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

That is so true soontobe. We live our daily lives with one foot (or 3) in 3 countries. The legal, education, governement and election, health, social, etc, etc, etc- are so totally different- despite sharing a lot of our history and culture. The most difficult is not to adapt yourself, we both find it easy and actually, fascinating- but how each country will refuse to even begin to compare and to see that some things are done better (or very differently- which is not necessarily better)- and will just stick to their guns, come what may.

I have just come back to this and think Elegran has pretty much said all I wanted to say, but I would like to pick up Soontobe on her question regarding our grown up children. The clue is in the question, they are grown up, what we used to laughingly call (in pre PC days) " free, white and over 21". I would no more set myself up as their moral guardian today than I would to any other adult.
If the law does not have the legs to do what you want it to do, by all means act to change it, but we have a precious freedom of choice as well as of speech in our country and I (so far) have confidence in that.

It depends which seem to be wrong.

If careful consideration shows that the laws in this new country to which you have emigrated are unfair, and you can't live with them, then campaign to get them changed. (Same applies for laws in this country which don't seem right)

If the same careful thought shows that the laws are fine,and it is your expectations that are unreasonable, then abide by them and keep schtumm.

In other words, use your brain and heart.

Mine certainly have roots and wings.

Do you mean work to get the laws changed. Or work to get your thoughts to change?

I said that they differed from each other, not that they all had different views from me. Each of them shares some of my attitudes and opinions, and has some which are different. In some things they are better than me! None of them has a philosophy that I find abhorrent, all are reasoning and caring human beings. I cannot imagine my grandchildren being other than reasoning and caring human beings either.

I am noit arrogant enough to believe that my views are the only valid ones.

If you emigrate, you can take your thoughts and opinions with you, but you act accordingly to their laws. If you don't like the laws, and don't want to end up in jail, you work to get them changed.

If my children were carbon copies of me, I would be flattered that they considered I was worth copying, but a bit worried that they were not using their own judgment.

"There are two things we should give our children: one is roots and the other is wings."

Elegran. Your kids have different views to you. But if they are very different to you, chances are that their children may go even further.

My kids have grown up thoughts.

They just have the same thoughts as me!

And it is different in different countries.
So if you emigrate, your thoughts and decisions are going to have to change!

thatbags. You set a lot of store by the law.
But we all know that the law can get things wrong. Plus the law is never constant.

Actually, if newly grown-up children are still having their opinions being directed by a parent/guru, they never become adult themselves, and when they no longer have a parent to make their decisions, that is when they are blown about by the wind of someone else's strong convictions, because they are acustomed to being followers of someone else's decisions.

How about drawing the line where the law draws the line, jura? Is Marine Le Pen a criminal? If she is, presumably she can be charged with her crime and brought to account. Until then, she's as free as you or me to speak what she thinks. We have the choice to agree or not.

Freedom is about wanting for everyone else (that's everyone) the same as what you want for yourself, only limited by criminality.

soon, what elegran said re my grown up kids. The clue is in "grown up". If I had somehow prevented them from being able to think critically for themselves, I'd be ashamed of myself. They can think for themselves and they do. I'm not ashamed of them, nor of myself.

My children are now grown-up. They each have different political and religious views, but none of them has espoused any that I would say are extreme, or which would deprive anyone else of using their commonsense and empathy to work out for themselves what is the better way to act personally or to run a country.

If we had kept from them the things we did not want them to follow, they would have come as a thrilling way to be different when they reached that rebel age that they all go through. Having been aware of the less desirable policies/dogma and the weaknesses of them, they were better able to avoid being taken in by them.

That is true Grannyknot.

I am with granjura in where the line is.

My daughter has a friend. A more conservative person you could not find - she's so together, she frightens me. Successful businesswoman from a young age. I was completely surprised to learn from her recently that her mother is a "washed up hippy" - her words not mine.

I'm all for protecting children, but I think sometimes people learn from experiences how not to be.

Thanks all. First for correcting me about the Oxford Union. And then for your views. Yes, free speech is important- but where do you draw the line?
Would they invite the EDL to speak, or Abu Hamza? I suppose Marine is just before that line- so fair enough.

Elegran I agree it is best for our growing children to be exposed to all sorts of views, and come to their own conclusions- even if we don't always like the result. Soontobe, in a modern world, with tv and the internet + traveling- we just can't shield our children anyhow, can we?

