23/10/2006

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do?"

Monday 23rd December 2006 saw the fourth Public Speaking Forum of the 2006/2007 academic year in the Harold Wilson Room, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?". David Hewitt spoke in favour of the proposition with Benjamin Lyon against. Steve Molloy acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate indulgence, Almond slices, Angel Slices and Mini-Battenburgs. The initial vote was a tie with most abstaining.

David opened the debate with a speech on the negative effects of multiculturalism and the perceived lack of a desire to integrate on the part of some sections, in particular, of the Muslim community. He argued that the wearing of the veil marked a difference which set some Muslims apart from mainstream British society and the practical effects this could have, for example, in schools where communication was a major issue. He stated that respect for other cultures should not encompass insisting on changes to the indiginous culture of a country- "when in Saudi Arabia", he stated, "I would not wear revealing western clothes".

Benjamin replied with a speech calling for tolerence and moderation. He argued that British values of freedom and individual liberty would best be reflected in allowing people to wear whatever they so desired. He argued that since 9/11, (or should that be 11/9 in the UK? ed.) the Muslim community has felt itself under pressure from the media who have constantly sought to vilify it. It is only natural, therefore, that Muslims are more wary and thus more sensitive about British attitudes towards them, and that banning the wearing of the veil would only make more women want to wear it. Furthermore he elucidated that the Qu'ran, like other religious texts, is open to interpretation, and that there can thus be no "right" or "wrong" interpretation concerning the veil. He conceded that in practical terms, there may be situations in which it would be desirable for women to refrain from wearing it, however.

There followed a lively floor discussion in which the debate was widened. Questions were asked concerning the concept of "Britishness". What is it? Does it even exist? To what extent should people be expected to integrate? Do schemes which have been derided by some as "political correctness" help or hinder integration of minorities in the U.K?

The final vote went in favour of the oppositon, still with a majority abstaining. It was resolved that next week's forum would be on the subject of colonialism. James, the esteemed President and "Gaffer" then invited those assembled for a kickabout in Sefton Park at 1pm on Sunday. Those assembled then disgorged to the Augustus John.

16/10/2006

"The present nuclear powers should be able to maintain the status quo."

Monday 16th September 2006 saw the third Public Speaking forum of the 2006/2007 academic year. The topic of choice followed the announcement the previous week of the ascent of North Korea to the world's nuclear club. There were three speakers each presenting a different perspective on the issue; David Hewitt proposed that the status quo should be maintained, Mohammed Al Mannai spoke in favour of the idea that all nuclear weapons should be banned, and Chris Wright advocated allowing all nations of the world to have their own nuclear weapons. James Fraser acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate Indulgence, Organic Flapjacks, French Fancies, Lemon Slices and Almond Slices (much to the delight of el Presidente!)

No vote was taken initially as it was felt that the positions of the speakers required further exposition before the audience could reach an informed decision.

David opened the discussion rather un-conventionally by presenting an audio-visial powerpoint presentation (done in the dark with candles, in glorious breach of the Guild's Health and Safety Policy in all probability!) showing the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons including images of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He argued that the status quo was desirable as the past 60 years had shown that responsible nations could use nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent, but that to allow unstable dictatorships to also gain access to nuclear weapons would destabilise this. He elaborated that while it would be desirable to get rid of nukes altogether, this was an unrealistic aspiration.

Chris continued the debate by stating that the only real way to ensure no nation could bully any other is for every nation to be afforded the opportunity to possess nuclear weapons. That way no country would ever invade another as the threat of nuclear retaliation would be too great a risk to take. To allow every country to possess nuclear weapons, he argued, would maintain peace on the basis of mutually assured destruction and would thus never need to be used and would ensure safety and security for all.

Mohammed, by contrast, took the view that the cause of world peace would best be served by advocating the end of nuclear weapons worldwide as a gradual and incremental process. He elaborated that as a start, all nations of the world would need to acknowledge, by treaty or otherwise, that nuclear proliferation is a "bad" thing in the same way that every nation has officially condemned torture although some still practice it. It is hoped, he added, that this would spur the nuclear superpowers into a process of nuclear disarmament and dissuade non nuclear states from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He stressed that this would need to be a gradual approach but could realistically could work in time.

