On the 26th December, the Oxford Union hosted a debate on free speech with Nick Griffin of the BNP and discredited historian David Irving as guest speakers. It created a media circus, with people condemning them as neo-Nazis and anti-semites.
On Saturday (1st November), the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) has invited Ibrahim Mousawi, a spokesperson of Hizbollah, to speak at its World Against War conference. In contrast with the Oxford Union, this visit has only received publicity in the Jewish media.
First of all, what's the difference between Irving/BNP and Hezbollah? Well, whilst the former may have fruity ideas about Jews, the latter has actually put such ideas into practice and actively terrorises and kills Jews.
Second, what's the difference between the Oxford Union and the StWC? The former is a neutral debate organiser where any ideas presented will come under intense intellectual scrutiny. The latter is a pressure group, which invites particular speakers to further its political aims.
For these two reasons, I am much more alarmed by the StWC's decision than the Oxford Union's - particularly since they are inviting the representative of anti-semitic war-mongers to a "World Against War" conference. And very surprised that this has not attracted more media scrutiny or intentions to protest.
I am attempting to find out how much scrutiny and opportunities to refute Hezbollah there will be at the conference, and who paid for Mousawi's ticket and assisted his visa application to the UK.
To clarify, I support both freedom of speech and the right to protest against obnoxious speakers. I would not invite Griffin or Mousawi to an event unless I was pretty sure they'd come out of it looking bad, and I would only share a platform with them if I had the opportunity to vigorously rebut their views.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
What's the difference between the Oxford Union and the Stop the War Coalition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi Pete, I quite agree. In fact, such double-standards point to a deficiency of critical thought by activists, many of whom justify the right of Islamic groups (for which read 'victimised minorities') to say what they wish about the jews but criticise middle-aged white males for doing the same thing. It's time we demanded more ideological consistency from such so-called human rights defenders.
I consider this particularly poignant because some of the same activists who were protesting against anti-semitism outside the Oxford Union will be attending the World Against War conference and politely clapping the Hizbollah speaker.
(As for the anonymous poster who keeps on posting a huge long copy&paste comment about a prisoner in Israel, I'm not approving it - turn it into a succinct point and I might do so).
The painfully PC far-left are just bonkers quite frankly so there's really no point agonising over why one form of nastiness is endorsed by them and another tollerated or encouraged - and the sooner the Green Party marxists all go and join Respect or some other bunch of irrelevants the better.
I used to be able to get liberal and small-c conservative friends to vote green, but in the internet age they can all go and read the Derek Wall blog.
Thank you for your good sense in seeing through to this contradiction. The same disconnect is reproduced within academia, especially the UCU activist list: having devoted the whole summer pushing for a boycott of Israeli & only Israeli academics (on terms which several valiant scholars on the list showed to be classically antisemitic), the very same boycotting types then rushed to voice outrage at the Oxford union invites. It was galling as none of them recognized that they were being antisemitic in their boycott rantings and yet here they were jumping at the occasion to show how very opposed to antisemitism they 'really' were. And now they're busy defending the StW line-up, reproducing the same phenomenon all over again, with much antisemitism in evidence again in their postings.
Thank you for this post! The exact same contradiction is in evidence on our UCU activist list. Having spent the whole summer arguing for the boycott of Israeli (and only Israeli) academics, on terms which a number of valiant scholars pointed out were antisemitic, the very same people jumped at the opportunity to condemn OU. No sooner said, they are now back to their usual antisemitic postings, this time defending the StW invite. It's sickening and, frankly, shameful - they are meant to be bright academics! They ought to be able to see through this but I guess bigotry trumps all...
Fucking ridiculous. Comparing those resisting Israeli terrorism and occupation to Fascists is utterly disgusting and reprehensible. You should be ashamed of your craven moral cretinism.
Post a Comment