John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?.

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.

X post

Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

I think it could be construed as hate speech so, no, because that is unlawful.

Callistemon21

^Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?^

If students at Cambridge don't understand mockery, parody and irony and thought AGD was spouting fascist propaganda then society is on the way to becoming doomed!

Not really an answer is it?
I find it fascinating that a straight answer can't be given by any of those who profess to be about free speech.

But if we are going back to AGD I don't think any of the students thought any such thing they simply thought his statements were offensive, using Hitler in a discussion about good taste was inappropriate and his references to the deaths in the holocaust was unnecessary. Given his lack of sensitivity and the fact that many had complained about it he was no-platformed. That has since been rescinded. Mockery, parody and irony are fine when they are done well. Unfortunately AGD is really bad at it.

Andrew Graham Dixon is great and it is a loss for any university if they don’t take advantage of his knowledge and expertise.

Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

If students at Cambridge don't understand mockery, parody and irony and thought AGD was spouting fascist propaganda then society is on the way to becoming doomed!

Callistemon21

^You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to^.

Who is saying you can?
That remark is risible.

But if they are not given the choice, the opportunity, because someone else decides it is unsuitable, how will they ever learn to judge for themselves, debate in a reasonable fashion?

If those who want to listen to a range of lawful views are prevented from doing so because of no-platforming or even intimidation then that is a very dangerous path to do down.

Have you any evidence of intimidation or indeed of no-platforming being some sort of imposed process?
Students are at a University for 5-7 years at the most, the majority for 3. Student Union officers stand for election every year and a democratic process is involved. How on earth given those factors could anyone impose anything successfully?
You simply refuse to give students the right to decide who speaks in their space.
But the question remains how far would you take this imposition of a government's rules.
Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

go down

You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to.

Who is saying you can?
That remark is risible.

But if they are not given the choice, the opportunity, because someone else decides it is unsuitable, how will they ever learn to judge for themselves, debate in a reasonable fashion?

If those who want to listen to a range of lawful views are prevented from doing so because of no-platforming or even intimidation then that is a very dangerous path to do down.

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. 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.
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?

Zoejory That's an interesting question. It could be that in future students unions could become more right wing and the government more left. Would I then think that Labour speakers must be permitted well no I wouldn't. It would still be the right of the elected student body to choose the speakers.
But historically no-platforming has been used to deny Conservative MPs permission to speak at SUs
It's very silly anyway
You see you can claim that legislation is in the interests of free speech (which it isn't) but you can legislate all you want. You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to.

Callistemon21

^they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree^

Now, where and who does that remind me of?
Propaganda and indoctrination of the youth, who were not given the opportunity to question and debate other issues than those decreed suitable.

Hmmmm........no give me a clue. First thought was the Hitler youth, but I discarded that because we all know how far removed today's youth are.... dictatorships are definitely not for them....

Yes, Callistemon, and lists of undesirables, whose ideas don't fit the dominant ideology.

they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree

Now, where and who does that remind me of?
Propaganda and indoctrination of the youth, who were not given the opportunity to question and debate other issues than those decreed suitable.

He was elected to represent the students at Cambridge University Glorianny, so what on earth made him think he had the right to tell other universities to not allow Dixon to speak?

Furthermore, if he received more complaints about Dixon than any other speaker, why was Dixon able to speak at a later date at Cambridge, which proceeded to go well?

It is actually a action which never happened so the whole thread is misapprehension.

No, I think you're wrong there. Most posters have understood what happened and responded to that. There is no misapprehension on our part, unless I have missed something.

The head of the Cambridge Union, Keir Bradwell, did not like the content of the speech of AG-D. He emailed the rest of the union members to tell them that he had decided to no-platform AG-D, and said that We will create a blacklist of speakers never to be invited back, and we will share it with other unions too. Andrew will be on that list, ( Source the BBC ). That action happened. The fact that Bradwell revoked his statement does not alter the fact that the action happened.

This thread is about whether students 'are delicate little flowers who don't like their equilibrium unsettled'. My view, and that of others, is that they should be exposed to a variety of viewpoints (within the law) and that they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree.

No it's an abuse of power because a government is imposing its views on a democratic organisation. The fact that you agree with those views should be irrelevant.

So if Labour are in power only right wing speakers are allowed?

What ulterior universe is this?

Chewbacca look at the history of No platforming it has mainly been used against the right wing and yes some Tory MPs.

Callistemon21

^It's an abuse of power^
Um, what am I missing?

Surely this is ensuring freedom of speech whereas the Student Union are the ones abusing their power, ensuring those with whom they disagree are given no chance to present their views and stifling debate.

The SU is acting in an undemocratic and dictatorial way.
It's frightening that these people could be the leaders of the future.

No it's an abuse of power because a government is imposing its views on a democratic organisation. The fact that you agree with those views should be irrelevant.

Chewbacca perhaps you would like to explain why it is Ok for a government to interfere in decisions made by a democratic student organisation? If a socialist organisation refused to allow a fascist to speak would that be acceptable or should it be regulated as well?