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.
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.
posted by Debating and Public Speaking Society | 3:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home