MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007
But what about the protests of hindraf?
To draw a comparison between the protests at the union and those of hindraf, is likely a very futile effort.
Again, it's all about your rights and infringing on the rights of others.
In the case of union protesters denying students entry into the union, their right to stand in that particular spot blocking the way, was overridden by the right of a student intending to get past him into the debating chamber.
But in the case of hindraf, yes the rally did infringe on the right of some people to go shopping here and there, watch the MPO, and buy fried chicken from KLCC. But the fact here is, there are greater rights that are being forsaken, that override those little infringed rights. Hindraf did not deserve tear gas and chemically laced water cannons because their right to live without racial discrimination is being infringed. their right to a democratic government through fair elections was infringed. and that, is more important than the right of a minority of politically ignorant people to go shopping on Sunday.
Again, it's all about your rights and infringing on the rights of others.
In the case of union protesters denying students entry into the union, their right to stand in that particular spot blocking the way, was overridden by the right of a student intending to get past him into the debating chamber.
But in the case of hindraf, yes the rally did infringe on the right of some people to go shopping here and there, watch the MPO, and buy fried chicken from KLCC. But the fact here is, there are greater rights that are being forsaken, that override those little infringed rights. Hindraf did not deserve tear gas and chemically laced water cannons because their right to live without racial discrimination is being infringed. their right to a democratic government through fair elections was infringed. and that, is more important than the right of a minority of politically ignorant people to go shopping on Sunday.
Of Protesters and The Most Controversial Debate This Year Part 2
I felt the content of the debate deserves a post itself.
First to highlight what happened with logistics. Along with about over 50 other union members, we made our way through security at the purple turtle alleyway to the frewin court entrance. We had to hang around the bar for about an hour, waiting for protests to die down and all the loose protestors running around union grounds were caught and escorted outside. Because they didn't want us to cross the little quad area from the bar to the debating chamber, Luke Tryl and his Oxford Union committee decided to split the debate up. In the Macmillan Room, where I was, Nick Griffin went against two students named James and Jess.. and it's a shame I don't know their suranmes. The debating chamber featured David Irving and I have no idea at this moment who he was speaking against.
First to speak was Jess, an American girl studying law and a very experienced debater. This was followed by questions from the floor, then griffin, questions, then the south african james, questions.
I don't remember the arguments and points chronologically, but I shall try to log some of the main themes and points I remember.
I suspect a large number of these points I remember have to do with griffin's ludicrous arguments. For the uninitiated, the BNP believes in protecting the white race from all sorts of things, physical abuse from other racial groups, blood thinning, job losses, that kind of thing. I won't say too much for fear of a contradiction. But if I'm wrong on any way, you're free to check out the BNP website and see for yourself exactly what I mean to say. One of his arguments for stopping immigration to the UK was that the UK is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world, and he was very worried about the carbon footprint of all these black people immigrating from africa. Again, I'm sure he was much more eloquent in bringing across the point, but that's the main bit I remember. He also believes libel laws should be abolished because the poor are unable to benefit from those laws. As James rightly pointed out, one should tackle the root cause that the poor are unable to file libel cases rather than abolish the law in its entirety. And yea, I won't even bother bringing up the points against the carbon footprint argument, suffice to say the crowd LOLed at this argument.
Another of his main issues was that muslim immigrants target young white females and introduce them to drugs and alcohol and "groom them for sex" and this was a major problem in society. As Jess rightly pointed out, the problem here is that these people are rapists, but this has nothing to do with the Muslim community as a whole, and that certainly isn't an argument to repatriate all Muslims back to their home country. It was basically, a weak racist argument. He thinks that everyone should have the right to defend their home territories with boots and fists from any outsiders. So native americans can spear any white americans and aborigines can murder any white australians, that's his principles, seriously. I think a lot of his points can be refuted by the fact that he refuses to see people as equals, and chooses to classify people by race. But we all know this is wrong, but it's also hard for me to put the argument down in succint details. If a white man gets mugged by two black people, that doesn't make you right when you incite that all black people are a threat to the existence of the white race. See, the issue here is that he's classifying everyone by their race. that's the main weakness.
The debate itself was meant to be focused on the limits of free speech. Jess and James point out that one has a right to speech so long as it does not cause harm to others, or infringe on one's dignity or their rights. So they argued that nick griffin goes too far, because his racist comments make it easier for racial hate crimes to occur. Denying a black person has a right to exist as a resident of the UK causes real harm, they argued. And in the end, it was the rational maturity of the oxford students that prevailed, as griffin's points were well rebutted in an intellectual debate. I believe the debate was a good thing ultimately, because confronting evil arguments with counter-arguments is a much better way to deal with these things, as opposed to denying them entry to a debate where they can be challenged intellectually. And all this, despite the shortcomings of my memory to recall and log every single argument explicitly.
