I am all for free speech for anyone. As far as I am concerned, Irving and Griffin can shout their views from the highest mountains as much as I can. Some people enjoying the same space would be more than affended by their views but, tough, that's democracy.

The greatest sin in my eyes, is for them to be given a platform for their obnoxious and racist views by one of the world's most respected institutions like Oxford University. This means that, protetsts or not, attention is now drawn to a vile cause where it needn't have been and does not deserve to be. And for what exactly? Shame on Oxford!

Lianne, Warminster, UK

How can Trevor Phillips say that it is a disgrace that Nick Griffin is allowed into a debate on freedom of speach when his whole job is about treating people equally [as far as i know that means whatever their politics are]and making sure that peoples human rights are upheld , one being freedom of speach . If he cant do this job without bias towards any citizen of this country then he shouldnt be allowed to hold the post as we are equally entitled to freedom of speach as a basic of democrasy.As for the others pulling out of the debate,maybe they only like the sound of their own voices and opinions . Very undemocratic . Wheres the Queen and her 1953 promises when you need a defender of our RIGHTS.

Paul Ramsey, Eltham ,London, England

The true roots of fascism lie not in the distorted ideologies and warped opinions espoused by these two individuals but in the underlying authoritarian nastiness and patronizing arrogance that characterises most of those who seek to gag them.

Chris Neville, Seoul, South Korea

Should Oxford be ashamed? I'm not convinced. Despite its reputation, Oxford is full of a generation raised to be tolerant, and taught that racism is an unacceptable behaviour. My guess is that Irving and Griffin will hardly get a chance to express their views before they are beaten down by the students. It won't encourage them, and what's more they won't be able to refer to it as a prestigious event in the future because - provided the press report it - it will go down as a complete rejection of their beliefs.
They gain more publicity by all this fuss about stopping them speaking - I doubt people would have been so interested if there hadn't been such negative publicity, and the Union themselves hardly advertised it.

It's also worthwhile noting that the Oxford Union is a separate entity from the University; therefore even if there is blame to be attached it shouldn't be attached to the university.

Meg, Pembs,

This is great news. Freedom of speech is just hanging on in this country, but before Griffin & Irvine utter one word the pc brigade are trying to stifle them. At this debate the audience will be allowed to challenge them, but if the political establishment & lefties had their way no one would even hear them. Its about time this countrys media reported unbiasedly & allowed the British public to be properly informed of the views of minorities, not just ethnic minorities. The uninformed onlooker would probably be surprised to know that there are more than 2 main political parties & a fringe political party in this country. Its time the biased British media reported fairly all parties views & responses, not just Labour, Conservative & Liberals. Lets hope that we hear what these two have to say & the reaction to it, but unless theres a riot or punch up I expect that this will be the last we hear of this event & the same old garbage from the main parties is all we’ll read about or listen to

Billie Nomates, Southampton, england

Griffin and co have every right to speak their mind. In fact, judging by the state of play in this country at the moment, I would rather hear what Griffin has to say than the likes of Trevor Phillips. As for the so-called 'antifascist' groups, aren't most of them funded by the government e.g. Searchlight?

stevgillamos, Romford,

It is important not to fall into the trap suggesting that this is about free speech, because it's not.

This isn't about banning the BNP. It's about whether a respectable university like Oxford (or, indeed, any university) should actively invite them to address students.

If you invite somone to address you, you tacitly concede that they have views worth listening to. You lend them some of your own authority, your credibility: authority and credibility they BNP wouldn't otherwise have.

It's not about banning the BNP from speaking: it's about boycotting them in your own institution. That's why Oxford University should be ashamed.

Rami, Edinburgh, UK

The BNP are a perfectly legal political party who openly disclose details of their donors so what's the problem? It was'nt too many years ago that the communist Labour party were also banned from speaking but look at them now. Get with the program people if you dont like to hear what the BNP or anyone else have to say then simply dont turn up. It's called democracy and its your right.

Democracy is all well and good but anyone who believes we live within one is sadly misguided. We have never had anything that was inherently democratically based, as demonstrated by many world events of recent and past times.

Its all well and good to want these people to have their say and to be able to air their voices but look at the precedents of the world - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mussolini - anyone who wishes to rule and to govern with policies that dont have a universal approach and understanding to all creeds and colours should be viewed with apprehension and distrust.

Steven Hamilton, London, UK

"Why can't people distinguish between free speech and privilege of platform?"

We have at the University of Exeter!!

