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

What are your particular concerns about Lepen speaking in Oxford granjura?

I thought that would have come through in my comments- re racism in France re people of North African origin, the old Maghreb colonies- most of them of course, French for generations- but still not accepted. It is a two way thing- many French will tell you that it is because they do not integrate- but it is very hard to integrate when you grow up in awful ghetto communities on the edge of towns, with poor education- and then, even for those that do succeed and do well, find it impossible to find jobs, flats, a loan to start a business, etc, etc, etc. When I have time I'll tell you about a young French woman who stayed with us for a year in the UK- and her family's experiences- it it very very difficult for them in FRance, even with a Uni Degree and good qualifications (which few obtain due to the above conditions).

Marine is a woolf very well hidden in sheep's clothing- which has allowed her a great following. She knows how to market herself and her ideas, and it makes her so much more dangerous for it. At least with her father, you knew where you stood.

Not sure about the answer to the question in the OP. As you said soontobe, she is probably on this side of that line. France has awful problems with racism- and her large following, especially in rural areas- is concerning. Hence my original question.

But I am not sure how that relates to the UK.
You think she has a larger agenda than France?

Perhaps I am asking a daft question?

Sorry, not sure what you are saying. It relates to the UK as she was given a platform for her ideas at the Oxford Union.

According to this link, she spoke last thursday with no journalists allowed. And spoke the entire time in french.

www.globalresearch.ca/french-national-front-leader-marine-le-pen-addresses-oxford-union/5430116

I would have thought that her impact would have been limited.

jura, not wanting someone with whose views one disagrees to have a 'platform' (i.e. denying them the right to speak publicy) is tantamount to saying that you do not believe in free speech.

There was a demonstration in London recently, of mainly Muslims, objecting to Charlie Hebdo — the opposite of the large demo in France after the killings at that magazine office. I do not agree with what the London demonstrators were saying. I'd really rather they didn't say it. But I'm glad they are able to express their views in the UK.

This (my disagreement) applies to quite a lot of the more extreme views, at both ends of the political spectrum, expressed in Britain, but I just have to put up with that because I live in a democracy where freedom of speech is allowed.

Again thanks- perhaps leave it at that. Organising a series of lectures for older people here (Univ 3rd Age)- I am very aware that with only so many meetings per year- who one invites, or not- is a dilemma. Perhaps that is where we might agree to disagree- free speech is paramount, but giving a platform to do so is perhaps a step too far from me. If extremists want a platform, they can find their own ;)

Thanks all.

Free speech goes all the way. Nothing barred.

Free speech doesn't go all the way. Some things are barred (those laws I mentioned earlier), such as threats, or incitement to violence.

But you do know some people do those things afterwards [threats or violence], as a result partly because of speeches?
[and out sight of the law?]
It all adds up.
This is to thatbags, not granjura.

thatbags - thanks for your persistence

Then people need to be educated (at school, at home) to think about the things they hear, and not follow like sheep.

That is what education should be about, how to learn and think, not how to just memorise stuff and repeat it.

There have alwasy been a huge number of sheep.
It has more to do with not wanting to stand out from the crowd, than education.

Free speech has clear boundaries in the UK - if it goes as far as incitement of hatred crime, it's not allowed. It doesn't go all the way soon.

Sorry, bags I skim-read and have just seen that you already said that

If a sheep (real woolly sort) sees a wolf, it is scared and runs off, and the rest of the flock follow it. It has an innate knowledge of what wolves do. So even as a sheep it has more sense than some humans.

People don't seem to be born with that instinct. They need to learn it or be taught it. Keeping the human wolves out of sight only keeps the naive humans safe until one of the wolves sneaks out. Tying a blindfold round a sheep so that it doesn't see the predator doesn't stop it getting eaten.

Learning how to recognise one before it bites them (or bites someone else because no-one noticed it creeping up) means that the human wolves can be stopped in their tracks.

Time to post yet again the poem by Martin Niemoller -

" First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. "

If we close our eyes and ears, and cover up everyone else's, how do we know that "they" are going to be coming for anyone?

human wolves can be stopped in their tracks

Wars down through the ages.
IS
Nazis etc ad infinitum?

And what about the non sheep?
It is those who join IS for example.
Who have listened to speeches etc.
And may not have joined etc if those speeches had not happened.

And you think they will be stopped in the tracks by ignoring their existence until they have control of the world?

Speeches promoting the things that the wolves are against. Publicising the good side of "the West" or whatever they think is oppressing them. Outnumber them. Outgood them.

"For evil to flourish it is necessary only that good men do nothing".

I must leave the computer now and do something more useful.

No to your question.

But I dont understand what that question has to do with this thread

Nor you next post. I dont understand that one either.

I was asking if you think that wolves (animal or human) can be stopped from preying on sheep by preventing the sheep (animal or human) from seeing them?

I was saying that it would be better to teach the sheep (perhaps just the human ones, animal sheep are not all that good at learning new things) to look carefully at what they are being told, and to judge whether it is good or bad by comparing it to their own experience and to what they know, rather than keeping any sight of the wolves from them. and hoping that they will not noice them and pay attention to their propaganda.

To counter the bad propaganda, good propaganda is needed, to encourage the attitudes and actions that will form a barrier against ones that cause intolerance and wars and terrorism.

I am afraid I cannot explain what I mean any more simply than that. If you still don't understand, I must leave you with your pre-conceptions.

Of course you have to let her speak. We all need to know what the current thinking is in other European countries, and her views are endorsed by many in France.

Know your enemy?