Nick Griffin and David Irving at the Oxford Union

           

            Two figures that have always been at the centre of controversy, David Irving and Nick Griffin were invited to speak in a debate at Oxford Union. David Irving has caused mass controversy by publicly denying the Holocaust, going as far to plead guilty in a court in Austria to being a Holocaust denier. Whilst Nick Griffin is the leader of the British National Party, which has previously being accused of being too nationalist and inciting racial hatred. The current issue concerns a debate including the two men that took place at Oxford Union on Freedom of Speech, not the Holocaust or the BNP.

            To discuss whether or not Griffin and Irving had the right to publicly speak at the debate, we must put the situation into context. While it is hard to forget the views held by Griffin and Irving, would there have been an issue if we did not know their opinions? Had the two simply been a historian and an MP, would we have allowed them to speak with no questions asked? It seems hard to give a justified reason as to why we would not allow them to speak, were they ordinary people. Why then, does a separate view they both hold cause such controversy in speaking about Freedom of Speech? They are not after all, speaking about the BNP or the Holocaust. There seems little justification for preventing them from speaking in a debate about free speech. Put simply, why shouldn’t they speak?

            To bring in Mill’s Harm Principle, the topic of Freedom of Speech can bring about no harm whatsoever. We must remember that the Harm Principle states that if an opinion incites violence or will cause physical harm to another person, that opinion/expression of thought should be suppressed. To speak of free speech cannot bring about harm in either of these ways. So according to Mill, we have no grounds to prevent Griffin and Irving from taking part in the debate.

            The second part of the discussion asks, had the men in question been speaking about their ‘field of interest’, would the issue be significantly different? Many people hold the view that Nick Griffin and David Irving are very controversial and offensive men. Many also believe as a result of their personal opinions (concerning the BNP and the denial of the Holocaust) their right to speak freely should be removed. So it would appear that modern man thinks that offence is enough to suppress an opinion.

            However, Mills Harm Principle states that mere offence is not enough to stop someone freely speaking. Mill would say even if it was a debate on their ‘field of interest’, they still have a right to speak. This would be true as long as they did not incite violence in any way. It is questionable whether the (possible) racial hatred stemming from the BNP’s policies would fall under the Harm Principle or not. It depends how far Griffin went in his nationalist campaign.

            To develop this point we can discuss whether or not the circumstances would be different if the Harm Principle were ‘updated’ in a way. If psychological harm was added to the Harm Principle, then Griffin and Irving may be justifiably silenced in speaking about their views (all according to Mill and the newly developed Harm Principle). The BNP may be psychologically damaging for ethnic minorities by any racist comments that may be spoken by Nick Griffin. Therefore in this updated Harm Principle, Griffin should be silenced. Denying the Holocaust may be deeply scarring for those affected by the Holocaust (victims/survivors or people who lost loved ones etc). It may lead to traumatic memories being brought back by publicly denying the event altogether, if this link could be proved, the newer version of Mills Harm Principle would be justification for suppressing the view of David Irving.

            The key issue that seems to arise from this discussion is the idea that if we stop a debate on Freedom of Speech, surely there is no longer a need to debate it? If we prevent/protest against a debate on Freedom of Speech, the logical conclusion seems to be that we don’t believe in Freedom of Speech. Either this or the ability to speak freely is very subjective, and all other outside views you may hold can be the deciding factor in whether or not you can debate a completely different topic. Mill advocates Freedom of Speech in his essay On Liberty, unless it is inciting violence (which it wasn’t in this case). The protestors obviously disagree, seen as apparently Freedom of Speech cannot be freely debated!