For I am weary after a long night, and I feel a stronger person after that debate. Whether it was the dynamic duo of jess and james speaking so passionately yet rationally, or the spirit of debate that was so alive in the bar and room while we were waiting, or jst a sense of accomplishment of knowing much more about these issues. In the end, if nobody got physically harmed, good job oxford union.
First to highlight what happened with logistics. Along with about over 50 other union members, we made our way through security at the purple turtle alleyway to the frewin court entrance. We had to hang around the bar for about an hour, waiting for protests to die down and all the loose protestors running around union grounds were caught and escorted outside. Because they didn't want us to cross the little quad area from the bar to the debating chamber, Luke Tryl and his Oxford Union committee decided to split the debate up. In the Macmillan Room, where I was, Nick Griffin went against two students named James and Jess.. and it's a shame I don't know their suranmes. The debating chamber featured David Irving and I have no idea at this moment who he was speaking against.
First to speak was Jess, an American girl studying law and a very experienced debater. This was followed by questions from the floor, then griffin, questions, then the south african james, questions.
I don't remember the arguments and points chronologically, but I shall try to log some of the main themes and points I remember.
I suspect a large number of these points I remember have to do with griffin's ludicrous arguments. For the uninitiated, the BNP believes in protecting the white race from all sorts of things, physical abuse from other racial groups, blood thinning, job losses, that kind of thing. I won't say too much for fear of a contradiction. But if I'm wrong on any way, you're free to check out the BNP website and see for yourself exactly what I mean to say. One of his arguments for stopping immigration to the UK was that the UK is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world, and he was very worried about the carbon footprint of all these black people immigrating from africa. Again, I'm sure he was much more eloquent in bringing across the point, but that's the main bit I remember. He also believes libel laws should be abolished because the poor are unable to benefit from those laws. As James rightly pointed out, one should tackle the root cause that the poor are unable to file libel cases rather than abolish the law in its entirety. And yea, I won't even bother bringing up the points against the carbon footprint argument, suffice to say the crowd LOLed at this argument.
Another of his main issues was that muslim immigrants target young white females and introduce them to drugs and alcohol and "groom them for sex" and this was a major problem in society. As Jess rightly pointed out, the problem here is that these people are rapists, but this has nothing to do with the Muslim community as a whole, and that certainly isn't an argument to repatriate all Muslims back to their home country. It was basically, a weak racist argument. He thinks that everyone should have the right to defend their home territories with boots and fists from any outsiders. So native americans can spear any white americans and aborigines can murder any white australians, that's his principles, seriously. I think a lot of his points can be refuted by the fact that he refuses to see people as equals, and chooses to classify people by race. But we all know this is wrong, but it's also hard for me to put the argument down in succint details. If a white man gets mugged by two black people, that doesn't make you right when you incite that all black people are a threat to the existence of the white race. See, the issue here is that he's classifying everyone by their race. that's the main weakness.
The debate itself was meant to be focused on the limits of free speech. Jess and James point out that one has a right to speech so long as it does not cause harm to others, or infringe on one's dignity or their rights. So they argued that nick griffin goes too far, because his racist comments make it easier for racial hate crimes to occur. Denying a black person has a right to exist as a resident of the UK causes real harm, they argued. And in the end, it was the rational maturity of the oxford students that prevailed, as griffin's points were well rebutted in an intellectual debate. I believe the debate was a good thing ultimately, because confronting evil arguments with counter-arguments is a much better way to deal with these things, as opposed to denying them entry to a debate where they can be challenged intellectually. And all this, despite the shortcomings of my memory to recall and log every single argument explicitly.
For I am weary after a long night, and I feel a stronger person after that debate. Whether it was the dynamic duo of jess and james speaking so passionately yet rationally, or the spirit of debate that was so alive in the bar and room while we were waiting, or jst a sense of accomplishment of knowing much more about these issues. In the end, if nobody got physically harmed, good job oxford union.
Of Protesters and The Most Controversial Debate This Year Part 1
Just got back from the Oxford Union's forum/debate entitled "What are the limits of free speech?" featuring a guest speakers Nick Griffin and David Irving.
First, the issue of protesters. Being the highly controversial debate it was, masses of protesters comprising a diverse range or societies and groups of people absolutely flooded St Michael's street. It would take about 20 minutes to travel the 20 metres between the Nosebag and Frewin Annexe entrance. I'm guessing classicist Harry Ford could confirm that. One of the salient points brought up during the debate was a new one, namely the attitude and behaviour of the protesters. Yes, they have an absolute understandable right to protest PEACEFULLY against the BNP's policies and also to the Union's decision not to withdraw the invitations. And as most naive people would have believed multiple claims prior to the debate that protests were going to be peaceful (but vocal, says one mailing list). But here, protesters were blocking the union entrance, and denying every student entry into the Oxford Union to watch the debate. Verbal abuse coupled with arm grabbing action ensued whenever a student tried to make it through the barricade explaining that they'd like to get in to watch the debate. Also, about one hour past protesting began, protesters began climbing the fence of the union and stormed the debating chamber in an effort to unnerve the guests and disrupt the debate. "House of Hate" one placard read.
