Should there be limits to free speech on campus [to begin with]?

The Oxford Union, one of the world’s oldest debating societies, described by a former British prime minister as “the last bastion of free speech in the western world” [I though we were free! Aren't we lecturing the whole world on free speech?], broke on the 26th of November 2007 another taboo. Resisting pressure from lobbying groups on all sides, shattering a decades-old convention of the political scene, and making a considerable number of enemies along the way, the Union defended its right to controversial debate — by inviting two of Britain’s most notorious public figures. The men in question? Holocaust denier David Irving [who doesn't deny anything but is guilty of questioning certain aspects of the ever changing official versions of WW2 events] and open “racist” [because he stands for the rights of native Britons ] and leader of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin.

Whatever one’s opinion on the limits of free speech, the decision to offer a prestigious platform to two men whose main agenda over recent years has been the dissemination of anti-Semitic [any references??], racist and extreme nationalist views was unquestionably irresponsible and dangerous. In a society where race relations constitute one of the greatest challenges of the coming years [even they admit it now], the aggressive rhetoric of the likes of Griffin and Irving has already resulted in riots and violence and poses a very real threat to social harmony [oh OK, so it's up to the street and to ethnic gangs to decide what people are allowed to say]. The Union debate, however good the intentions of the organisers may have been, was a prime example of students out of touch with reality, cocooned within the abstract world of ideas, unaware of the real damage their actions could cause.

More…