Nick Griffin bravely made his stand on free speech, he was not at Oxford to promote BNP policies or to recruit new members.
Recent by-election results now show that the BNP is Britain's 4th largest party, clearly they are commanding huge support at a rapid rate.

Steve Michael, kent, UK

A confident democratic country should have no problem with allowing individuals to express a controversial point of view in a peaceful way.
It's a worry that those students who feel that putting a stop to the expression of opinions that some people find repugnant are probably going to be those who will be running the country in a few years time.
There is no such thing as a democracy that does not allow freedom of speech and those seeking to limit freedom of speech to suit their own beliefs need to seriously question their own values and beliefs.

Pauline, Dundee,

I would just like to say thanks to the foolish left wing protesters. As all they have done is given the BNP media coverage which they are usually denied. I hope all this will do is get people intrested in the BNP and find out what they are really about rather than listening to what the other partys and media say about them.

Zac, Birmingham,

Okay, one absurdity at a time. Free speech did not produce Nazism and the outbreak of World War Two. Neither did it create the conditions for it. Free speech is anatheama to totalitarian states, which is presumably why we cannot express revisionist evidence. What did produce Nazism and the outbreak of World War II was rearmament, which is not an expression of free speech, neither is it an expression of a free market (the economic partner of the political speech). It is a galvanised project run centrally from private or public interest groups, such as the Milner Kindergarten, the Warburg, Morgan, and Rockefeller Banking Houses, and the policy of various governments in Europe and the New World, particurlarly in the run up to WWII.

Nationalism did not produce these wars. Hitler could not have fought on one front let alone two if the British and the Americans through Union Banking corp, and Fritz Thyssen's Western subsidiries, had not funded his project.

Gareth Williams, Bridgend, Bridgend

In response to Wayne Blackburn: While I agree that free speech is a basic and necessary human right, your point is undermined by you assertion that protesting students' activities were a 'social event' - while I agree that the way they dealt with the matter/aired their views was immature, surely that does not invalidate their stance in its entirety? As to 'perfectly LEGAL political party' I would remind you that what is most offensive about the BNP is not their political standpoint (though I myself find most, though not all, of their views repugnant) but rather the group's overtly criminal activities - the possession of explosives, sending razor blades through the post to Jewish people, assaults on people of ethnic background - and the advocation of violence on numerous occasions, by Nick Griffin and other senior members, as an acceptable method for putting their views across.

STA, S Yorks, UK

Good luck to Nick Griffin and the BNP. This country desperately needs you. The true bigots are quite clearly those who were demonstrating against your presence.

Janina, Blackpool, England

Tony, they are not associating themselves with Irving, they were just at the same debate. David cameron took part in a debate with Gordon Brown this week, does that mean he is associating himself with labour?
And Clive makes a good point, labour want immigration for cheap labour, slave labour even. I do not think creating a system where we now have hundreds of young men and women from eastern europe in slavery in the UK is a non-racist system

James, uk,

how typical of the political left who supposedly stand for democracy and free speech and as they would like to put it 'i might not like what you say but i will defend your right to say it.' what we saw last night from the militant left is typical of thier behaviour. violence, lack of respect, total disorder. so who is the real problem here. a perfectly LEGAL political party or a bunch of protesters who whilst in uni see it as a social event rather than a demo of any real meaning to them. good luck and prosperity to the bnp in the coming years.

wayne blackburn, merseyside, england

so, let's assume the bnp are racist and bigoted and their supporters commit violent, anti-social acts in their name.

now, how might we adequately describe the jewish and islamic societies?

I have to say I am a little disappointed in the police. but then they let masked men waving placards inciting murder run around london unhindered. are they just trying to avoid the paperwork?

jem, london, uk

Why is it always the left who try to stop free speech. If it's not Red Ken who is inviting IRA and Islamic Killers to speak it's the the left wing brown shirts run in all but name Labour!!

The BNP have never blown up a bus, tube or killed anyone.

Wake-up UK

Defend Free speech!!!

Trent, Watford, UK

i find it dispicable how the protest was carried out. although i strongly disagree with the views of the speakers, i find it outrageous that the protesters resorted to violence and unnecessary chants against their fellow peers. How a mob like this can be almost set free in one of the most respected institutions in the world is beyond me.

Dean, Leamington Spa,

Some kids are so protected from upsettingly unfamiliar viewpoints that they panic and scream blue murder when they are at last introduced to them.

A few of the protestors were conceivably of that kind.

Fortunately, most Oxonians have matured a little more by the age of 18-21, even in these health-and-safety besotted times. Besides, I'll wager that most protestors were lefty and/or Zionist rentamob imports.

The demonstration attracted far fewer than in days when socialism was rampant. Those who hope it has been buried for good-- and that the blustering self-rghteousness of its votaries is on the way out too-- will have been encouraged.

Anyhow, it's a safe bet that neither Griffin's nor Irving's views, each of which ahev altered considerably over time in any case, are familiar to the screamers- except as chewed up and regurgitated for them by their nannies. Like kids, they just enjoy being scared now and then by the bogeymen of PC.

David L Nilsson, London, England

Looks to me like the fascists are the ones hiding behind the scarves!

BO, Oxford,

Lest we forget - the Nazis were so named because they were the "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Lefties of all pursuasions have a long history of suppressing free speech and thinking they better than we are at knowing what's good for us. Long may they fail in their aspirations.

Abbey, Edinburgh, UK

the people outside were criminals and should have been arrested...when we give in to thugs its over

leslie whitehouse, westbromwich,

I find it astonishing that so many will rise to near violent protest on this debate, and yet stand by and do nothing when the Government leads us into illegal wars,signs away our sovreignty to foreign powers, and allows wholesale immigration for purposes of exploitation.
Wake up you stupid people!

Clive Burghard, LANCING, ENGLAND

If the BNP aretrying to get elected, why are they associating themselves with a discredited historian whose theories about the holocaust are ridiculous - Nick, you wont win the votes of disgruntled brits this way.

tony, birmingham, uk

Daniel Cambridge
Why have people from the Other Place got such a chip on their shoulder (quite apart from the inability to say what they mean)?

Francis, Madrid,

People fought for years to have free speech, the right to vote etc. And now a group of thugs in ski masks are threatening to beat me up just because I want to hear people speak and make up my own mind about whether anyone is racist or not. Why don't tehy stand outside the ballot boxes and force people to vote for their chosen party as they seem to think they are the only owns with the right to choose their own beliefs, we must all do what they say without question or be beaten for it. The nazi's might not have got power with free speech, but without free speech we would still be without the vote, and we could be burned as heratics for out religious and political beliefs. Free speech can bring problems, but not nearly as many as denying it. Remember more died under stalin than hitler!

kelly, uk,

Stop people from talking the truth and you have the answer as to who would the culprit be.

truthiness, singapore,

If 'freedom of speech' is a 'right' then it applies to EVERYONE regardless of what they want to say.

If we deny certain people that right because what they have to say is considered 'extreme' then we become the 'extreme' ones!

Were i to carry a banner in central London with the words "DEATH TO OSAMA BIN LADEN" there is a good chance i would be left to my own devices, and yet if i were to carry a banner reading "DEATH TO TONY BLAIR" then it would be very probable that i would be arrested under the Anti-Terror 'Laws'!

seth taylor, cambs, uk

Lesley Udwin,
By your arguements a free vote also lead to a holocaust, should we take away the right to vote. Free speech has also ended many holocausts, and righted far more wrongs than it has caused. If we did not have free speech very few people would have any rights at all.
The strange thing is that those against the BNP because of their views have obviously read the BNPs own literature or listened to them and made up their own mind, and yet others who want to do the same are beaten by these protestors for it. Why are the protestors allowed to read/listen to the BNP, but no one else is? Either that or they have no idea what the BNP actually stand for, and instead choose to listen to left wing propaganda-as those that voted for the Nazis listened to propaganda about the Jews rather than find out the truth themselves.
I would also like to point out that the BNP are right wing, and the NAZIs were socialists!
And Dodger, Perth-you were not there so you do not know what they said

Lesley, uk,

We don t have freedom of speech in this country. Anybody heard of the Official Secrets Act? But we do want to hang on to such as we have, because this country has the potential to be as repressive as any in the world. It has devised institutions over the years that can be as easily restrictive as they may be expansive. The Oxford Union debate provides a good example. Did anybody suggest that the objectors that scaled the walls were organised by MI5?
If as Charles Proctor suggested, the Oxford Union had its way, [and] no one would have fought for King and Country, we might be better off today. That would be a debate worth having. Take a look at comparable European countries. Do we have a higher standard of living than they? Do we have better social provisions than they? Are our civil rights better than theirs?

Henry Percy, London, UK

The BNP is not racist, it does not want to deport foreignors unless they commit a crime, so those who say that this is racist are saying all foreignors are criminals. I seem to think most people were outraged when a white non-british rapist raped and stabbed to death an asian britsh girl just beofre her eighteenth birthday, in fact her parents called for deportation of criminals, so i fail to see why this policy is racist. It will only effect those that choose to commit crime and will put us in line with most other countries in the world. They also want to toughen up prisons for all criminals, but will give anomity to all defendents until they are proven guilty. I think that is entirely fair, we have all heard comments about how false accusations of crime destroy peoples lives, well this would end that. This is about the British not the white!

raj, uk,

Ha, the BNP are actually against the Iraq war and are tailing after the US. Just think these student protestors probably agree with the BNP, and possibly protested with them against the war. You have to laugh!!