At a recent General Meeting a motion was passed for a NO Platform policy for the Students' Guild, which includes it's own list of banned political/religous parties - well the only one on there so far is the BNP, during the meeting the UAF and all religous parties were proposed as procedural motions but were denied (for now?).

This motion was proposed more or less as a result of our debatig society (seriously what is it with them?) wanting a debate on whether the BNP should be allowed onto campus and in previous years trying to invite them - when similar no platform policies were motioned but not passed.

Guy, Exeter, Devon

FREEDOM of speech means just that FREE and as a black women I have no problem with this sacred expression even if I DON'T AGREE or LIKE what is being said.

Annabel , London, UK

whats the matter with every 1 its only a speach their making
or isnt their freedom of speech in great britain any more
going off all the protests it appears theirs one rule for one and a diffrent rule for others........is some one some were frightend they may hit on a few home truths?

Johnny Five, Oldham, Lancashire

It would seem that those who profess to be protectors of our basic human right to free speech (Mr Phillips et al) are the ones crying out loudest to prevent others from being allowed to speak. Their reason for doing so? They don't agree with the other persons opinion. This being the case, perhaps Mr Phillips should consider resigning his position, as it is obvious he doesn't believe what he so readily preaches.

John Wilson, Warrington, UK

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire. Or as my granny used to say "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you. " And she meant physical hurt not hurt feelings which are a natural and fundamental part of living.
We have already lost double jeopardy, the right to trial by jury and the core of "Freedom of Speech". As in pre-war Germany Britons have become fearful to mention let alone act against policies which without ever a mention in a party manifesto are now leading to the end of what it meant to be British. If we like to think of ourselves as a fair and just people, how can we allow the takeover of our political system by those nurtured in countries which we know are far from fair, far from just and often merely corrupt to the bone. Is it that we believe that the transfer of cultures is a one way process and that 'inferior' cultures will have no effect on our own? This is the true racism and fascism!

Jo Leigh, South London, Avalon

Why can't people distinguish between free speech and privilege of platform? NO ONE is saying they cannot air their views- spend 30 seconds on youtube and you will see that to be true! Affording them the credibility of the Oxford Union's prestigious platform is a disgrace!

Apart from anything else, Irving and Griffin, both manipulators of truth and people, will be arguing for more free speech and so, short of "defeating them in debate" the audience will find themselves positively agreeing!

The BNP have already hailed this as a breakthrough and the fools who voted in favour are complicit in this tragedy!

Jeremy Seeff, London / Oxford, UK

Protesting against giving these men a right to debate openly contradicts the original ideology of free speech. However these men can always adhear to a more religously acceptable method of murder and oppresion to get their point across. Everyone has the right to wage jihad don't they?

Louis, Burnley, Lancashire

Let us not forget that by protesting against the decision to give Griffin and Irving a platform the protesters are invoking their right to freedom of speech, so long as the protest continues with peaceful means.

Sam Straker-Nesbit, Oxford,

It a test of whether we have already lost the right to free speech. If the invitations are withdrawn and the debate is cancelled then free speech has gone.

In the event that the protesters are recruited and deployed as suggested by reports, let us hope that they then process to their local mosque to heckle and harass the preachers there. That's the only way they can show their real concerns. They won't of course - and that is revealing in itself.

Ray, Dartmouth,

The British National Party are the fastest growing political party in the UK, as such Mr Griffin is perfectly entitled to debate Freedom of Speech. The open forum should be a fanastic opportunity for Mr Griffin to state his position. Legimate debate is the best way to resolve important issues, rather than using illegal measures as some extreme minorities prefer.

Simon Towers, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, Yorkshire

We've all been here before often enough, haven't we? The liberal/lefty/trendy attitude always betrays authoritarianism lurking just below the surface. Their fundamental message: "Free speech for everyone...who agrees with me!"

Brian Clacey, Croydon, UK

Much as I dislike and disagree with the views of those two individuals, I am prepared to defend their right to be heard. This is a fundamental component of democracy: if the government thinks that their beliefs should be made illegal, let it table a motion in the Commons to do so. Until then, if they have a legal right to be heard, nothing will be achieved by enforcing political correctness.

Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Athens, Greece

The BNP are a perfectly legal political party who openly disclose details of their donors so what's the problem? It was'nt too many years ago that the communist Labour party were also banned from speaking but look at them now. Get with the program people if you dont like to hear what the BNP or anyone else have to say then simply dont turn up. It's called democracy and its your right.

Cromwell, Leeds, England