The point I'd like to bring up ties closely with a main theme covered by the speakers tonight, and it has to do with the issue of Freedom and Rights. Where can we draw the line on our freedoms and rights. I think tonight, I have a fairly confident idea of where the line should be drawn on several cases. For the issue of the protesters, yes, they have a right to protest against BNP's policies and Irving's principles, and also a right to protest against the union's decision to hold the event. But Union members voted 2 to 1 to allow the event to go ahead. And the many students who agreed with the union's decision, have their right to acquire tickets and watch the debate. This is the main point, you have a right to protest, but you don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others to express their views either. Breaking and entering into the union, pretty uncontroversial to people, is wrong. Absolute hypocrisy for an anti fascist protester to break into the union and endanger innocent students. But what about the people denying students entry to watch the debate? Were they infringing the rights of others when they chose to exercise their freedom to stand at that spot to protests. Yes, they were infringing on the rights of the many students, who had the opinion that the debate was justified, and wanted to be a part of it. So in summary, yes, in this case, the protesters went to far. Police then intervened specifically to ensure the safety of the students. I believe police regulation was an absolute necessity in this case, and many people had the opinion that there weren't enough police, especially within union grounds.
But it is also a matter of interest to discuss how police should deal with protesters of this nature. If a protester climbs over a locked and barbed fence and charges through locked doors, I do believe the police have a right to arrest them. But for the many protesters attempting to deny oxford students entry, what of them? In this case, the police were just barely able to provide a physical barrier between protesters and the entrance into the alleyway leading to the purple turtle entrance. Was the use of force necessary on these protesters? In tonight's case, luckily not. But suppose a protester tried to deny a student entry, after repeated warnings from a policeman. Would force be necessary then? I feel the answer is largely yes. He abused his freedom to peacefully protest his cause, and denied the freedom of others. But bear in mind I'm not talking about tear gas or chemically laced water cannons. Of course not. The proper police protocol would be to restrain the person, which in would not have to lead to bodily harm.
In summary of this part of my post, James (2nd speaker opposing griffin) rightly pointed out that the shameful acts of these protesters indeed served to credit the griffin and irving instead of challenging them. Which was largely the original intention of the debate, that is to challenge griffin and irving in an academic, intellectual, and mature debate, with Oxford Union house rules applied equally to everyone. And in this sense, I feel the debate was a success, as I shall highlight in my next post.
First, the issue of protesters. Being the highly controversial debate it was, masses of protesters comprising a diverse range or societies and groups of people absolutely flooded St Michael's street. It would take about 20 minutes to travel the 20 metres between the Nosebag and Frewin Annexe entrance. I'm guessing classicist Harry Ford could confirm that. One of the salient points brought up during the debate was a new one, namely the attitude and behaviour of the protesters. Yes, they have an absolute understandable right to protest PEACEFULLY against the BNP's policies and also to the Union's decision not to withdraw the invitations. And as most naive people would have believed multiple claims prior to the debate that protests were going to be peaceful (but vocal, says one mailing list). But here, protesters were blocking the union entrance, and denying every student entry into the Oxford Union to watch the debate. Verbal abuse coupled with arm grabbing action ensued whenever a student tried to make it through the barricade explaining that they'd like to get in to watch the debate. Also, about one hour past protesting began, protesters began climbing the fence of the union and stormed the debating chamber in an effort to unnerve the guests and disrupt the debate. "House of Hate" one placard read.
The point I'd like to bring up ties closely with a main theme covered by the speakers tonight, and it has to do with the issue of Freedom and Rights. Where can we draw the line on our freedoms and rights. I think tonight, I have a fairly confident idea of where the line should be drawn on several cases. For the issue of the protesters, yes, they have a right to protest against BNP's policies and Irving's principles, and also a right to protest against the union's decision to hold the event. But Union members voted 2 to 1 to allow the event to go ahead. And the many students who agreed with the union's decision, have their right to acquire tickets and watch the debate. This is the main point, you have a right to protest, but you don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others to express their views either. Breaking and entering into the union, pretty uncontroversial to people, is wrong. Absolute hypocrisy for an anti fascist protester to break into the union and endanger innocent students. But what about the people denying students entry to watch the debate? Were they infringing the rights of others when they chose to exercise their freedom to stand at that spot to protests. Yes, they were infringing on the rights of the many students, who had the opinion that the debate was justified, and wanted to be a part of it. So in summary, yes, in this case, the protesters went to far. Police then intervened specifically to ensure the safety of the students. I believe police regulation was an absolute necessity in this case, and many people had the opinion that there weren't enough police, especially within union grounds.