Louise, uk,

Er I seem to think it was the BNP who accussed this government of looting the third world by stealing all their doctors because we cannot be bothered to pay to train our own. Considering Ghana alone spend several tens of millons training doctors for the British I think they have a point. Medical staff are a valuable resource and we are stripping the third world of this resource.

Louise, uk,

Here's a link to a real survivor who gave testimony at Nuremberg that people were hung for,this is the same guy in 1961 repeating his evidence and I'd like to see any denier deny this.

http://www.codoh.com/video/onethird.html

Check out Abe Bomba the Treblinka barber,he had 180+ people in 12'x12' room with 13 of them getting haircuts at any one time and thern getting gassed in 30 seconds and removed in less tahn a minute,how can these monsters deny this evidence even though there are no actaul names available?

Monsters,anti-semites,something should be done.

stoic, Sydney, Oz

Curious how the media seems not to want to tell us us what they actually said.

Mike Newland, London, England

I think that it's a sad day for British students when they resort to mob rule to repress free speech. Just think of all the extra publicity that David Irving & Nick Griffin have had! It's far better to simply boycott something you disagree with than indulging in mass-hysteria.

Jo, Thatcham, UK

It's ironic that the student's opposing two fascists from taking part in a debate are in fact opposing the process of democracy.

The Union voted to have them talk. Why is it anyone else's business? If you want to get involved, then join the Oxford Union.

David O'Connor, Oxford, UK

To Charlotte, of Swindon....not might, but will.

Sally, london,

From one Roger to another Roger T, I totally agree.I have only become interested in politics upon having children and looking out for their future. I am not remotely racist, yet agree with most of the BNP views, Why?, because the other parties are so similar and busy infigthing, they no longer represent my nor (I believe) the viiews of the ordinary voter.

roger , bristol, uk

Why hide behind a mask? If you truly believe in something, you should be man enough to let the world see your face.

In any event, the whole idea of democracy is that you have the right to air your views. Debate should always be encouraged, no matter what the subject. To stifle anyone's right to this is wrong. To stage a violent protest such as this merely gives cause to the argument peddled by this section of the populace.

As has been paraphrased earlier: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write".

Alan Williams, Wishaw, Scotland

Those defending the debate on the ground of free speech misunderstand the issue. Irving and Griffin's right to free speech would be violated if they were to hold a rally / publish a book, etc and the government banned such activity. The Oxford Union invitation was voluntary on the part of the Union and did not involve Irving or Griffin. Their right to free speech is unaffected by a decision to invite or not invite them. Free speech does not mandate that the Oxford Union must invite these people, or else their rights will be violated. Irving and Griffin routinely are able to have their views heard through other channels. Nearly all of the supporters for the debate justify their position by saying that Irving and Griffin would be discredited by way of debate. Unfortunately, this has not happened - there has been no mention of the content of the debate and how their views were discredited. All we have heard about is the protest which regretfully makes Irving and Griffin look sympathetic.

John Stuart Mill, London, UK

How many Jewish people deny the Armenian Holocaust? Everything is relative in the end.

Deidra Anne, Menlo Park, CA

This is one of the few things that has made me have sympathy with the BNP and related groups, much as I disagree with their views. For once, they're innocent victims of intolerant and violent left-wing bigots. What happened to traditional liberal values, such as tolerance of free speech? Making threats of violence just shows the world that you're unable to muster rational argument against your political opponents.

R Thrippleton, Cambridge,

Some people seem to be forgetting that only a small proportion of Oxford students are even members of the Union and even those that are did not necessarily vote for the debate to go ahead so branding us all naive, disgraceful etc. is ridiculous.

E, Oxford, UK

It wasn't Voltaire who said it, although often attributed, but it is nonetheless profound and relevant:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Let them speak and then prove them wrong.

Giles, Manchester, England

I just love the quote....

“My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views, ....

We must be allowed to debate issues even if we don't agree with them - driving issues and groups underground is not the way forward - the protestors here seem every bit as guilty of the crimes they accuse the speakers of. I personally do not agree or hold with any of the ideas of the speakers but if we prevent them from having a platform where do we stop?

Rachel Drysdale, London, UK

We are British, we thankfully have "Freedom of Speech" in this country still and the fact that people are trying to stop him expressing his opinions, when he has been invited to do so, is disgusting I think.

I'm ashamed of the protesters outside for inciting hatred, trespassing, wasting police time and disturbing the peace. The guy on stage was just speaking, yet he is the one in the wrong for doing so legally. No one forcing them to listen or agree with him, but it sounds as if, that’s what the tactic of the protesters were.

My personal opinion is that the young men at the conference would have "walked all over" them with there questioning and discredited him. They could have discredited him even further with the support of the MP's, unfortunately they didn't have the spine to turn up and exercise there right to express there own point of view and in essence gave more credit to Irving/Griffin.

Andrew , North East, England,

Free speech in Germany in 1933 lead to WW2 and the death of 52 million people. All hatred starts with speech,once speech has done its role in creating hatred then the hangmen step up to finnish the job.That Oxford University students are blind to this connection between the hangman and speech is a indictment of the quality of the British educational system.

Leslie Udwin, Johannesburg, South Africa

Tim Clarke, Belfast- Sorry I can't see how evil this left world is. We have peace and economic growth throughout europe. Or would you rather go back to the good old nationalistic way of thinking which gave us 2 world wars and left your own city violent and divided.

Raymond, Liverpool,

We certainly need more debate on the encroaching threat to our fredom of speech, and that threat isn't coming from the BNP or David Irving. Both Griffin and Irving have been prosecuted in puportedly liberal democracies, not for their actions but for what they have SAID.

The spurious claim that they -the BNP and David Irving - must not be allowed a 'platform' because ,as a consequence, people will suffer violence and persecution rings hollow. Other than pacificism there is NOT ONE political philosophy or religious belief system that has not been responsible for war, violence oppression and the displacement of large numbers of people. Western liberalism is no less culpable.

The BNP is committed to attaining and retaining political office by the parliamentary system. It does not aim to suppress the freedom of association or assembly of it's opponents. 'No Platform' means No Democracy.

D.Rowlands, Manchester, UK

The best disinfectant is sunshine. You have to hear Nick Griffin once to realise he can be safely ignored from then on.

Something very good did come of all this - the Jewish and Muslim students standing side-by-side, proving that not everyone hates 'the other side'.

There are plenty of Iranian Jews and Israeli Muslims who think the same way.

People are people. Live and let live.

Mark M, Manchester, UK

what is with the ignorance? the BNP are founded upon a notion of myths and lies like any so called "traditional way of life" . Any one who has a clue about world history would realise that their crude rhetoric holds no water in this day and age like any fundamentalist!

k, Manchester,

I love this quote:
“My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views, which are disgraceful.”
It's the most glorious doublespeak ever!!! Zionists are famous for not being able to see their own atrocities and at this point their only accomplishment is that the IDF has matched the Nazis in atrocious behavior towards defensless civilians, right down to the special badges, walled neighborhoods, and midnight disappearances of those that speak out.

If you want to fight fascism, stop the illegal invasion of Palestine by the IDF - it's the exact same thing as the Nazi invasion of Poland or France, using the same tactics and having the same lack of any right whatsoever to the land being invaded. IDF and Nazis the similiarties just keep piling up every day, although I don't think the Nazis used children as human shields in gunfights so maybe the IDF did them one better??

The Truth , awareness,

You have to wonder at the legality of breaking into private property to cause as breach of the peace.

It would not be tolerated within a mile of Westminster for example.

Different strokes for different folks?

Mr Ison, Dunstable, Bedfordshire

It's all very well talking about free speech, but get a grip.

David Irving and Nick Giffin are fascists and to give them a platform to disguise their vicious views with well thought out words is wrong.

Simon Gould, Brighton,

As a student at Oxford and a member of the Union Society, I have to say I am embarassed by the behaviour of some of my peers. Everyone was expecting anti-forum protests, and I think most students can understand the motives of those who conducted them. But violence is unnaccetable, and reflects badly on the majority of students who just wish to hear the views of others, even if just to dismiss them as objectionable.

The protestors' behaviour last night was also completely counter-productive to their cause. Not only was the violence hypocritical, but it also drew far more attention to the both Griffin and Irving than either of them deserve. If leftist protestors and the national press would just ignore these bigots, they would be denied a voice on an even wider and more public stage. But denying them the right to speak at all means that they will find a much more subversive and destructive way of being heard - as we saw in Oxford last night.

Helen, Oxford,

Briton never had free speech and doesn't honor free speech today.

The United States of America is the only country in the world that specifically, by Constitution, guarantees government protection of the divine endowment of free speech to all Citizens. By Constitutional Government, it is We the People who guarantee each other's right to speak.

No other country in the world believes in a free, open, public discussion of the important issues of the day. No other country in the world has a government predicated on We The People principle of Individual Sovereignty. That we don't properly use these privileges is another matter.

The aphorism is that Truth needs no defense and can never be diminished by denial or ignorance. Truth is the flame that spurs progress. Freedom of Speech serves to reveal the fullness of truth to all.