Thank you for your comments.

Do you think that they are safe? For 100% sure?

Or do you not mind how far they go if they get it wrong?

Sometimes they then choose the wrong route Elegran.

And if they werent exposed to it, might not have done it.

I never wanted my children to go where the wind blows, soontobe I wanted them to look with open eyes at the different views and use their intelligence and compassion to choose the better course.

They don't do that by ignoring what you don't want them to hear - that way they are more likely to be swayed by rhetoric, because they don't know that they are being manipulated.

This is not the Oxford Student Union, it is the Oxford Union - a separate debating society. You can't debate things unless you know what the other side is saying. Hearing them at first hand brings out their philosophy and exposes it to disagreement and criticism.

From https://www.oxford-union.org/about_us

"At the Cutting Edge of Controversy

Unlike other student unions, the Oxford Union holds no political views. Instead, the Union is a forum for debate and the discussion of controversial issues. For example; in the 1960s, Malcolm X came to the Union and demanded black empowerment "by any means necessary". In the 1970s, Richard Nixon in his first public speech after Watergate admitted, "I screwed up - and I paid the price. In the 1980s, Gerry Adams, still under his television ban, addressed the Union's members. In Michaelmas 1996, O. J. Simpson made his only public speech in Britain after the controversial "not guilty" verdict in his criminal trial. The Oxford Union believes first and foremost in freedom of speech: nothing more, nothing less.

The Oxford Union has been at the centre of controversial debate throughout its history. As the most prominent debating platform outside Westminster it is no surprise debates have been unrivalled in their quality and impact. One of the most famous motions, "This House will under no circumstances fight for King and Country", was passed in 1933 by 275 votes to 153. The result sparked off a national outcry in the press, and Winston Churchill denounced it as "that abject, squalid, shameless avowal" and "this ever shameful motion"; some say that the result encouraged Hitler in his decision to invade Europe. In 1975, days before the referendum on EEC membership, the motion "This House would say 'Yes' to Europe" was carried by 493 votes to 92. This debate was arguably a considerable influence on the referendum result.

In the words of Michael Heseltine, the Union has "managed to absorb the greatest diversity, the wildest firebrands, the most outspoken and non-conformist people." Diversity and outspokeness, central to the Union's foundation, remain its guiding principles to this day."

I find it strange that when we bring up children, we teach them to know and learn when to not speak, manners, hopefully good behaviour.
But as a society, a lot of people are happy to let their adult children be exposed to anything and everything.

To me, I have the same set of hopes and expectations and dreams for them, from birth to grave.

I think that it is vital, in this day and age, to watch over them.

People can be very persuasive.

Can I ask thatbags, absent, petallus and Soutra, are you happy for your children and grandchildren and others to go where the wind blows?
And presumably however far? Perhaps they do already?

I believe Oswald Mosley did speak at the Oxford Union, but even if not there have been no end of controversial speakers and motions proposed. Freedom of speech.

Did they have the nazis speak?

This freedom of speech allows and encourages and stokes up everything.

She did speak (on the 5th Feb) and said that it was clear that the “first of all our freedoms, security, is now threatened by Islamist terrorism”.

Her speech was delayed for an hour by about 300 demonstrators.

One student said she was disgusted that Le Pen could “now go back to France and say she has been invited to speak at Oxford University. That is the kind of legitimacy that is allowing her and her abhorrent party to become acceptable.”

Another said: “I completely disagree with basically everything Marine Le Pen says. But freedom of speech and expression is essential in a democracy.”

Union officials have faced criticism for inviting Ms Le Pen to speak uninterrupted for five minutes, rather than insisting on a more traditional debate format where an opponent would have also been heard.

A statement released by Oxford Union, which describes itself as the world's most famous debating society, reads: 'This . . . continues the Oxford Union’s tradition of balancing information, education and entertainment.

'The Oxford Union is a politically-neutral institution. Our members have a variety of views as do our views as do our speakers, officers and staff.

'An invitation from the union is not an endorsement of any particular agenda.

'The union believes in the principle of freedom of speech and we would encourage all members who disagree with an invited speakers’ view to attend the event and question the speaker.

'We allow our members to meet people face-to-face and make up their own minds.

She should definitely be allowed to speak

All this suppression of free speech and censorship is worrying.

I would be more disgusted if she were not allowed to speak, however reprehensible I consider her views.