No Platform Policy

[the dark deshrimper]

My Uni union is currently debating whether or not to renew its ' No Platform Policy' and just wondered what other people's views were on the topic

A quick wiki search will fill in any gaps for those who haven't heard of it before, but basically it is a piece of legislation that prevents extremist groups (BNP/National Front etc) from being allowed to speak in university unions/debate halls etc.

Now whilst i am a fierce advocate of free speech, i am finding myself swaying towards the side of voting for this new policy, simply due to the fact i feel groups like the BNP keep raising the same monotonous argument, which is defeated time and time again by simple humanity and common sense. Moreover, i feel that by allowing these sorts of groups a mass stage, we are contributing towards legitimising what they stand for (especially when they come to speak in some of the bigger unions in the country).

Whilst detsroying their arguments is always fun, i feel too many (from my experience) use their opportunity to scare-monger and preach race hate (tactics that work much better in The Sun). These sort of incidents in my opinion have no place in university unions, which should be constructed for reasoned and flavoured debate; not a place where extremist groups and come and play themselves like a broken record to an audience who is inteligent enough to dismiss their views time and time again.

The main issue at the moment in opposition to this policy is that some people believe by banning these groups, the uni will be "sweeping under the carpet" the issues that these groups bring forward. Now i would counter this by saying that is in fact untrue, since many unions still continue to have debates on immigration/globalistaion/cultural identity etc, but in an atnosphere that is not charged with racial and radical prejudice.

I just wondered if any other students or others have encountered this type of policy before and if so what they think of it

 

[SARF]

Who decides whats an 'extremist' group or not.. Who judges the judges?

 

[the dark deshrimper]

Im not sure, but i believe if a group raises concerns, then all union members have the right to vote whether or not they want that particular speaker to be allowed to come or not. EIther that or an elected gorup from the union (chosen by members) vote i believe.

 

[A Century United]

Denying legal political parties a platform, however unpallatable their views, is a denial of free speech and that should be the only arguement - the first steps towards intolerance are often taken by those who regard themselves as tolerant, denying the right to state their point of view to those they regard as intolerant.

Also, if you stop people airing their arguements you risk driving them towards less democratic methods of expressing their opinions. I have no time for the BNP or their policies, but in this society they have a democratic right to state those policies.

 

[Hector of the House]

Surely allowing a platform in the first place is the whole point of a debate. If you take that platform away in favor of dismissing a arguement, however vulgar, then surely that is taking away democracy and free speech. Would you be so in favor of this if for example Greenpeace were denied a platform or perhaps Oxfam, The ANC, Free Tibet or any other group who wishes to debate? If you take away the platform then you have no debate and that just forces extremism underground which makes all the more dangerous.

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

M Voltaire is spinning in his grave. Bloody students.

 

[Hotman]

My Uni union is currently debating whether or not to renew its ' No Platform Policy' and just wondered what other people's views were on the topic

A quick wiki search will fill in any gaps for those who haven't heard of it before, but basically it is a piece of legislation that prevents extremist groups (BNP/National Front etc) from being allowed to speak in university unions/debate halls etc.

Now whilst i am a fierce advocate of free speech, i am finding myself swaying towards the side of voting for this new policy, simply due to the fact i feel groups like the BNP keep raising the same monotonous argument, which is defeated time and time again by simple humanity and common sense. Moreover, i feel that by allowing these sorts of groups a mass stage, we are contributing towards legitimising what they stand for (especially when they come to speak in some of the bigger unions in the country).

Whilst detsroying their arguments is always fun, i feel too many (from my experience) use their opportunity to scare-monger and preach race hate (tactics that work much better in The Sun). These sort of incidents in my opinion have no place in university unions, which should be constructed for reasoned and flavoured debate; not a place where extremist groups and come and play themselves like a broken record to an audience who is inteligent enough to dismiss their views time and time again.

The main issue at the moment in opposition to this policy is that some people believe by banning these groups, the uni will be "sweeping under the carpet" the issues that these groups bring forward. Now i would counter this by saying that is in fact untrue, since many unions still continue to have debates on immigration/globalistaion/cultural identity etc, but in an atnosphere that is not charged with racial and radical prejudice.

