John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

X post

his references to the deaths in the holocaust was unnecessary.

Can somebody somewhere, don't mind who, please copy a link to the references AGD made to deaths in the Holocaust?

Because as often as I've watched this, I've yet to see the bit where he does that. Its almost like people are inventing things to complain about when they didn't really happen,

Surely not.

volver

^his references to the deaths in the holocaust was unnecessary.^

Can somebody somewhere, don't mind who, please copy a link to the references AGD made to deaths in the Holocaust?

Because as often as I've watched this, I've yet to see the bit where he does that. Its almost like people are inventing things to complain about when they didn't really happen,

Surely not.

"the art of Jews and Negros, We must expunge this from our Deutschland. We are the pure Aryan people"

If you are of Jewish heritage what else can expunging and pure Aryan refer to.
I appreciate he doesn't use the words holocaust but "Jews', "expunging" and "pure Aryan" in a few sentences what the hell else is he talking about.
Oh I forgot he's discussing good taste and bad taste isn't he. So that's why Hitler killed so many it was just bad taste.
Even AGD admits he got it wrong. Why try to defend the indefensible?.

I get called a loony lefty, woke, always looking for offence, snowflake, all manner of things on this site. (Not a complaint, I can take it )

But honest to god, there really are people who are intent on seeing offence everywhere and try to find hate in everything that isn't fluffy bunnies and marshmallows.

Sorry if this is seen as personal, but you clearly didn't understand the debate, either what was happening in Cambridge or what's been said here. I'll just flounce off now.

I do understand the debate but I also appreciate that for some people references to the Jews and expunging is too close to comfort for them. If you don't appreciate that your politics don't really matter. But you might want to explain to me why even AGD thinks he was wrong. I think he thought he was going to go into Cambridge and prove what a funny clever fellow he was. It didn't work.
It is possible to imitate Hitler and be funny AGD wasn't, as for bringing such things into a discussion about taste I think he thought he was dealing with the History Boys. Alan Bennett knows what he's doing AGD plainly doesn't.

But you might want to explain to me why even AGD thinks he was wrong.

Somebody explained it above. Maybe you didn't understand that either. He may have apologised because he is scared of the backlash. I very much doubt he thought he was wrong and I'm sorry he apologised.

He wasn't trying to be funny. How many times....??‍♀️

I don't know how many times it has to be said, or how else to phrase it so that you understand.

So what you are basically saying is young people can't decide for themselves who speaks to them they have to have anyone who chooses to ask.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that young (or middle aged, or old) people should be able to decide for themselves, without the likes of Keir Bradwell deciding to no-platform people who he doesn't like.

Firstly it's plainly ridiculous because unions will only choose people their students want to hear. Should they choose someone unpopular or with views the students don't want to hear they will simply not turn up, or they will use the old way of no-platforming and demonstrate and vociferously prevent the speaker from either speaking or gaining access to the union.
Ah! Now we're talking. That is exactly as it should work. Which is what many of us are saying.

It's interesting that none of you who choose to believe student unions should be regulated by law will answer my question should a socialist society have to listen to a fascist?
I don't think anyone is saying that the SU should be regulated by law any more than is already the case. But as you have already admitted, if members of a Socialist Society don't want to listen to a fascist, they don't have to attend. They also have the option to question the speaker on the basis for their views. Or to heckle. Or to boo. As we have been saying all along, the point is that other people should not decide for them that they should not have the opportunity to hear views opposed to their own.

Does that answer your question? I thought it had been answered several times, but if that is not a full enough answer, please let me know and I'll have another go.

volver

^But you might want to explain to me why even AGD thinks he was wrong.^

Somebody explained it above. Maybe you didn't understand that either. He may have apologised because he is scared of the backlash. I very much doubt he thought he was wrong and I'm sorry he apologised.

He wasn't trying to be funny. How many times....??‍♀️

Ooh poor AGD of course he is. How many books has he written? How many TV programmes has he made. He was wrong. He knows it. If you can't see it, it's your problem.

Oh I think he was trying to be funny. You might call it parody but parody is meant to be comic. He failed.

As I said why continue to support something which even the speaker has repudiated? Simply because one student over reacted and then apologised? Really?

Doodledog one of the reasons Universities accepted no platforming was because it relieved them of the huge costs of supervising and protecting speakers students didn't want on site. Security is already a huge issue and expense, is it really acceptable to say that students must revert to demonstrating in this day and age? I expect next time it happens there will be lots of posts on GN about unruly students refusing to listen and frightening some unacceptable speaker

And of course you are absolutely right about a socialist society as I said before you can't force anyone to listen.

Doodledog one of the reasons Universities accepted no platforming was because it relieved them of the huge costs of supervising and protecting speakers students didn't want on site.
Really? What makes you think that? If you can point to anything to back up that assertion, I would be interested to see it, please.

Posted too soon - your statement about it being 'universities' who have accepted no-platforming seems at odds with your earlier claim that the SU is a separate entity which should not be confused with the universities themselves.

Oh, and can you please explain why you think that some students (eg KB) have the right to decide on behalf of others who should speak?

As I said why continue to support something which even the speaker has repudiated? Simply because one student over reacted and then apologised? Really?