Joseph, Rochester, NY, USA

joseph ferrara, rochester, USA/NY

So Julian Lewis MP, shadow Defence spokesman resigns his Oxford Union membership in protest, because he objects to the free speech of other folk. I wonder if he is the same Julian Lewis who as former Deputy Director of 'Research' (Dirty Tricks Department) at Conservative Central Office, in 1994, encouraged and/or induced - directly or indirectly - a national Sunday newspaper to deliberately defame three Conservative Party members (who much later won an apology, damages and costs) to achieve the objective- for his boss: "If you can't kill the message - kill the messenger". Inter alia, a Tory MP's Constituency Agent was induced to deliberately break the Data Protection Act by handing out a copy of the membership roll - to journalists from said newspaper - of members of her Conservative Association who had the audacity to get publicised for expressing a view that John Major should go! Nice to know what champions of democracy we might have in a future Tory government, if/when Brown goes.

David Moon, Seaford, East Sussex

The truth needs no laws to defend it, only lies do. Defenders of the truth don't need fists, only the truth. Only the enemies of truth suppress speech or debate, or jail men for their opinions.

Ben, New York,

I'm impressed.
A small bunch of silly students try to prevent a debate with abuse and violence.
Huge numbers of people post comments defending free speech,
despite all the pessimism.
Western democracy is healthy.
I think Irving is a good writer, but a fool.
Long may he speak.

Alan

Alan, Greenwich, usa

Why are the anti-BNP protestors wearing face masks? If they are there to stand up for their convictions, why don't they want their faces seen? I've been to numerous protests in my day and I've never once thought of covering my face. Could these people actually be government agents provocateur?

C Wernerhoff, Sydney, NSW Australia

Lets all go about our daily lives in complete silence in case we say something to someone, somewhere and they get upset about it. Because that's where this rocky road to political correctness is going to take us....FAST!

Davy, Durham,

Free speech in Britain has never been under greater threat. The PC lefties, and the shameless
Trevor Philips, will only tolerate "their" views being expressed. You tell me who are the fascists?
Credit to the Oxford Union for standing against the rabble of censors.

A. Hackerette, Barnet, Herts.,

This is sickening. I don't care whether Irving is a Communist, Fascist or Nudist. This man, like any other, should be allowed to have his say and allow the multitude to pass judgment, rather than give in to a few militant partisans.Whatever is happening to free speech?

aeskylos, Buffalo, NY

The "anti-facists" sure love using brownshirt tactics!! The pot calling the kettle black.

Jerry, Jackson, USA, WY

Mr Griffin and Mr Irving have every right to be heard in a free society and students attending the debate have the right to listen without being subjected to irrational attacks by a bunch of far left thugs.
The real threat to our freedom today is neither a properly constituted political party (i.e the BNP) whose support is growing daily in the face of increasing dictatorship from Brussels and unsustainable population growth due to mass immigration,nor a controversial but generally misrepresented historian who has been gagged by the liberal media for doing his job when they don't like the findings of his research.
The real threat to our civil liberties today comes from the multiculturalist and pro-globalisation liberal /left agenda which seeks to impose itself on every aspect of life in modern Britain .The BNP is the only real opposition to these sinister anti-democratic forces which are destroying the whole fabric of our society.

Tim Clarke, Belfast, United Kingdom

It is distressing to see fascists able to claim they are acting in support of free speech, against the hypocrisy of the liberal set. It is important that offensive opinions should be given an airing, for two reasons.

First, free speech is a meaningless value if it is restricted to those who espouse orthodoxy; if opinions contrary to the prevailing morality go unheard, the hegemony of the majority is ensured. Indeed, the scenes at the Union on the 26th were unpleasantly reminiscent of the Marquis of Queensbury's attempted crashing of Oscar Wilde's 'The Importance of Being Earnest' on the (at the time) entirely justifiable grounds that he was a "snob queer" like Rosebury, and leading his son astray.

Second, the idea that letting them speak at the Union is going to lend them credibility, regardless of how they are ridiculed and defeated in debate once they have spoken, is grossly patronising to the average voter; who, in this view, possesses no critical faculties.

Chris, Oxford,

This is a free speech country and it should be upheld. But Irving and Griffin are deniers of the right of minority groups they disapprove of to live here and exercise their free speech. Why give them house-room for their views that are known to incite violence against minorities. Remember the Soho pub bombing. And can you have a rational debate about the holocaust with people who say it never happened. Those who voted to invite these men of ill repute sully the memory of its victims and encourage the politics of hatred and discrimination.

Nick Howard, Sheffield, UK

What can I say that I havent said before? what can I feel that I havent felt before?

Wake up America, you are loosing your country because of the Zionist from the state of Israel.

And now everyday I see them taking controll of the blogs in the WWW..... I don't blame them because they are what they are but do blame the American people for allowing them to do it.

Ponce, Oregon, USA

I have always thought quantum theory strange, but trying to find the difference between extreme left and right, no matter how hard you look they always seem the same. Maybe its a problem with me, the observer.

mike mines, london, uk

David Irving doesn't deny the holocaust. He's stated many times that the Nazis targeted, rounded up and murdered Jews. He, like many other historians, just doesn't happen to believe that the holocaust is the focal point of Western history or that it's the worst thing that's ever happened.

Not paying non-stop homage to the holocaust is what gets one branded a 'holocaust denier'.

I've never encountered any reference to David Irving stating that he wishes to refuse others the right to speak. Could someone kindly post a link to him saying such a thing?

James, Boston, Massachusetts

I can only laugh at Trevor Phillips et al. They alway say this is not about free speech. The BNP are free to say what they like, so long as nobody is allowed to hear them...!

The big problem with the 'no platform' agenda is that people like Phillips have such a contempt for the ability of ordinary people to decide for themselves.

They say it is good because Muslims and Jewish students are are now united, but united against what...? The pantomine villains in the BNP..?

Richard, London,

I agree with them being allowed to speak, if only so they can be laughed at. While Nick Griffin is a persuasive speaker most people can see him for who he is.

"My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views" is the most absurd statement I have ever read, completely contradictory.

I think while both griffin and irvin looked pitiful after the debate it was the quite blatently facist protesters who came out of this looking the worst. This is a shame since they are actually suporting the sie I agreed with.

Oli, York, UK

Daniel Bloch, co-president of the University of Oxford’s Jewish Society said “My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views, which are disgraceful.”

Disgraceful - Yes. Denying their freedom of speech - Yes of course. Why is this guy in Oxford if he cant even figure that out. Smart chap.

Angus, London,

Allow them to debate. The amount of documentation and records collected for posterity will expose their weak claim.
Unfortunately the same techniques are used against the critics of Israel's immoral treatment of Palestinians.

Chris Greene, Mississauga, Canada

Neville Chamberlain's gentlemanly debate with a Nazis in the 1930's didn't do Britain or the rest of Europe much good.

Dee, London,

I have read all the comments - mainly from students. God, I have never been so frightened in all my life. These are the people who may one day become our "betters" and "leaders".
I have only four words to say: "May God preserve us".

Mrs. I. Malcomson, Portsmouth, Hampshire

The hypocrites who opposed Nick Griffin's speech could not have demonstrated in this manner, if the rights he was actually defending, were ever to be removed.

You may not agree with his views, but surely his rights to voice them must be defended - it's called democracy ... and that MUST be protected.

Glenn Jones, Lincoln, England

Nick Howard, - It is in fact you who is wrong. David Copeland, the man responsible for the Soho pub bombing, was an EX MEMBER of the BNP. He left the BNP because they refused to subscribe to his violent hatred of blacks and gays.

This is the problem that the BNP has. They are misrepresented and violently refused public venues, with venue owners itimidated and boycotted, some even threatened. Most people really don't know what BNP policies are and with a lot of the media spouting nonsense about the BNP being violent, is it no wonder, that the BNP now have to carefully vet new members?

Chris Barnett, Eastbourne, East Sussex

Muslim Imams have been spied on, their sermons recorded and some have been thrown out of this country for their "freedom speech", all justified of course, because they could have incited hatred.

Why are these people allowed? Their speeches could do the same thing?

Aligee, London, UK

Isn't it great to see the Muslim and Jewish facists getting away with it again. Do you see gangs of british christians intimidating and using violence against jewish and muslims speakers.

Ed, York,

The Oxford Union were in the wrong to invite such controversial figures to a world renowned debate. Unfortunately, the freedom of expression is a given right to anyone regardless of their beliefs. All we can hope is that the audience do not take in any of these bigotted beliefs. Besides, Oxford Union has always invited controversial figures. In the early 1900s, they invited a leading member of the Votes for Women movement which at the time was an incredibly controversial subject.

Jessica, Coventry, UK

I also disagree with Tom M.
I had a ticket but did not manage to get into the debate. Outside the Union I was pushed, sworn at and called a fascist which I found offensive and intimidating. These so called peaceful protestors, who also damaged union property and harassed many of my friends, should be ashamed for being unable to have their say in a civilised manner, but instead found the need to be as menacing as those they sought to stop from debating.

John, Oxford,

Maybe the protesters who did use violence did agree with Griffin after all. He did say " “When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate. We have to have a body of trained young men capable of defending our organisation. If people come to crack our heads we will break theirs”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article633579.ece

Raymond, Liverpool, UK

Politically correct liberalism has rendered any open discussion of race and immigration issues impossible, particularly if you are white , English working and middle class. Gagging and martyring nationalist extremists and the mainstream parties will only reinforce the resentments that are felt and push otherwise right minded people to voting for the bnp (without admitting it) as a protest to the swamping of their communities and cultures without as much as a by your leave.

David Allen, Doncaster,

Who gives a toss about the union.
It is the ballot box that counts - not a load of privalaged tossers in Oxford.

Peter, Dublin, Ireland

Good Luck Nick Griffin, Good luck David Irving, Two Great Englishmen delivering what millions of their fellow country men have not the balls to do defending free speech.

