but David Irving has been proven in open court to be absolutely, egregiously wrong. Why should Irving, whose writings have been refuted, be allowed to re-state those same arguments if for no other reason than to be used by the Oxford Union to generate controversy?
There is no real link between Griffin and Irving except in the minds of the befuddled left.
There is no real link between Griffin and Irving except in the minds of the befuddled left.
Apart from them both being holocaust-deniers.
It's fairly obvious Nick Griffin has changed his views over time. As Henry94 points out he has 'denied' the holocaust in the past but as BN highlights he has since made his views clear on the subject.
i doubt its anything but mere fluff to legitimise himself in the eyes of certains of the right. Its more a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend i would say.
Whats really ironic though is that those on here who are first to lob the holy hand grenade of anti-semitism are also the first to stand behind Nick Griffin, a bona fide anti-semite. If such a turn of events were polarised the righies on here would jump all over it. hipocrits the lot of them.
DT,
I don't think a defence of true free speech is in anyway 'standing behind' Griffin.
As usual you conflate an argument to destroy the logic of your own p.o.v...
I am sure we all recognise that while he (Griffin), may well have changed his tone, that he hasn't actually changed his outlook...
BNP supporters
You can't refute Griffin's clear and unambiguous denial of the holocaust by pointing to his support for Israel against the Hizbollah.
To quote him directly this nonsense about gas chambers is exposed as a total lie
Now that was ten years ago so if you want to refute that you must provide a more up to date quote here Griffin accepts that there were in fact gas chambers and millions of Jews died rather than the hundreds or thousands that he admits to.
On the substantive question the ready availability of both Griffin's and Irving's views on You-Tube changes the nature of the debate on censorship. Let them speak and let them be refuted.
According to the BBC
In 1998 Nick Griffin said, "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also also once held that the Earth was flat... I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/the_leader/beliefs.stm
Peter, I can understand you disliking them both, after all, there isn't very much to like, is there? but why does the fact that they hold the views they do, have such a bad effect on your blood pressure?
Neither are going to influence anyone to change their minds, and they have been doing their best for many years, with little success. Why are people so scared of them? - they are a spent force, with ideas that people recognise as nonsense.
Far from the Oxford Union giving them legitimacy, aren't you, and others also giving their views an 'airing'? after all whenever their names are mentioned, the links are provided - to prove the point, - and they get another chance to spread their poison. It doesn't seem that logical to me to be so excercised by the mere mention of their names...