I just wondered if any other students or others have encountered this type of policy before and if so what they think of it

would like to see you ban extremist muslims

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

would like to see you ban extremist muslims

Ooh you racist Carl. They should always be allowed to speak their mind in public. Seems to be the way the BBC sees it anyway.

 

[Firestorm]

The difficulty with dealing with exteme views in a debate is often not the nature of their argument, but the way it is argued. The shakier the ground on which their argument is based generally means that the less accomodating to rational debate the person will be, resulting in tirades of false statements, shouting and general abuse.
Barring someone based on the content of their argument is not (to me ) an option, however filtering them out on their ability to debate and their personal control might make for an easier atmosphere.

 

[the dark deshrimper]

Ooh you racist Carl. They should always be allowed to speak their mind in public. Seems to be the way the BBC sees it anyway.

Well see this is the thing...

What is the difference in Muslim extermists preaching about attacks on Englishmen and the BNP preaching about sending people who arent 3rd generation English back to their home country - many of who will die as a result.

I think the policy at our uni is simply aiming to cut off a platform for those who want to use the union as a soapbox from which they can preach racial hate and discrimation - hence why those supporting the policy have adopted the slogan "Vote YES for NO race hate and discrimination"

Interesting stuff though.

 

[Slipperduke]

There's been a strange reversal in student behaviour in recent years and it's really quite concerning. They used to be poor, feral creatures, reduced to smoking dog-ends and drinking lime cordial in pubs, now they all seem to have Xbox 360s and blackberries.

They used to stand out a mile, but now the only time you can pick them out is when they're binge drinking on a Sunday night.

Most of all though, they would never, ever have debated the possibility of clamping down on free speech. If you think someone is talking bollocks, then tell them. Out-argue them. Take them on and make them look silly. Students are supposed to be clever sods, not lazy bandwagon-jumpers. You're the future of the country, you're the intelligensia.

Christ, we're ****ed if this sort of thing catches on.

 

[MK Shrimper]

There's been a strange reversal in student behaviour in recent years and it's really quite concerning. They used to be poor, feral creatures, reduced to smoking dog-ends and drinking lime cordial in pubs, now they all seem to have Xbox 360s and blackberries.

They used to stand out a mile, but now the only time you can pick them out is when they're binge drinking on a Sunday night.

Most of all though, they would never, ever have debated the possibility of clamping down on free speech. If you think someone is talking bollocks, then tell them. Out-argue them. Take them on and make them look silly. Students are supposed to be clever sods, not lazy bandwagon-jumpers. You're the future of the country, you're the intelligensia.

Christ, we're ****ed if this sort of thing catches on.

Ferk, you should see the full time students I go to University with, overjoyed when they manage to scrape a 3rd and then expect to walk into a £30K a year job.

Doomed, Captain Mannering, we're all doomed!

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

Well see this is the thing...

What is the difference in Muslim extermists preaching about attacks on Englishmen and the BNP preaching about sending people who arent 3rd generation English back to their home country - many of who will die as a result.

I think the policy at our uni is simply aiming to cut off a platform for those who want to use the union as a soapbox from which they can preach racial hate and discrimation - hence why those supporting the policy have adopted the slogan "Vote YES for NO race hate and discrimination"

Interesting stuff though.

There is no difference, I was being sarcarstic (that spelling is deliberate and copyrighted by A Sayle, 1981). Captain Hook and his ilk are always given a platform to spout their homicidal nonsense, that is a difference.

There's been a strange reversal in student behaviour in recent years and it's really quite concerning. They used to be poor, feral creatures, reduced to smoking dog-ends and drinking lime cordial in pubs, now they all seem to have Xbox 360s and blackberries.

They used to stand out a mile, but now the only time you can pick them out is when they're binge drinking on a Sunday night.

Most of all though, they would never, ever have debated the possibility of clamping down on free speech. If you think someone is talking bollocks, then tell them. Out-argue them. Take them on and make them look silly. Students are supposed to be clever sods, not lazy bandwagon-jumpers. You're the future of the country, you're the intelligensia.

Christ, we're ****ed if this sort of thing catches on.

You know what an arrogant swine I am Slipper (yeah, right), but I really wish I had written that, you talented horrible man. Today's student seems to be aiming at a 2:2 in Business Studies and a training contract with a second rate firm of Chartered Accountants. I preferred the Che Guevara types.