Which the cream of british manhood died for in two world wars,

george deighton, London, UK

might i ask you all to consider John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty. Each person has the right to state their opinions whether it be disgusting or something that appeals to us strongly. With this in mind, the untruths and fascist drivel that falls out of Nick and David's mouths merely contribute to a stronger conception of how truly revolting these two people are and strengthens the common view that such Nationalistic ideologies are nothing but rubbish.
I am however, ashamed at the way in which protesters had acted last night since they have somewhat oppressed others from conveying their views and opinions. the students that showed up to the lecture were merely open minded to such contraversial topics and the experience was likely to define what would be conceived of as right or wrong and nothing else.

James S, Oxford,

I would love to have to opportunity to watch this debate. Please could the BBC or ITV record the debate and broadcast it on one of the MANY television channels.
It would be great to see such a raw, emotional, entertaining debate which would cover all points of views!
Thank you.

Samantha , Bexhill, UK

Are the bright young things of 2007 really so narrow minded that they deny free speech to those they don't like ?

Kevin Herbert, Greater Manchester, UK

I agree with letting them speak, its called freedom of speech.Only ever hearing from one side is the reason this country is in such a mess.Perhaps when these students who oppose their invitation at oxford ,leave university and have to live in the real world ,they may start to realize that this country is heading for disaster.
I am not a member of the B.N.P. but, myself and a lot of my friends and work mates admire him for standing up and telling people how it is.

derek, exeter, England

People in this country died for FREE Speech. It is worth defending no matter who speaks. Anything else is no longer a free society.
Sorry we no longer live in a FREE society and nobody has a duty to anything anymore

Andy , High Wycombe, Bucks

The Oxford Union should be praised for a brave and radical decision, opposing the pressure of political censorship.

I for one cannot believe some could deny the Holocaust in the face of overwhelming evidence but we should have more confidence in the strength of liberal democracy that has been hard won with the blood of previous generations.

There should be no limits to free speech save for the laws of libel and criminal incitement.

Mr Denny, Eltham, London

They must be able to speak. Many have been gagged in the past , Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, John Pilger.
What are be afraid of? I think the biggest fear is that they may say something that makes sense, We cant have that it would effect the economy.

fred, morden, uk

"[R]are alliance between the Muslim and Jewish societies".

Actually, there was already a joint event by both societies earlier this year about the BNP, long before the Oxford Union incident kicked off.

EmmaZunz, Oxford,

Roxanne,
If people act like violent thugs they will be labelled as violent thugs. beating people, intimidating them, and chanting "kill, ,kill, kill" while covering ones face are the actions of vilent thugs. It is also the actions of facists! And as neither the BNP or Irving have said they want to live in a dictatorship they are not fascists. However those that tried to physically prevent people exercising their right to listen to a political debate were acting like fascists. If you are so against fascism why have you not taken part in a protest against the violent thugs. And you claims of " I don't support those who were beating those trying to get into the event but I think it would have been much worse if no one had protested" sound a bit too much like "it was for the greater good" and "there is always collateral damage" for someone who claims to be anti-fascist. perhaps you should fight the facist in yourself before you fight it in others.

kelly, uk,

Let the two speakers have their say and trust the judgment of the audience.
Why give these bigots the oxygen of publicity by opposing their right to speak. Give them a long rope : they are bound to hang themselves by the falsehood of their beliefs.

Dr.Abdul Jaleel, Darlington, England

Everyone has the right to their own point of view. Just because you don't happen to like what that person stands for doesn't mean you should stop them from expressing their views.

Sam, Newcastler, UK

its a shame that even educated liberals are no less likely to fall on their own hypocratic sword as those who read the guardian. their actions serve only to make Nick Griffin a Martyr and reinforce their topic of debate

simon mawdsley, London,

Anti-this, anti-that. What are they afraid of? How is one gang of masked thugs different from another?Intolerance ends up with the Tube being bombed and schoolteachers being flogged. We live, thankfully, in a society that contains diverse and conflicting views with extremes at both ends. Why did the M.P.'s withdraw?. Here, surely, was a chance to demolish the arguments of Griffin and Irving. Withdawal gives tacit support to the fascists outside. Oxymoron - anti fascist.

Tyler Fullroom, Paris,

The far left activist's attempts to gag Nick Griffin are exactly what's wrong with this country today. Many people are afraid to vioce their opinions because of fear of ridicule and being called racist by the left (and even worse in this circumstance.)
To the people who oppose Nick Griffin - try coming to live where i do in Halifax. Live with the tensions of racial divide and large areas of town which are 'no go' areas (and quickly expanding,) see the young drug dealers in their pimped supercars, watch as elderly folk struggle to get by whilst the council spend millions on housing immigrants and giving them lives many already here can only dream of - you'll see where the suppport for many of the BNP's policies comes from and you'll understand why it exists. The police around here are scared to police the ghetto areas and the fire services get attacked in them. Do the people who stand up for the rights of the quieter majority in this part of the country not deserve to do so?

Scott, halifax,

Oh delicious irony - self-appointed protectors of the moral conscience themselves trying to violently censor democratic free speech in one of our finest academic institutions, and screaming death threats at a hapless Debating Society co-ordinator! Hypocrisy really is the ultimate luxury.

Neil S, Glasgow, Scotland

Why didn't Captain Hook get this kind of protest when he used to pereach his racial hatred at the Finsbury park mosque? For all his faults, at least Nick Griffin isn't inciting others to carry out suicide bomb attacks on the London Underground

Luke, London, UK

Pity the arguments used by the participants to the debate aren't specified in detail so that those who didn't attend could assess the cogency & force of the points introduced, made & defended!

marcel stchedroff, oxford, oxon. UK

I watched a Billy Connolly DVD last night and my sides were splitting as I (and partner) were laughing so much. And why? Because he looks at life the way most of us do and is not afraid to comment on subjects such as religion (which seems to be the biggest problem of all these days). I don't have a problem with free speech as it must be allowed in a civilised society, and the BNP can do whatever they like as long as they respect the wishes of the electorate.

Alan, Midlands,

Thank you Daniel. Goes without saying really (am I allowed to say that?!)

Paul, London,

The BNP and the NF are two very different beings. The BNP are actually against the NF, and the soho bombings were nothing to do with the BNP. I suppose next you will claim all men are rapists because some men have raped, and all muslims are terrorists. And the BNP do not want to have ethinic clensing: perhaps you should actually read their website, instead of letting other people tell you what the BNP stand for.

Louise, uk,

Clearly it is the Shakespearian mob we should fear as much as ideology. I don't like the Nazi ideology and I don't like the pc ideology we are gripped by at the moement, nor do I like the look of those masked protesters in your pic.
Clearly free speech, freedom of thought and reasoned debate are preferable to mobs of any kind, or the thought police.

jane, henley, uk

Many of your readers seem to believe that inviting Irving and Griffin to put forward their views at Oxford was a matter of "free speech". They are simply wrong - the issue is not about free speech but about the utility in inviting these people to espouse their views. Yes, let them say what they want but why should we give them a forum?

It would have been more sensible for Oxford to wait until the BNP invites gays, Jews and Arabs, blacks, Indians and others to appear at BNP functions for the purpose of extolling the virtues of their cultures and lifestyles? Can anyone imagine this ever happening?

Interestingly, no one ever raises the spectre of a "denial of free speech" because a rabbi or inam is not invited to speak at BNP gatherings.

Peter Wise - Sydney, Australia

Peter Wise, Sydney, NSW Australia

Ok, violence - bad. But protest - brilliant! Isn't that what this debate was supposed to be about? Hearing extremist views and giving people the opportunity to challenge them?

Hannah, Telford,

I got an email from my university asking me if I wise to attend - I only didn't because I had a lecture. In my opinion it was likely to be a very small minority who were causing the problems - people probably didn't turn up because they had no interest in hearing a holocaust denier and a fascist explain their views. Incidentally, Russ from Reading - it may have escaped your notice that it's freezing at the moment - why is it ironic that the students wanted to keep warm?

Madi, Manchester, Lancashire

Is this what we are? opposing factions baying "kill Tryl" and the object of their "hate" one who denies proven fact? The 250 or so who gave their precious time in this conscious world to an obvious idiot should themselves be scrutinised. The freedom to speak, whatever your view, is held high in our ethos of democracy. However... if an idiot can get a crowd to listen to an individual who ignores hard evidence, then there must be quite a few ignorants out there in or universities! Unless... they were in attendance to challenge the speaker, which I am sure the majority were. This was not about a revered figure translating some 2000 year old text to influence young minds for the progression of societal disunity. This was a couple of buffoons spouting vitriol in the open. Let them get on with it and get berated by those who care to turn up. And the protesters should have bought tickets and argued their case!!

Dodger Munzie, Perth (the original one), Caledonia

On the one hand we have Mr Griffin of the BNP describing the protesters as " a mob which would kill", and on the other we have a mob chanting "kill Tryl", assaulting students who wanted to attend the debate, and - incredibly - objecting to being accused of stifling free speech, saying that they simply wanted to deny the BNP a platform for its views. (?)

Strangely, the police were incapable of preventing (one estimate was 30) protesters breaking into the hall, forcing a long delay, and eventually making it necessary to split the meeting into two.

Thank goodness we live in a democracy. Wouldn't it be terrible if we lived in a country like Russia where, we are repeatedly told in voices quivering with horror, a combination of the government, police, and thugs worked together to stifle any real opposition.