There followed a passionate floor debate in which various issues were raised such as the practicality of disarmament, who should be in charge of who can and cannot possess nukes?, the realities of nuclear politics over the past 60 years, North Korea and doubts over the trustworthiness of dictators not to use nukes aggressively. The idea that civilian nuclear programmes should also be banned as they could easily be converted for weapons use or become a target was also discussed, as was the notion that terrorists could get hold of nuclear weapons on the black market if countries officially disarmed, but kept some nuclear weapons secretly hidden "in their back pocket".

A vote was held after a long series of discussions and the vote was cast in favour of David's proposition, followed by Mohammed's, then Chris's. It was resolved that the topic of next week's forum would be "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" following the recent controversies over religious forms of dress in Britain.

9/10/2006

"Some extreme views are so abhorrent they should not be afforded the benefit of a public platform"

Monday 9th October 2006 saw the second Public Speaking Forum of 2006-2007. The topic was "Some extreme views are so abhorrent they should not be afforded the benefit of a public platform" The speakers were James Fraser for the proposition and Steve Molloy opposing, Craig Williams acted as Chairman. There was again a full house! Cakes present were: Coffee, Chocolate Indulgence, Raspberry Sponge and French Fancies. The initial audience vote was cast in favour of the opposition.

James opened the debate with an analysis of the proposition that by being allowed a public platform, such extreme groups as the BNP are given the opportunity to espouse their hate filled rhetoric whilst maintaining the facade of respectability. This would be detrimental to society as it would serve as a recruitment vehicle for a party already given far too much publicity for the size, membership and vote. He continued that while it is unlikely that the BNP would ever threaten the major parties on a national level, it is the concentration of the BNP vote in deprived yet ethnically diverse areas at local elections which proves the greatest cause for worry as the party and its supporters pray on people's fears about deprivation in their area through a campaign of misinformation, scaremongering and criminal activity. He stressed that while seeking to ban such a party would be an unlikely proposition, keeping them in the position where they are not allowed a public platform in the same way as mainstream parties is ultimately beneficial.

Steve responded by arguing that while the BNP and their like are an abhorrently racist party who's views are at odds with those of mainstream society, it is neverthess a mainstream value that those with unpalatable views should be allowed to air those views. He argued that a policy of preventing the BNP from speaking at events other politicians are permitted to attend, their appeal may be widened insofar as they will be able to portray themselves as martyrs, and as a result those who are already disillusioned with mainstream parties will find themselves more attracted to their message. He stressed that allowing groups such as the BNP to take part in such events, the other parties would be able to expose the BNP policies for what they are, and as a result of intelligent debate, members of the public who may have been attracted to BNP rhetoric will be better informed about what they really stand for, which would in turn lessen their support without society being hypocritical about the issue of free expression.

There followed a lively audience debate in which several other issues were raised including the criminal activity of BNP supporters, the free speech provisions in other parts of the world, the already-noted practical effects of giving the BNP publicity and how one would judge which views are "extreme".

The final vote went to the opposition with quite a swing, though it must be noted that a number of late-comers also voted which muddied the waters and it was difficult to ascertain what the actual swing (if any) might have been.

It was resolved that next week's forum would be on the topic of nuclear weapons proliferation, following the announcement that day that North Korea had tested a nuclear device.

3/10/2006

"Environmental Policy should be of the highest priority in government."

Monday 3rd October 2006 saw the first Public Speaking Forum of 2006-2007. The topic was "Environmental Policy should be of the highest priority in government." The speakers were Anna Welsh for the proposition and Craig Williams opposing, James Fraser acted as Chairman. There was a full house with some members of the audience having to sit on tables... very promising for the future! Cakes present were: Carrot and Orange, Coffees, Lemon slices and Angel slices. The initial audience vote was cast in favour of the opposition.

Anna opened the debate with an interesting diagnosis of the ways in which the environment and man's impact upon it have started to affect our everyday lives, and that such impacts would be disasterous for the future if allowed to continue unchecked. She proposed a holistic approach in which the environmental impact of every policy would be considered before legislation was passed.

Craig responded with concerns about the "here and now" stating that other policies such as health and education which are already subject to great financial pressure and would suffer further if environmental policy were allowed to take up such a great amount of time and resources in government. He also made the point that the environment is a global issue, and that it would be futile to bring the environment to the forefront of UK policies, to the detriment of all else, whilst the largest polluters, the USA and China, remained forthright in their intentions to pursue economic goals over environmental ones.

There followed a lively audience debate and a final vote which went in favour of the opposition, but with a slight swing towards the proposition. It was resolved that next week's topic would be the "No-Platform" policy.