But it is also a matter of interest to discuss how police should deal with protesters of this nature. If a protester climbs over a locked and barbed fence and charges through locked doors, I do believe the police have a right to arrest them. But for the many protesters attempting to deny oxford students entry, what of them? In this case, the police were just barely able to provide a physical barrier between protesters and the entrance into the alleyway leading to the purple turtle entrance. Was the use of force necessary on these protesters? In tonight's case, luckily not. But suppose a protester tried to deny a student entry, after repeated warnings from a policeman. Would force be necessary then? I feel the answer is largely yes. He abused his freedom to peacefully protest his cause, and denied the freedom of others. But bear in mind I'm not talking about tear gas or chemically laced water cannons. Of course not. The proper police protocol would be to restrain the person, which in would not have to lead to bodily harm.
In summary of this part of my post, James (2nd speaker opposing griffin) rightly pointed out that the shameful acts of these protesters indeed served to credit the griffin and irving instead of challenging them. Which was largely the original intention of the debate, that is to challenge griffin and irving in an academic, intellectual, and mature debate, with Oxford Union house rules applied equally to everyone. And in this sense, I feel the debate was a success, as I shall highlight in my next post.
Defiance
In the news today are two separate stories on defiance.
First, at the Oxford Union, despite brutal criticism from anti-fascist groups, members of parliament, and alumni, the members of the Union voted 2 to 1 to allow the controversial free speech forum, featuring nick griffin and david irving, to go ahead.
Half the world away, Hindraf is lambasted by local newspapers for their "defiance". Despite warnings from the government to cancel their rally, about 5000 people gathered and braved chemically laced water cannons and tear gas.
Two separate cases of defiance, and I'm not quite sure I'm right in putting them both in the same post.
For the former, I have chosen to attend the forum, despite concerns of student safety from newspapers like the Independent or the Guardian. But I am genuinely interested in seeing how the speakers at the forum go about saying what they have to say, and I choose to ignore the safety issues. I choose to defy the fear that is being cast upon freedom. And I have to admit that safety is not the main issue of this issue, and forgive me for voluntarily digressing from the main issue here.
For the latter, I am deeply sympathetic with the plight of the oppressed and downtrodden of Hindraf. Their defiance of unjust laws is a sign of "rebirth and renaissance", to quote political commentator Charles Santiago.
It is largely claimed that one of the major challenges of the 21st century would be the war against terrorism. But when you think about it, just what is terrorism exactly?
First, at the Oxford Union, despite brutal criticism from anti-fascist groups, members of parliament, and alumni, the members of the Union voted 2 to 1 to allow the controversial free speech forum, featuring nick griffin and david irving, to go ahead.
Half the world away, Hindraf is lambasted by local newspapers for their "defiance". Despite warnings from the government to cancel their rally, about 5000 people gathered and braved chemically laced water cannons and tear gas.
Two separate cases of defiance, and I'm not quite sure I'm right in putting them both in the same post.
For the former, I have chosen to attend the forum, despite concerns of student safety from newspapers like the Independent or the Guardian. But I am genuinely interested in seeing how the speakers at the forum go about saying what they have to say, and I choose to ignore the safety issues. I choose to defy the fear that is being cast upon freedom. And I have to admit that safety is not the main issue of this issue, and forgive me for voluntarily digressing from the main issue here.
For the latter, I am deeply sympathetic with the plight of the oppressed and downtrodden of Hindraf. Their defiance of unjust laws is a sign of "rebirth and renaissance", to quote political commentator Charles Santiago.
It is largely claimed that one of the major challenges of the 21st century would be the war against terrorism. But when you think about it, just what is terrorism exactly?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2007
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2007
problems and all related
its seems all too often, my emails to the ppl i email, are often about problems. why is that. this blog, as of this entry, is officially an absolutely non-serious crater of gunk for me to pour my thoughts into. crazy huh. try to stick out for sth and end up blogging about what everyone else is blogging about. their own petty selves.
well, anyway, the gospel today was about remembering prisoners. it struck me that everyone can often be "imprisoned" in one way or another, to quote the sermon.. bars in our mind, or worse, in the heart. whoever my jailors may be, i choose to do my best to liberate myself, starting with the next 3 hours.
well, anyway, the gospel today was about remembering prisoners. it struck me that everyone can often be "imprisoned" in one way or another, to quote the sermon.. bars in our mind, or worse, in the heart. whoever my jailors may be, i choose to do my best to liberate myself, starting with the next 3 hours.