M McGregor, London, England

I disagree with Tom M.

I had a ticket and upon trying to enter the Union through the St Michael Entrance I was hit by placards, called a Nazi, scum etc, pushed, spat on. Once I finally managed to enter the Union I was in the chamber when it got stormed. I was initially scared when I was told to move away from the windows whilst a scrum formed around the door to prevent the protestors from entering.

I did hear Griffin speak in the MacMillan room and it has simply cemented by total vehement abhorrence toward the BNP. Not a single person in that room would have been swayed by him.

The protestors claimed they stood for democracy, free speech and against the violence caused by the BNP. Last night I witnessed them physically and violently preventing me from attending the forum...peaceful and democratic - I think not! Just like the chants to kill a 20 year old president.

Well done protestors for discrediting the very reasons you were protesting for!

H, Oxford,

Either you believe in free speech or you don't.

I have read that David Irving is a holocaust denier. Big deal. It's just a point of view. It changes nothing. I hear wierder ideas on Thought For The Day every morning.

And then, when I heard him on Radio 4, he didn't deny that the holocaust happened! In fact he accepted totally that it did happen. His point seemed to be that he thinks Hitler didn't know that the "final solution" was happening to the Jews in the concentration camps. He sounded very reasonable and plausible - much to my surprise. I think he should be allowed to talk and present his arguments. I imagine he's wrong, and I don't care if he's right. I object far more to the people who encourage ignorance by preventing alternative points of view being voiced. We don't have to believe them - but at least we can then listen and make our own minds up - instead of being told what to think by "Unite against Fascism". Oh the irony.

Giordano Bennetti, Swindon,

90% of protestors were not violent nor were they trying to stop the debate. Most of the people I know who went went simply to voice their disaproval of the BNP and the fact they had been invited to the Union, wasting (they felt) the money they put towards the Union, NOT to stop the debate.

Looking at a largely peaceful protest, then taking the actions of a few and calling them Nazis is just as reactionary as the actions you condemn.

Student, Oxford,

Does anyone know if it is possible at all to read what has actually been said during the debate? I don't seem to be able to find anything about it on the Internet.
My personal view is that it was a very sad day for the idea of free speech. You can't be a little pregnant. You can't have a little freedom of speech.

Ervin Dunay, Budakeszi, Hungary

Would the students who demonstrated against Griffin and Irving have been equally upset if the holocaust deniers were muslim clerics?

Mike, London.

Michael Levin, London, UK

was it not voltaire who stated "I disapprove of your views, but would fight to the death for your right to express them."

surley free speech is exactly that, and any attempt to undermine this goes against everything that Briatin and her allies fought for Against Facism during WWII.

Rob, Manchester,

Now I don't in any way support the BNP, however is it not the state of society that when Abu Hamza steps up in Hyde Park and incites terrorism and hatred of the West he gets away with it for months on the basis of free speech. These guys, no matter how wrong they may be, have the same rights and we have the right to ignore them and not vote for their party. This positive discrimination only gives them more fuel for their fire. It's also giving them the publicity they crave

Matt, Nottingham,

those out side the meeting donning their ski masks are the real thugs!! hitlers SA anyone ????
and since when does denying platform not deny free speech?

those anti fa thugs agin trying to pigeon-hole innocent people.
how exactly is the BNP a 'facists' part again?? i missed that section of there manifesto.

chris,nationalist, douglas IOM,

Whatever the rights or wrongs of these two invites, there is something odious about those alleged "anti fascist" protestors- pathetic, more like the nazis than those they turn up to protest against

Ray Barnes, Belfast,

I thought that BNP was just another political party!! Why not let them speak in a public forum? Is the UK turning into another Pakistan??

Ashish Deodhar, Mumbai, India

It is only by debate and open challenging that the half truths and twisted facts that people like the BNP use can be untangled and shown to be what they are.
The protesters outside lost any moral high ground when they started to hit and abuse people attending. Their actions are not disimilar from what is happening inside Putin's Russia.
To finish with here's a quote that's been atributed to Voltaire

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Derek, Macaé, Brasil

I'm disappointed with this paper's reports of last night's events. As a tutor and doctoral student at the University of Oxford I attended the protest outside the union for several hours to express my disgust that two such discredited figures (and let's not forget their criminal records) had been invited. Many of my colleagues were also present. The union is a private club that does not represent the university but, as one of the above comments suggests, will be thought of as having done so: 'well done to Oxford University in allowing this debate to go ahead'. The protest was good-natured and well-policed - we are fortunate enough to live in a society where peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our democracy. Nick Griffin would rescind that right in a flash. He speaks freely in order to attack the freedoms of others. Students, academics, locals, residents of colleges and residents of Cowley, were united in Oxford last night in their objections.

Tom M, Oxford,

Many of the posts, your leader, and your article conflate two issues. The first is freedom of speech. The second is the signal the actions of the Oxford Union send to the country about what students at Oxford stand for. The majority of students I spoke to at the protest were against stopping the debate, but were for registering their disapproval of the pernicious views espoused by the far right BNP and holocaust denying David Irving. The latter is an admirable cause of which the people of Britain, with a history of resistance against fascism, should be proud.

Ben, Oxford, OXON

Mike from Alicante. You are wrong. There are many cases recorded when BNP and NF members have armed themselves with explosives and in at least two, most notoriously the Soho pub, killed and injured people.
Zelda. You cannot have a rational debate on the Holocaust with people who deny it happened or even those who say it was an unintended consequence of war, which is the revisionist version put forward by Irving.
Phil. 'An inalienable right?', to those who want to ethnically cleanse aliens. Get your thinking straight.

Nick.

Nick Howard, Sheffield, UK

Do those whom criticise the BNP ever bother to read their website ? I suspect not.
I worked as a qualified psychiatric nurse fro twenty years-a game infested with 'leftie' staff-and frankly I did not meet one that did not exhibit signs of some form of mental illness.Regardless of whether you agree with the bnp's tennets,the undeniable facts are that most of their predictions are comeing true.
Griffin also at least has higher end qualifications,and conducts his life with his family in a manner that the majority of sheeple in Britain would concur with-no seedy liaisons on Hampstead heath in the BNP camp.
I give up-as far as I can see British people have a death wish,and voting lib/lab/con is a form of self harm.

antony Graham, southport, England

So called "intelligent" students - the future of our nation afraid of democracy... you should all be ashamed of the way you behaved. The right to free speech is paramount in a democracy, but if you would have let them speak I am sure you would have all concluded that these two men are idiots, and in serious debate they would not have stood a chance!

We'll be handing out 40 lashes for naming teddy bears Winston next...

Chris, Newcastle,

I was at the protest last night and I think its outrageous that you are lablling us as "violent thugs". I don't support those who were beating those trying to get into the event but I think it would have been much worse if no one had protested and shown their opposition to the facist views of Griffin and Irving.

A lot of you have brought up the issue of free speech, claiming that the Union wanted to destable Irving and Griffin's views with debate. I, however, am not a member of the Union because I can't afford it. How can I voice my freedom of speech in a debating chamber that is inherently elitist?

I felt that as an Oxford student who did not want these facists linked with my University I had to go to this protest to voice this. Not to stop the debate or harm others, but to voice my opinion.

Roxanne Brennan, oxford,

Why do I find it ironic that those pictured above (1 of 6) who are demonstrating against the BNP are hiding their faces?

I always laugh at these student protesters trying to be more "right-on" than each other. If they had sense rather than self styled moral outrage they would let the guest speakers speak and show themselves up for what they are.

Protests such as these simply give much needed publicity to the very cause they so despise.

Russ, Reading, UK

A debate is "fought" by the logic and reasonableness of the verbal argument, not by physical violence, interruptions and on street protesting.
Similarly on street "civilised" protesting can be opposed by counter street protests.

I feel very strongly on this subject and attended the anti NF street march in Lewisham in 1977, however despite this we must alow any proper debate; even on this subject.

Gilbert, Cheltenham,

Just goes to show you that people are quite scared of the BNP getting into power and will go to extreme lengths to stop them, even if it means being hpocritical to their own belifs.
Moreover; how can the protestors show how "evil" the BNP is when they were the ones who scared away the speakers who were going to argue agaisnt the BNP!
Makes you giggle a bit doesn't it.

But the even funnier side to this story is that it was all "Students" who were protesting agaisnt the speech, they weren't lifelong opposers of the BNP...Students...i dont think much more needs to be said on that

Max, Manchester,

What are the Oxford students thinking? They are now one place below Nazi scum/BNP/racists (however you may describe them). The claim that what happended in Oxford was a protest is an insult to anyone who has ever protested. The complete lack of understanding and emotive response to the speakers has only damaged the cause of liberalism.
Would have been better to let them speak as the union had organised and dig their own graves that way.

will, whitstable, Kent

Too often people forget that free speech is not limited to only to themselves. Free speech of any subject can and often will be offensive to some people, however protesting and attacking speakers is simply never justified. The most appropriate response to speech you disagree with or find offensive is the exercise of your own right of free speech, attacking the person or group only gives that group more credibility. A shame that most of those protesting were likely university students clearly showing their own preference for a fascist society that censors speech akin to the Nazi regime they claim to despise.

Tom Hogner, Tulsa, USA

I think , if it's true, that the protestors hitting the debators is deplorable and it in fact makes them the Nazis.

I also think Nick Griffin is an extremely brave person to express his views, which I suspect are the views of a great proportion of the British people but for some reason they are too scared to express it themselves.

