Opinion
Voltaire's principle of disaproving of what someone is saying, but defending their right to say it, is one which most people would agree with, but as this weeks events show, it may not be as easy to put into practice.
It is easy to feel that in this coseted and liberal thinking university, that the battles regarding race, religion, gender and sexuality have been fought and one. Even if that is true here, it is definataly not the case in the wider world. It is all to easy to fall into a culture of complacency.
The Union's decision to hold a clear debate on racism, at time when racism has again raised its ugly head in such a blatant manner is therefore to be applauded. Simply not listening to racist rhetoric and propaganda and wishing it away, will not tackle the underlying problem.
By attempting to suppress the rights of an organisation such as the BNP to speak, through introducing no-platform policies, are we really any better than they are, in wishing to suppress the rights of ethnic minorities?
The principle of freedom of speech should be defended for everyone, but the Union , which claims to be the "Last Bastion of Freedom of Speech in the Western World" was placed in a particularly precarious position. If the debate had gone ahead, violent confrontation would have been almost guaranteed, there is no way that the BNP and the Anti-Nazi league would have engaged in peaceful intolerance. With the nail bombings in London, and fears that such attacks could spread across the country, Oxford could have become the next target for such mindless violence.
There is no way that the safety of Union officials, Union members or the wider public could have been guaranteed, as Thames Valley Police themselves have stated. Of course the Union must protect its reputation for defending free speech, but if it had put that before human life, it would have weakened that very principle, as well as laying its self open to accusations that this whole debate had not been about tackling racism, but a cynical ploy to gain publicity.
In this case the benefits of allowing racists to discredit themselves before a large audience was outweighed by the potential costs to that very same audience. It was a question of weighing up the risk, and the Union and OUSU came to the correct decision.
The same can not be said for the City Councils decision to keep Magdalen bridge open on May Morning. Looking at the evidence there is no way the Council can justify keeping the bridge open on safety grounds. Indeed, the Councils own staff have informed the Oxford Student that the bridge is unsafe on numerous occasions. When the decision to overturn the May Day Advisory Committee 's recommendation to close the bridge was made by the Labour dominated council, it immediately led to speculation that it had been a cynical political decision. This remained speculation until this Monday, when the Oxford Student received a Fax from John Tanner, Labour Leader of the City Council, urging us to inform our readers to vote Labour, because the Labour party has kept Magdalen Bridge open!
Putting the safety of the public at risk in order to get a few extra votes at the forthcoming local-elections, is as cynical as it gets and calls into question the judgement of John Tanner and the other councillors who overruled all advice they had been given. It is not a question of stopping people jumping off the bridge, if they want to do that, that's their choice. But ordinary and sane people have a right not to be crushed in the huge crowds expected, or for the bridge to give way beneath them. The council have now been over-ruled and we can all look forward to a highly enjoyable and above all safe May Morning. Personally, I wouldn't be seen dead in the Cherwell.