http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496301&in_page_id=1770
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7114343.stm

Basically Nick Griffin (Leader of the British National Party) and David Irving (Historian - "Holocaust denier") were invited to a debate on freedom of speech at Oxford university. A group of AntiFa supporters turned up, protested and then about 50 raided the debate hall delaying the start of discussion. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not going to try and lead this thread in any way so i'll post my views later.

Wow, they were chanting "Nazi Scum, go home!" because he denied the holocaust. I mean, I don't care if someone denies the holocaust, as long as they back it up some way or another....but what these protesters did was inexcusable.

The arugument against Irving is that he looks at a variety of sources of information and chooses the ones that support his political views rather than those that are most reliable. i.e. downplay the holocaust. I don't know how true this is but if it is true then surely there's no need to censor him or jail him (which did happen not too long ago) but rather demonstrate that his work is biased propaganda. Censoring him and shouting bullshit like "nazi scum go home" supports his cause in the same way that the retarded drunken skinhead culture of 1980's Britain supports AntiFa.

Nick griffin said it best. when asked if he was a nazi, he said no and said that the violent, fascist protestors outside would have made perfect nazis.

How can democracy exist if we censor political debate? This was a chance for serious politically minded individuals to have a sensible discussion and if griffin and irving are the xenophobic thugs that these kids claim that they are then sensible political discussion will do them infinitely more harm than retarded leftist students acting like thugs. the ridiculous thing was that this debate wasn't even about nationalism or the holocaust. It was about freedom of speech so they invited two individuals who have experienced censorship problems. Whether you agree with their politics or not, you can't deny that they would have some interesting input on a discussion of free speech.

I agree. Let them say what want. It's the responsibility of others to point/find out how idiotic their arguments are.

Agree with your last post -tom-...freedom of speech is also the freedom to say things people don't want to hear and if he believes Holocaust didn't happen...well that's his problem but he has the right to say so. If people think he's wrong they should provide evidence instead of shouting and protesting.

BTW I do believe that Holocaust happened just to make that clear