Now we see why.

Kevin Smith, London, England

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Who said that? Wise words. Take away one person's right to free speech and the right to free speech could one day be taken away from all you so-called liberals too

Regardless of a person's views, if you don't like what they say, either enter into debate with them or ignore them.

Easy really

Karen M, Liverpool,

Transparently one form of hatred versus another. In the middle with a relaxed attitude to this debate I have a preference toward reasoned argument over masked aggression, guess which side I would prefer to hear.

Terry, Radstock, England

The liberal principles on which western democracy is based have met the same old fate that religious movements have: in their own days, they all started out as inspired ideas and instruments of social change, and then they inevitably became hollow shells, battle cries for militant tribesmen. The events last night faithfully demonstrated that.

Ervin Dunay, Budakeszi, Hungary

The far-leftists harp on & on about "peace & tolerance", yet they will not tolerate anyone who has a political viewpoint that differs from theirs. They are hypocritical fascists.

Richard, Southport, U.K.

The protestors are just a bunch of thugs. We are SUPPOSED to live in a Country where we have free speech. That always seems to be one sided free speech. These thugs are worse than the people they are trying to stop.
Suppression breeds alienation and extremism and these thugs are the ones responsible for the consequences.

Pedro Tam, London, UK

The invitation of these men to speak at the Oxford Union was not motivated by a noble desire to uphold free speech. These 'free-speech' arguments are post-hoc attempts to justify what was at best a naieve, and at worst a cynical attempt to create a spectacle at the Union, designed to entertain the giddy undergraduates who flock there in search of an exhilarating debate. I am astounded that a group of intelligent and needless to say incredibly priveliged young people could be as irresponsible as to allow their own selfish curiosity to provide a platform for such hate-filled, ignorant, and academically discredited men to peddle their views. What has occured can now not be undone, and has inexorably damaged the social and poitical climate of this country. That those exercising their right to protest are being portrayed as thugs merely reinforces the extent to which this hollow 'free speech' debate has become a public exercise in missing the point. Such stupidity astounds me.

Claire Visser, Oxford University, UK

Violently protesting against a debate about free speech in the name of...free speech. They don't see their position as even a little contradictory? The two sides of this story are both as illiberal and stupid as each other. The only ones who had any decency or intelligence in this whole affair were (unsurprisingly) the Oxford Union. If any of the students protesting were attendants at Oxford they should obviously be expelled.

Oliver, London,

David Irvine is a disgrace. Nick Griffin has courage and has never said anything I would regard as fascist, British jobs for British workers, let me think who said that .......? The multi pronged campaign against him is more akin to fascism than he himself aspires to.

Ian Turner, Dubai, UAE

CAMPAIGN TO SACK TREVOR PHILIPS ANYONE? Once again the man has gone way outside his remit and proved himself unfit for office.

Bob M, Glasgow, UK

Speech is free.

Talk is cheap.

Some opinions are bankrupt.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

I was personally in the Union debating chambers last night. The objectors tried to prevent the debate beforehand by claiming that it provides publicity for right-wing views and would bring loads of BNP demonstrators, endangering student safety.

Well, most of the publicity created was brought forth by protesters themselves. None of the people I spoke to at the Union supported the views of Griffin and Irving but this was not the issue debated. The issue was whether we should grant extremist the freedom of speech and they were there as the representatives, arguing why we should grant them the freedom, although we wouldn't agree with them.

Ironically I didn't see BNP supporters there, only protesters who were themselves a threat to student safety. Some protesters invaded the debating chamber and started to shout and dance around, one guy even pulled down his trousers. What a mature way of arguing for your case. Same goes for the mob outside shouting "Kill Tryl (Union president)".

Sarah, Oxford,

The liberal principles on which western democracy is based have met the same old fate that religious movements have: in their own days, they all started out as inspired ideas and instruments of social change, and then they inevitably became hollow shells, battle cries for militant tribesmen. The events last night faithfully demonstrated that. The loudest defenders of the faith, of democracy, have proved themselves infidels: they do not have faith in the principles that they want to represent. They defend free speech by forcibly denying.

Ervin Dunay, Budakeszi, Hungary

The liberal principles on which western democracy is based have met the same old fate that religious movements have: in their own days, they all started out as inspired ideas and instruments of social change, and then they inevitably became hollow shells, battle cries for militant tribesmen. The events last night faithfully demonstrated that. The loudest defenders of the faith, of democracy, have proved themselves infidels: they do not have faith in the principles that they want to represent. They defend free speech by forcibly denying it.

Ervin Dunay, Budakeszi, Hungary

The liberal principles on which western democracy is based have met the same old fate that religious movements have: in their own days, they all started out as inspired ideas and instruments of social change, and then they inevitably became hollow shells, battle cries for militant tribesmen. The events last night faithfully demonstrated that. The loudest defenders of the faith, of democracy, have proved themselves infidels: they do not have faith in the principles that they want to represent. They defend free speech by forcibly denying it.

Gábor Dunay, Budakeszi, Hungary

No one has the right to speak at the Oxford Union unless invited by the executive. However the executive should insist that they will invite whom they will, be that Kermit the Frog or Messrs Griffin and Irving.
The right to invite whom you will to your own debating society has been challenged as of late, so this a proud day in the history of the Union. This is the day that young undergraduates faced down the bullying, hypocritical establishment, and their lawless rabble in the streets outside. On this day a great blow has been struck for freedom and for reason, and most especially for the University at Oxford.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

When I was at Manchester university there was a young man who was democratically elected to the student union, but as soon as some people found out that he ahd chosen to join the BNP he was forced to leave. They persecuted him all across campus, accused him of many false things such as racism even though he had never done anything racist. His picture with lots of nasty and spiteful comment was plasted all over campus by those against BNP. And the worst thing was that after he was kicked out for being in the BNP, the union announced that they were so disgusted that he was a member of the BNP that they were going to push a union bill through to ensure that no-one was persecuted for their race, religion, sexiality and political beliefs! I agree with the bill, but the fact that it was bought in by people who nastily persecuted someone for their political beliefs was disgusting.

Raj, manchester,

Before you talk about freedom speech,please remember,it
was 1937,Neville Chamberlain said Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party
was right to say what they were saying,freedom of speech then
Both of my parents and millions good officers of people in the
uniform gave theyr life,have learn nothing from all that?
only people with low intelegent,may call this freedom of speech,freedom for whom? As a member of Oxford Union for
long time,I can't afford to resign living locally use it often,and
studend change quite often,most of the time we get good one
sometime drop in nastypiece:Cllr Ken Tiwari(Oxford UK)

Cllr Ken Tiwari, oxfod, United Kingdom

Oh, where to begin?

Timothy L - always great to see 'Zionist' used as a pejorative term. It's certainly a real crime to want your own country back.

Daniel - didn't The Other Place 'educate' Griffin? Plenty of quality thinking there.

Also, last I checked, you can't do a chemistry degree there and have to content yourself with Science's Greatest Hits.

On a less provocative note, I'm uneasy about these 'protestors' and agree with your correspondent contrasting this behaviour with that accorded to the Iranian fool in the nice £10 anorak at Columbia.

I was also uncomfortable seeing Middle East rabble rouser George Galloway defending Jews. That really didn't feel right.

David, Manchester (and Oxford), UK

That is what free speach is! The right to say what you want. Why shouldn't be people be allowed to hear these views - surely they are smart enough to make up their own minds.

mark smith, London,

Of course these people have a right to free speech - that does not mean that the Union has to invite them to air those views. That is simply disgusting....

Natalia, Oxford, UK

Free speech in this country is hanging on by a fingernail. Violence by those who disagree with someone else's point of view will not win sympathy - they are worse than those they are shouting about.

Wen, Oxfordshire,

Why do the "protesters" hide their faces? Think about it, rent a mob?

John, Louth, UK

So what's new about the illiberal left acting true to type? They are just the same as the illiberal right. Both rush to take the moral low ground

Avana Beach, London,

Freedom of speech is a nice thing. And what if someone acts according to what he/she heard because of freedom of speech, suppose he/she kills a person because he/she heard it from an extremist on TV that is OK? What is going to happen to that individual? Should he/she go to jail? What good is freedom of speech if one cannot act according to it.

Igor, Ljubljana, Slovenia

If liberal values are to be protected, then the police need to be proactive in dealing with these anti-free speech campaigners. This kind of violent behaviour, attempting to rob others of their legal rights should not be tolerated in a civilised society.

Andy, Bristol,

Is picture No. 1 above not reminiscent of terrorist supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban? We are not told how many arrests were made by the police last night!

Ian, Freuchie, Scotland

We all know one thing: hate breeds hate. Freedom of expression is essential to our society and community.

Does that mean those who preach hate should get away with inflaming our community? I feel this is when members of our community should decide what is best to create a harmonious society and not the state.

Unfortunately, The Oxford Student Union has shown the worst side this time rather than its best. I am ashamed of the Union.

Ripon Ray, London, United Kingdon

beaten with wooden sticks for attending a discussion?! Now that's real fascism. It's disgusting.

Marco, Birmingham, uk

I don't agree with a lot of things these two individuals have to say. but covering your face and wearing hats to disguise your identity as you protest? (as in picture 1 of the six) Please...

if you disagree with something on the television - you choose not to watch it. if you disagree with something someone is saying - you choose not to listen to it. that does not give you the right to stop other people from hearing it if they choose to do so.

what a shame it is our supposed educational elite that fail to grasp this.

adam, chatham, UK

Recent population projections for the U.K in the Daily Mail suggest it could have a muslim majority by 2050. I have seriously considered conversion myself and barring an unlikely mass deportation of muslims from Britain I suggest the women protesters against the likes of the BNP should seriously get used to the idea of they or their daughters wearing the veil.