No, because I have thought about it and have my own view of it. I'm not relying on somebody telling me that AGD was trying to be funny, I've watched it, and he wasn't. If you think he was, you're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

Here's something intellectual Galileo had to repudiate what he said about the sun being at the centre of the solar system, and the planets moving around it. He had to say he was wrong. And yet, they move. Sometimes its better to just agree with the people who shout loudest, even if they have got it completely wrong.

volver

^As I said why continue to support something which even the speaker has repudiated? Simply because one student over reacted and then apologised? Really?^

No, because I have thought about it and have my own view of it. I'm not relying on somebody telling me that AGD was trying to be funny, I've watched it, and he wasn't. If you think he was, you're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

Here's something intellectual Galileo had to repudiate what he said about the sun being at the centre of the solar system, and the planets moving around it. He had to say he was wrong. And yet, they move. Sometimes its better to just agree with the people who shout loudest, even if they have got it completely wrong.

Oh really volver resorting to Galileo when the Catholic church was all powerful. I shall have to check has the Cambridge Union condemned anyone, excommunicated them or threatened them with eternal damnation?

Is this what purgatory's like?

Or that hill that Sisyphus was on?

Doodledog

Posted too soon - your statement about it being 'universities' who have accepted no-platforming seems at odds with your earlier claim that the SU is a separate entity which should not be confused with the universities themselves.

Oh, and can you please explain why you think that some students (eg KB) have the right to decide on behalf of others who should speak?

Under the 1986 Act, if it is thought likely that a meeting may be controversial then it becomes a designated event, and as a consequence subject to additional costs and organisational requirements to ensure that a university fulfils its obligations.
wonkhe.com/blogs/freedom-to-speak-or-freedom-from-harm-the-history-of-no-platform/
The SU is of course an independent organisation but many of their premises are on University sites, which necessarily involves the University in the safety of speakers .Some SU buildings are the property of the University and leased by the Union.

KB was the elected President of the Union. He was messaged by his electorate with complaints about AGD. He acted on those complaints. Should he have ignored them? You can argue that he should have taken longer to decide but Union officials only serve for a year anyway.

volver of course you are entitled to your own view of AGD's speech. But you seem determined to find anyone else's view at fault. Even the speakers. It seems to smack of desperation to me.
Purgatory is of course only a place where you can reflect and repent your wrongdoing as your sins are expunged.

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

No but you seem determined to ignore anyone else and belittle them with references to irrelevant classical or religious concepts. Quite why I have no idea. I realise I don't agree with the majority.
I don't see government interference in any way as a good thing
I regard no-platforming as the right of a democratic organisation (and impossible to prevent anyway)
And I think AGD was in this case a bit of a prat and didn't consider the consequences. (something I think he'd probably agree with)
You are quite entitled to your views it is just a pity you can't acknowledge I am entitled to mine, but insist that I must be wrong.

No volver; it's not you. It's like trying to drive a nail into a brick wall, so I just gave up. Perhaps I should just have flounced too.

Having an opinion isn't the same as being correct.

But we'll save that philosophical discussion for another day.

KB was the elected President of the Union. He was messaged by his electorate with complaints about AGD. He acted on those complaints. Should he have ignored them? You can argue that he should have taken longer to decide but Union officials only serve for a year anyway.

I think there are a lot of unknowns here (unless you have insider information?). If all of KB's members attended the meeting, and if all of them complained, then he may well be mandated to take action (unless there is anything in the terms of reference to suggest otherwise). If, OTOH, the meeting was attended by a small percentage of the membership, and a small percentage of them complained, then it's a different matter. Regardless, his decision to create a blacklist of people he doesn't like and circulate it to other unions seems to exceed his authority as a representative of one union in one university.

In any case, the main topic of thread is not about the minutiae of the aftermath of this meeting, but about the principle on which some people decide on what and whom others can hear, and whether students need this protection because of their delicate constitutions, and I would be interested to know your opinion on whether that should be the case, and if so, on what ground these people should be chosen? For avoidance of doubt, I am not asking who should decide which speakers to invite, but about who should decide if and when people should be banned from speaking, even if others would be interested to hear them.

volver

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

No.

We're all listening to you, Glorianny but putting our views, which may not necessarily be the same as yours, in a polite way. As you are yours.

We havent no-platformed you or ignored you because we're all adults and prepared to listen and debate salient points.

I think that Cambridge Union President and officials could learn a few tips from Gransnetters.

Well perhaps as happens in most democratic organisations the elected officials?
As said it is well nigh impossible to allege there is some sort of organised action going on because Union officials are elected yearly and students last at the most 7 years. It might be more appropriate to ask when it is almost 50years since no-platforming started why has it suddenly become an issue?

Callistemon21

We're all listening to you, Glorianny but putting our views, which may not necessarily be the same as yours, in a polite way. As you are yours.

We havent no-platformed you or ignored you because we're all adults and prepared to listen and debate salient points.

I think that Cambridge Union President and officials could learn a few tips from Gransnetters.

If you took a vote and asked me to leave because you found my views offensive I would have no objection at all and leave the thread. Why would you imagine otherwise? If I believe in no-platforming for democratic organisations why wouldn't I?
I think though you are confusing an open forum with a private democratic organisation.