in being disgusted with Oxford SU inviting Marine Lepen???

I saw the typo by the way.
I just couldnt be bothered to correct it!

I had made such a mess of the word, that I would have had to look it up, and I couldnt be bothered!

Yeah who cares about typos- quite right Soontobe.

For me, having the ability to change my attitude and beliefs, as I learn more about the world- is what makes life so interesting. Perhaps, if I guess right- you were born in a close-knit community and part of a close-knit Church- where your views and beliefs have not really been challenged on a regular basis. Our family was so varied, from the very start, in so many ways- that having to think for myself and make choices was the reality from very young- and as I travelled, lived abroad and had to adapt to totally different communities and 'systems' - and then marrying someone from an even much much more complex family, cultures, religions, 'class', etc- having one fixed set to beliefs would just not have been possible at all.

Must say I am so grateful for that. Having one set of fixed belief would indeed be comforting and much 'easier' - but certainly not challenging or interesting.

I do admire you though, Soontobe- because you are not swayed and have such strong beliefs. Your sincerity and honesty are a breath of fresh air, in many ways.

Thanks granjura!

I do think that there are different ways of doing things.
For instance, alchohol laws.
People say "this cant be done" or "that cant be done". When actually, yes it can! Other countries manage it, or other things differently, perfectly well.
It is sometimes the will of the people that stops things changing, not that the problem is an insurmountable one.

The reason the law came into this topic in the first place is because various posters believe that speech should not be censored apart from those instances proscribed by law, such as incitement to hatred. If a person is prevented from speaking out about their particular views, then the door is open for preventing anybody from doing so. That this women's politics are anathema to some, even many, does not mean that she should be prevented from speaking. After all, who is to decide who should and should not be allowed access to a forum and on what grounds?

I don't think laws relating to alcohol are relevant here.

I agree to a large extent- about free speech.

A big difference though, between allowing someone to speak, and actually giving them a prestigious platform to do so?

Why, jura? Free speech is the same whether it's prestigious or not. Besides, how many people will actually hear what she has to say? Those who listen to her speech and then those who can be bothered to read a transcript or listen to a recording.

Her freedom of speech has to be the same as yours or as that of somebody with whose views you agree, otherwise it isn't free speech. You can't have some people being more equal than others or you're into Animal Farm territory.

soutra your post: 8th february 15.42.01

I am very as I was not posting on this thread (until now)

Anyway, I will say that my DC are strong-minded adults with views of their own which may not coincide with mine.
Were I to think that they were being brainwashed by some extremist cult I hope I would take whatever steps I could to prevent that happening.
Otherwise I am happy for them to think for themselves, decide for themselves as I hope I am not so arrogant as to think that what I believe is necessarily right. (Not all the time, anyway.)
They are my adult DC, not my clones.

In the light of new evidence on any subject, are we not allowed to look at it with new eyes and re-think? To stay in the same mindset for all of one's life means one is very rigid and unbending.

Marie le Pen is not a criminal - and this is an invitation to a debating society not a party political broadcast.

I don't think the Oxford Union is so prestigious as it once was and, perhaps, as it likes to think it still is. The world – and technology in particular – has changed beyond recognition since Harold MacMillan (???) called it the last bastion of free speech. Soundbites and channel surfing rule and with all the changes to the way UK universities operate, I don't think there's much general interest these days in the opinions of members of the University of Oxford.

It is a sign of maturity in a child when they can think for them selves and have views and attitudes that are different from their parents and discuss them rationally. And it is a sign of maturity in their parents if they can respect these different views even if the child is still of school age and discuss them with them in a rational manner.

One of the biggest causes of discord in my home as a child was that I thought differently to my parents and they were always dismissive of my views, their favourite phrase was 'You will think differently when you grow up' - I didn't, so my mother became convinced that I was likely to be easily persuaded by any passing fad. (didn't she know me?) and was always warning me of the dangers of Scientology, communism and any other 'ology' or 'ism' that she read about and was worried by.

The only, fairly unique problem with Oxford Union is that it has a much higher volume of people who go on to be leaders.

rosequartz. Soutra lifted one of my posts to you from another thread. She is talking about my typo.

If our leaders come from a bunch of people who believe in (i.e. support, stand up for) free speech, how is that a bad thing?

This is a good article.

Taking it to its extreme. Many leaders who are holocaust deniers?

If they had a talk from HSBC. Many leaders who love tax avoidance?
[perhaps this has already happened]

Yes I know that tax avoidance is not illegal.

My husband loves history.
He says that we can learn form history.
When I ask him what aspects, he says that we can learn how not to make the same mistakes again.

Well yes. All very well. But if our leaders dont do this, it does not matter that he, my husband, sitting at the kitchen table, has learnt what mistakes not to do from history. It matters not one jot.

If the leaders have never heard any of the arguments for bad philosophies - and debated them so that they think up and hear from others the arguments against them - they will not have the background to resist them later. That is also what those of us mean who say that we want children to be exposed to other opinions than those they are accustomed to hearing, just as we want them to have friends of different races and sexes.

The Oxford Union where Marine le Pen was talking is not a Students Union mainly for social things. It is a separate debating society, where students and invitedt guests speak for and against a subject. That way things are aired and discussed and points made against as well as for.

It is just a pity that they did not open up this meeting as a debate and have speakers against her as well - that would have given the opposite views as well. Perhaps they did not want it to disintegrate into a brawl?

"Learning from history" also includes learning what other people think, and rejecting their conclusions if we don't like them. We don't want our leaders (or anyone else) to be ignorant of what is going on in the minds and planning ofother nationalities, do we?

Elegran. You assume that future leaders, having heard all ideas, reject say holocaust denier ideas. Some wont.
You assume that they will all reject IS. Some wont.

Sometimes the conclusions are not rejected.

In some cases, ignorance is indeed bliss.

I take the point though that information is everywhere.

Thank you all again- food for thought. The OP was not a statement, but a question- to be discussed, so that it all good.

Why Bags? As said, many people do have views, opnions, political or otherwise- and they are totally free to speak their mind. Does not mean I'd want to necessarily give them a platform- they can find their own. But I see what you mean- and agree to some extent.

France is riddled with deep rooted racism, and the recent events have exarcebated this in a terrible fashion- the whole country is on tender hooks and divided on how to proceed. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and more generation immigrants of North African origin are still treated like 3rd class cititzens- and in the South, often by 2nd,3rd and 4th generation immigrants whose family originally came from Italy or Spain. So the timing was particularly poor, I feel. Perhaps those who have not lived in France may find this difficult to understand. Marine's ideas and opinions are just like her father's- she is just much better at presentation and marketing.

And I have already said that the Lepen speaker may be short of the line.

granjura - I agree that France is much more openly "racist" than the UK.
Apart from all the trouble with the Arab immigrants (which to some extent France brought on herself with her colonial policies), there are very strong feelings of nationalism - France for the French - especially in rural areas. Land ownership is cherished, millions of farmers have their own few hectares, and often outsiders aren't welcome and are made to know it. I think this is where the FN get a lot of their support.

Tricia I think the French are far more openly political as well. Having strong connections with France (my daughter lived there for years and I spent many a summer holiday working there) i found them very ready to discuss all things political. Indeed, after their health, it seemed to be their favourite topic. And yes, they take a great pride in their own country.

There are many ways of taking pride in your own country without being racist though- especially when it comes to 3rd, 4th... generation immigrants.