Keith Betham, St Helens, Merseyside

So David Irving says he is not anti-semitic. I think a careful consideration of many of the items on his website may give a different impression.

S.Gale, London,

This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in a civilised society. Shame on the police for not pulling out all the stops in dealing with these anti-free speech campaigners.

Andy, Bristol,

Quite frankly I am just amazed that the University allowed itself to be associated with such bad press. It stands to reason the type of interest an event like this would attract. Hilarious that a Red brick would be caught up in this and not the old fashioned 'poly's'.

Charlotte, Swindon, Witshire

• This must now clearly demonstrate how the Marxist left wish to destroy democracy and free speech by force and violence... Those Students who were beaten were not BNP but young people who wanted to decide for themselves on Nick Griffins policy’s, but were denied that right by intimidation, physical attacks, and violence.
• Which was organised from the very top.

george deighton, London, UK

Fascism is alive and well on the left of British politics.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

These violent demonstrators have shown by their own actions that they are the Nazis and fascists, that they proclaim to hate. They have become their own enemy.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

Amazing that the 'darlings' who attend this University might one day run our country. Really inspires confidence.

Charlotte, Swindon, Witshire

As an Oxford graduate, I'm sad to see the Oxford Union not know the difference between free speech and oppression of view's you don't agree with. I'm glad though to see the Debating Society stand up for the right of any and all to engage in free speech, even when the leftists and police try to stop you.

It's telling that so many of those protesting against free speech are Muslim. Apparently it's not just the fundlementalist Muslims who think shouting, and threats of violence are appropriate to silencing your opponets. I would have expected better from the Jewish groups, their history should have made the issue of free speech one in which they have a vested interest in promoting.

The losers here are free speech and the right to confront in free and open debate those who hold views abbhorant to most of society.....and they lost because of a bunch of left wing stalinists who think violence is the stuff of democracy.

Joshua, Buckeye, Az/USA

I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

E Mann, Warwick, U.K.

The moment we start preventing someone from airing their views is the moment we take a sharp decline into a country that oppresses people for their views. We lose all rights to freedom of speech. I don't agree with their views in the slightest but the protests have merely brought them into the limelight and given them coverage they do not deserve. Instead of protesting about their questionable views and opinions, trying to censor them but ultimately giving them the attention and air time they want, leave them to it and ignore them. What would be the point of airing your bigoted views if noone is listening?

Stu, Herts, UK

The Nazis were outside the Oxford Union last night... fascism is alive and well on the political left.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

Let them speak, show them in their true colours. They will then have no more platform when they are exposed for what they undoubtedley are.

Jon, Swansea,

It wasn't a question of free speech. Within the confines of the law, either Irving or Griffin can say what they want. If they operate outside it, they will be convicted. The point is that there was no reason to invite them to speak at this debate, far more cogent and interesting speakers could have been found. I am ashamed at our president insulting his own guests before they spoke. If he feels he has to do that, then perhaps he is admitting that he was in the wrong. Griffin and Irving have an inalienable right to free speech, but there is no reason to supply them with the oxygen of publicity.

Mack, Oxford,

Funny how muslim preachers are allowed to rant in mosques in the UK and no one makes a fuss........

adrian, london,

Anybody that turns up masked to a protest against fascism clearly doesn't believe in the banners they are wielding . A sad day for OU !
The pair in the picture are gutless troublemakers . I would be proud to show my face when standing up for something I truely believe .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

What is the point of having a debating society if people, however repugnant, are not allowed to express their views: good or bad. Everyone has the right to free speach, even if that speech is deemed to be right or wrong by the majority. If we as a society, do not stop preventing free speach, well I don't know what-we could be soon locking up our primary teachers because and administering 40 lashes! Why, because their students decide to call their class room teddy mascot -Mohammed-not for any other reason other than it is the most poplular name in the region. So what is the didactic? Free the teddy, free the teacher, free speech!

Dan, London, uk

The Nazis were outside the Oxford Union protesting. Who will these intolerant bigots target next?

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

Why are they so afraid of letting Mr Griffin speak? Just take a look at all the reports over this incident and you will see why!

Barnsley, Nationalist,

Saying you ‘believe in free speech, but...’ is meaningless, just as saying ‘I’m not racist, but...’. Either we are free to say and think what we believe or we are not. The liberals ought to be inside the room arguing with the fascists and proving them wrong, not just protesting pointlessly outside. You can’t win the war against fascist ideas if you don’t fight the battles. Banning things just makes us look like we are scared to take them on.

Jon, London, UK

Simple situation. It's all about oppression-oriented types trying to censor people who have different views from being heard. No big deal. We live with that in the US at the hands of Zionist free-speech oppressors every day. Standard low-brow intolerance.

TimothyL, New York, USA

Does nobody remember the Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his visit to New York's Columbia University recently? His views are arguably as abhorrent, and quite similar to those held by these two, yet he was allowed to speak. He was asked many of the tricky questions, and his audience were given the freedom to make up their own minds about what he said.

It's worth noting that the very topic of the debate is on free speech, but by not allowing them to speak, aren't you fueling any arguments they might have?

Whether any good comes of debate with these people is a different matter entirely.

Orestis Bastounis, Bath, UK

Once you go down the path of limiting freedom of speech, it's a very slippery slope.

Who will be banned next? Will the current party in power ban anyone who says anything against them? Will there be a ban on anyone who smokes from having freedom of speech? Will they ban car drivers? Thats the problem, once it starts, it's impossible to know where it will end.

We cant give freedom of speech to those we like, those who we agree with. The whole point of freedom of speech, is we have a right to discuss, and in this case, debate, with people.

How about banning the freedom of speech to those who want to limit the freedom of speech? Why not, it's pretty much what they want to do.

Arthur, Newcastle,

I am near the Union chamber at the moment and the reports of students planning to attend the debate (which, don't forget, was due to feature speakers opposing Griffin and Irving too) being beaten and called 'Nazi scum' by the 'liberal' protesters outside the doors are true. The protesters have decided that some views are unacceptable, will corrupt the rest of society if peacefully expressed, and must be repressed by violent and undemocratic means. In that respect they are exactly the same as the fascists they condemn.

Richard, Oxford,

For less nonsense and more thinking, try the Other Place.

Daniel, Cambridge, Cambs.

The violent thugs who stopped tonight's debate from going ahead rationalise their behaviour by claiming denial of platform is not denial of free speech. Where does that line of logic end up? It can be used to deny free speech at any level. Also, what stopped the police from enforcing the law and ejecting these thugs from the Oxford Union's private property, after they had broken in illegally? This is a breakdown of law and order, not just of civilised behaviour. The violent protesters, and those that broke in, should be thoroughly ashamed of their disgusting behaviour.

Andrew G, Oxford, UK

Luke Tryl is quite right. We must always be prepared to engage the debate, even with individuals with whom we profoundly disagree. It is sad to see that this obvious and fundamental truth seems to escape some of the country's brightest and most privileged minds. Are they not capable of winning the argument?


It was not this country's brightest minds that staged the disgraceful violence this evening. It seems the louder one shouts the more one is heard. Throw in some violence and the day is won.
I'm saddened the debate has been canceled. What next?

Marion, Tamworth, Staffs

Yes it is the democratic right to have free speech; these two men are quite able to exercise this right on their websites, published literature and in the case of Griffin, the democratic process. The issue here is the perceived validation of their extreme views by giving them a platform in which to express themselves. There are people in this country that will not see this as anything but a validation of extremist rightwing views thus heightening tensions in the country. This destabilization of the country is an aim of the far right and extremist terrorism. Not to have them invited or have this event would not be a restriction of their ability to freely speak their views. We must think of the security of the state and balance liberalism in controversial events such as this with the stability of the populous. The protesters should really direct their attention to the organizers of this debate.

James Dickaty, Plymouth, United Kingdom

we must admit that it maybe well inour genes to provoke and poke people knowing that others might get hurt and still do them in the name of freedom of speech..indeed great britain...

marina, london,

How ironic that it has been solely thanks to the protests of the far-left tonight that the BNP have been given far more positive publicity as victims of intimidation, than were they to simply turn up, give a speech, answer questions, and then leave all completely unopposed.

Justifying giving the BNP a speech platform such as I am now is usually followed by the banal logic "it will give people the chance to beat the BNP in debate". Being a supporter of the BNP, I feel that the reverse is true, and for the "liberal" far-left groups to take such extreme action as tonight indicates that they do to.

Charles Bunker, St Albans, Hertfordshire

I think the students are simply naive to think that they can make a positive difference by creating this circus. Free speech does not mean that these two clowns have a right to be heard at the Union, and using a free speech argument in defence of the Union is plain idiotic. The students made the choice to give a forum to these views and I think it was a very poor choice indeed.

James, London, United Kingdom

I have had the dubious pleasure of interviewing both Irving and Griffin at length in recent years. While I thoroughly condemn the causes and views which they espouse, I do not, on balance, think that what they have to say is so dangerous or inflammatory that the principle of free speech be sacrificed in their honour.

It is much better instead for their arguments to be heard by an intelligent audience, and dismissed accordingly once they have spoken. Only if they stray outside the criminal law should they lose their right to free speech and arguably, as Mr Irving found to his cost in Austria, their liberty.

