Freedom of speech

I realise that Ukip aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, you could pretty much say the thing for any political party or indeed any group from the Mason’s to the Women’s Institute. They are a mainstream political party though and have a right to at least air their views, I hold the same for the BNP or indeed the Socialist Workers Party despite finding their policies and indeed some of their members repugnant.


UKIP has been banned from speaking to students ahead of the European elections because it’s members hold “extremist views”.
In a remarkable move, Derby University Student’s Union has failed to lift the veto despite a poll showing it was on course to win the largest share of the vote.
Nigel Farage’s party has been outlawed because “students had a right to feel safe while studying on campus”, the governing body said.
The union, which represents 21,000 students, acted after receiving a handful of complaints about the party’s policies on immigration.

Now whilst Ukip has its fair share of extremists (for a certain value of extremist) and nutters (ditto) they have when been exposed dealt with them very quickly unlike mainstream parties where anyone exposed for dodgy dealings and views tends to hang on with a death grip until forced out and then is welcomed back after the walk of shame within a month or so.

Still, you’d think at least that the Student’s Union would at least recognise that Ukip are not akin to the likes of the BNP or indeed the Socialist Workers Party, nor should they be classed as the Union have done with the likes of Al-Muhajiroun, Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

This is pretty typical of groups that are filled with sixth form political leftards though, unable to debate an opposing view with any degree of success, will seek to ban those views from ever being heard. Problem is that it does backfire and even the Union themselves have been forced to admit that Ukip is a mainstream political party despite upholding their ban at least until they have an emergency meeting of their executive.

In my view so long as an opponent does not propose breaking the law or denying historical lawbreaking (Nazis) then their views if standing in a political debate can be heard. Unfortunately the likes of the left cannot understand nor allow such a basic principle to be upheld…

11 comments for “Freedom of speech

  1. Sackerson
    March 17, 2014 at 7:06 am


  2. Hereward unbowed.
    March 17, 2014 at 7:56 am

    Derby University? giggle

    Shurely shome mishtake.

    Don’t you mean -Derby student Madrasa and sometime FEC?

    RoP and freedom of speech? You’re having a laugh mate.

  3. David
    March 17, 2014 at 9:16 am

    For me, part of UKIP’s attraction is that they seem to be a representative sample of the normal population. They are, God bless them, not willing to be muzzled by the PC offence takers of the Lib/Lab/Con Blob.

  4. March 17, 2014 at 9:55 am

    This, QM, is more of the same old same old and they have the unmitigated gall to think themselves fair, tolerant people in all their banning and preventing. Who are the extremists?

  5. Pitkin
    March 17, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Derby ‘University’ has long had problems getting its degree courses accredited by external bodies, owing to their incoherence, low standards, poor resources and unqualified staff. As a polyversity, it relied for a very long time on having various other universities as the awarding body for its degrees because it could not claim sufficient authority to do so. Given this, it’s no surprise that the quality of students they attract is a bit, er, low.

  6. James Strong
    March 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    ‘does not propose… denying historical lawbreaking (Nazis)’

    Please explain why you would refuse a platform to these but not refuse a platform to those who deny the aggression of Napoleon.

    ‘The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.’ (Carl Sagan).

    Get off the bandwagon that says we should elevate Holocaust Denial above other false history, or explain why you are on it.

    • March 18, 2014 at 8:48 am

      You think we should support liars? Or give a platform to those who would deny historical facts?
      I suppose we could, but what would be the point, holocaust denial is a deliberate lie propagated to deny a truth so evil committed against mankind which crosses a desire to denigrate the Jewish people so is promoted by what are essentially barbarians.
      Still if you believe we should give those people a platform, then fine, so be it…

      • James Strong
        March 18, 2014 at 12:37 pm

        You’ve stormed in there with two distortions.
        No, I don’t think we should support liars. But it’s not a binary opposition, is it?
        And no I don’t think we should give a platform to those who would deny historical facts. But there is a significant difference between not providing something and prohibiting it.
        Sure Holocaust Denial is a deliberate lie; can’t you counter it by bringing in facts rather than banning it? And that is what you said you wanted to do in your post.

        And why have you only mentioned the Jewish people? Is killing Jews worse than killing Gypsies or homosexuals? (The Nazis), or the Armenians (The Turks)or the Tasmanians (the British) or the Tutsis and Hutus (each other).
        And you close with another distortion: refusing to ban the people you want to ban is not the same as *giving* them a platform; it’s the same as not refusing them a platform.
        Your position is, to say the least, inconsistent unless you want to ban all lies. And how do you propose to do that?

  7. bobo
    March 18, 2014 at 8:29 am

    “No platform for fascists!”

    Erm, ‘scuse me, who gets to decide who’s a fascist?

    “We do!!!”

    Oh, fair enough then.

  8. March 18, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    I remember (being told of) the days when it was not within a student’s purview to give a platform to anyone. They were there to listen, learn and write. Much of it drivel of course. Then came WW1.

  9. Den
    March 18, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    “History”. What is it? One definition is ‘the interpretation or reconstruction of the past’. Whose interpretation or reconstruction? Well, it seems to have to be acceptable to ‘THEM’ and therefore how do we know who to trust?

    I find it difficult to accept the way in which we are automatically expected to agree that there is a ‘history’ which is true without very, very diligent examination of the writer, the sources and the evidence.

    It is much too easy to use ‘history’ as fact in argument and assume that we all agree on its veracity.

Comments are closed.