Ultimately, we have very little to fear from Irving or Griffin: their views are manifestly odious to the vast majority of people - and will remain so. But we have everything to lose if we prevent someone speaking simply because we disagree with what they say. That is a key part of the democracy we all enjoy.

Dominic Carman, London,

The right will recall the events of tonight as an example of leftwing democracy for decades to come. Tonight the morality of the left went into the red.

Al, Oxford, England

If you think that this opportunity is a 'platform' for these two controversial figures to build their views onto the mainstream, then you seriously underestimate the Oxford debating society. If anything, I put my money on these two getting slaughtered in the debate by a 19 year old.

A Mahmood, London, England

could the Times not contact Griffin or Irving for a comment.Oh free speech 1984. mick.Essex

mick, tilbury, england

Oh the irony!

Love them or hate them the BNP have a inalienable right to be heard.

Phill, The Wirral, England

Turn two speakers away from a debate on 'free speech' because of their views on certain matters? How Ironic. Surely the way forward would be to encourage such people to come to such debates so that their flawed views can be challenged and discredited?

E P Devenney, Plymouth,

"It is my belief that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing."

Exactly! Let them speak. If this function was about criticism of Islam, I am sure everyone would defend and demand it goes through or keep quite. If the Jewish Society uses their power to stop this function, we're going to call out 'double standards'.

Mohammed, London, UK

Why do people have to unite to prevent speech, surely preventing free speech is what these people want to fight against (Far right fascism).

Let them speak, hear their point of view, and argue all you want against it, do not suppress their views. Everyone is entitled to the right of an opinion.

James Brophy, Pitstone, Buckinghamshire

In spite of Labours attempts to curtail free speech it is still legal to hold a debate within the constraints of the law. People like Trevor Phillips, Des Browne and Jacqui Smith may totally disagree with Griffins or Irvings views but that is the point of free speech. The telling indictment here is that the police have to be in attendance because of politically correct extremists & terrorists threatening trouble at the Oxford debate. One never hears of any other 'extremists' threatening Mosques, Synagogues or Temples and requiring 24/7 police protection. I think that spells out who the real terrorists are in Britain today and its not the BNP or Irving. Whatever you may feel about the policies of the BNP, almost without exception they work within the law, they don't explode terrorists bombs in London and just because some people may find their comments awkward, difficult or damming, it doesn't make them less true. If the truth hurts so be it, its your problem so live with it !

Mike, Alicante, Spain

I am totally for free speech, just as long as only MY ideas are allowed. Ideas that differ from mine should never be permitted!

Doug Whitman, Normal, IL, USA

As a Jew and a rational person I don't agree with these men's beliefs, but I think that the overreaction to their invitation to speak is wrong. It implies that we are afraid to argue with them in a rational manner; that our position (e.g. that 6 million did die in the holocaust and racism is wrong) can't withstand open debate. Secondly, it implies that their views are important and relevant enough to be frightening, when in reality most would discard them as nonsense. They're just a couple of small minded liars. Argue with them or ignore them, but don't treat them like a real threat.

Zelda , London, UK

The invites from the Oxford Union have been debated throughout the university for many weeks now, and your article has failed to mention a few key facts-

1/ The Oxford Union was founded independant of the University, and as such neither the University nor the Students Union has any authority over it.

2/ There is no clear consensus among students whether this is right or wrong- opinion is fairly evenly split.

3/Speaking at the Oxford Union is not necessarily a vindication of the speakers opinion- the debate is on free speech, and both speakers were invited because they have both been in court for comments they have made- the debate is NOT on the legitimacy of their viewpoint.

Paul, Oxford,

I neither condone nor condem the rights of these people to speake and hopefully field questions.
Most people who are intelligent and well read will draw their own conclusions from what is said.It's fascinating to see the level of anti hysteria rise for this event yet it remains completly annoymous to the human rights of the women/people of Saudi Arabia,yet our Royal family kiss the gilded hand of these people.

Simon bromfield, guildford, surrey

Why is Trevor Phillips head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission? How can he be "outraged" by a democratically made decision? Does he even know the meaning of the words "Equality" and "Human Rights"?

a. rogers, bologna,

As the parent of a recent Oxford graduate, I am deeply concerned that anybody should question the right of this great university to preserve its tradition of the impartial pursuit of truth. That means that presuppositions, in the form of militant political images, should never put a gag on open debate.

Herewith an example of what I mean by open debate: the United Kingdom is technically a Christian Monarchy, but Bertrand Russell, in yesteryear's generation of secular pundits, and Richard Dawkins, in the present generation of the same species, have been permitted to blast Christianity from here to kingdom come without a word of protest from the law-abiding opposition.

That being the case, Griffin and Irving should be allowed to say their piece, and should then be refuted by properly educated supporters of reason, truth and justice.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

The BNP are a legally formed, law abiding political party who publish their policies and manifesto openly to public scrutiny.

They have a right to express their views. We, the voting public, have the intelligence to see them for what they are and we can make our own minds up when it comes to ballot day.

If they are as evil and as racist as you protestors would have us believe, then you are insulting our intelligence by saying we are not bright enough to see that for ourselves. I'd like to think for myself, thanks all the same.

Let them speak and let us decide for ourselves. Forcing them underground will do more to boost their popularity than wimping out of debating with them.

And talking of wimps, the Labour and Tory droids who are refusing a platform with them or resigning from the debating society, shame on you. If you feel so strongly against their views, get up there and argue the case. But then maybe you just aren't up to it intellectually?

Garley, London,

When David Irving issued libel proceedings against American history professor Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books ( because Professor Lipstadt referred to him as a Holocaust denier) did he do this as an upholder of free speech ? I do not think so-he uses the threat of defamation proceedings as a tool to cut down not extend free speech.

He lost at the trial in which a detailed forensic examination of the evidence took place . At the trial the clear distinction between matters of genuine debate between reputable historians and Holocaust denial and falsification of history was self-evident. Maybe the Chair of the Oxford Union should have read the trial transcripts before inviting him to speak at the Union.

Wendy , London,

'Students fear that a counter-demonstration by far-right activists could set off scuffles.' Ah- so any problems will naturally be caused by the Far Right rather than the 'Liberal' Left who have organised this protest DESPITE the event going ahead by the Union members voting 2:1 in favour? Makes you wonder who these real 'fascists' intent on undermining democracy and banning free speech are doesn't it?

Dan, Oxford, England

Some of us were in the chamber tonight and fought in the ruck in the doorway to hold the protesting rif-raf at bay as they forced themselves in. They chanted, "this is what democracy looks like"; rather it looked like mob rule to me. Why the police did nothing to stop them climbing over the walls in the first place, I don't know. Once they were in it was apparently trespass and therefore a 'Civil' matter- leaving us students to fight them off. All in all, it was a show of hypocritical force by leftist loons unprepared to challenge people intellectually; a case of the loudest voice will be heard. The far right came out of this evening as martyrs- well done OUSU!

Tom Glasspool, Oxford,

Oxford debating Society is prestigious because it allows open debate on controversial subject.s The Oxford Union should not allow itself to be bullied into canceling their forum. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct and should be robustly defended. Whether one agrees or opposes the views of Mr Griffin and Mr Irving is irrelevant; their opinions are legitimate and therefore valid for discussion

laura baddick, braunton, devon

I want to hear what they have to say. Where can I hear a broadcast?

John, Guildford, UK

If you can't hear their views, how can you ridicule them fairly?

Shaun Walker, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire,

Well. I go to Oxford, and I haven't heard a word about any lockdown, or protests. My college certainly hasn't emailed me.

Greg Lees, Oxford,

Well done to Oxford University in allowing this debate to go ahead.
Freedom of speech is exactly that, the freedom to allow everyone a right to have their say.
Freedom of speech is NOT the freedom to allow everyone that certain people like and agree with otherwise we'll have a tantrum and not turn up ourselves.
Just because you may not like what these people have to say does not give you the right to discriminate against them otherwise you are no more than hypocrites.

Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire

We are sitting in st john's college oxford right now, and we've just been out and are going out again in about 10 minutes. We are definately not 'locked down'. Your provocative headline is about as accurate as David Irving's latest book.

Will Sentance, Oxford, UK

seems the streets of Oxford are starting to resemble those of Jenin during an IDF foray.

sid, Boston, USA

We live in a democracy and whether or not one agrees with Mr Griffin, he and his supporters have every right to voice their opinion. I do feel that if the government does not start controlling immigration properly, people will start turning to the BNP to have their voice heard.

Roger T, Nottingham, UK

Free speech is just that, whether you agree or disagree with the two gentlemen they should have the right to debate any issues that are on the table, protesting is just making more people look long and hard at their views and is providing them with the answers to their arguments.

Ken Little, Sydney, Australia NSW

Let them speak.
I believe this invitation is called bear-baiting.
These two are of no consequence unless you allow them to be.
I am more concerned that this Government will use tomorrow's papers to bury even yet more bad news.

Margaret Foster, London, England

Luke Tryl is quite right. We must always be prepared to engage the debate, even with individuals with whom we profoundly disagree. It is sad to see that this obvious and fundamental truth seems to escape some of the country's brightest and most privileged minds. Are they not capable of winning the argument?

It might be worth reflecting that, if the Oxford Union had its way, no one would have fought for King and Country. What then of some of the evils of which your contributors so rightly complain?

Charles Proctor, London , UK