Should Trinity have cancelled the Nick Griffin talk?

Dudess

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry Dudess, but I just cannot accept this at all, it is so wrong.

In your opinion.

One cannot go far enough in defending the principle of freedom of speech as long as it is done within the law. With that caveat there can be no exceptions -Fred Phelps Fred West Hitler Stalin Chomsky Stopes Malcolm X are all entitled to say (and write) what they like as long as they stay within the law.

Is picketing funerals within the law? And why do you not care about the rights of those who are at the receiving end of hate-filled attacks? "They don't have to listen to it?" So? And sometimes they can't avoid it.

The emotional argument you are using is just meaningless.

How is it meaningless? Because you say so?

We cannot have it both ways.

Why not? Some skinhead says "All ni*gers should be infected with AIDS" and you actually think black people shouldn't seek that that person be punished for saying something like that? Really? Free speech isn't absolute - look at libel, slander, incitement to hatred...

And what is ironic about accusing you of advocating censorship ?

I meant telling people who object to the stuff Nick Griffin says (I didn't say he can't say it though) that they should put up with it because he has freedom of speech... it's ironic because you're not taking into consideration their freedom of speech. I also think he should only be permitted to speak in an appropriate setting - e.g. not at a Jewish convention.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Because their viewpoint is unacceptable to liberal minority?

What's "liberal" about disagreeing with intolerance? Seems more like commonsense and fairness to me - doubtful that's held by a minority.

they're looking for some fair play for the oppressed indigenous population?

Oppressed? Lol.
Do you have numbers for these apparently widespread scams? And why do you say the "liberal minority" back it? I certainly wouldn't back scams.
These are genuine questions now - no need for responding with some vague thing and a few :rolleyes:.
Nick Griffin's anti-semitic btw - that doesn't fit with your "Israel - yeah!" stance.

Jess16

"Give me television and hamburgers but don't bother me with the responsibilities of liberty"

Free speech should only to be listened to when it comes from somebody who is responsible with their words. People can choose what they say but we can also choose what we listen to.

languagenerd

Like I posted in the TCD forum earlier - I hate Griffin and his views but I had no problem with him coming to the college. It was a debate - he wasn't being given a free reign to spout propaganda and rally up recruits, people (experienced debaters/speakers) were going to argue against his points and most likely defeat them. Surely seeing someone with such repulsive views being brought down a peg by people with the opposite ideas isn't a bad idea?

He wouldn't have been invited by the society just to give a talk/hold a rally anyway!

marienbad

Dudess- Of course everything I say is my opinion ! I don't know why you feel the need to point it out- this is a discussion board after all.

You are missing the point when you raise the issue of picketing funerals (imo). Freedom of speech must be absolute so long it remains within the law. Bringing emotive issues such as funerals , the n word , aids is not really relevant. You even admit as much yourself when you mention libel slander etc. So when Griffin et al transgress cite them under the relevant law.

We have come to far now to got back to a situation when any Tom Dick or Harry could decide what was offensive and in some cases try to have it put in the constitution.

You then ask what is liberal about disagreeing with intolerance ! But one persons intolerance is another's normality . Subjectivity is everything in that argument

RepublicanEagle

MetalDog wrote: »

someone with more brains and skill than him could show him up as a silly little man.

RichieC wrote: »

Let his idiocy speak for itself.

He is a graduate from Cambridge University so more than likely has more brain cells than the both of yours put together not to mention most radical left wing bleeding heart liberal fcuktards and vice versa.

Disclaimer : I have no time for the BNP or the radical nutjobs from the right and left, but I do believe this man had the right of freedom of speech and for these deluded hippies to label him as a facist and then say he cannot speak is hypocrisy of the highest order.

AhSureTisGrand

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

He is a graduate from Cambridge University so more than likely has more brain cells than the both of yours put together not to mention most radical left wing bleeding heart liberal fcuktards and vice versa.

Don't forget right-wing liberals! We think he's a douche also

RepublicanEagle

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Don't forget right-wing liberals! We think he's a douche also

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

He is a graduate from Cambridge University so more than likely has more brain cells than the both of yours put together not to mention most radical left wing bleeding heart liberal fcuktards and vice versa.

That is what I implied with the above.

AngeGal

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

He is a graduate from Cambridge University so more than likely has more brain cells than the both of yours put together not to mention most radical left wing bleeding heart liberal fcuktards and vice versa.

George Bush is a Harvard grad...what's your point?

Defining people by their level of education is ridiculous. Some of the smartest people I have met never stepped foot in a university, I did a Masters before anyone says I have a chip on my shoulder or something.

AhSureTisGrand

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

That is what I implied with the above.

Well you didn't imply it very well

RepublicanEagle

AngeGal wrote: »

George Bush is a Harvard grad...what's your point?

Defining people by their level of education is ridiculous. Some of the smartest people I have met never stepped foot in a university, I did a Masters before anyone says I have a chip on my shoulder or something.

My point was Ange is that people can hardly call him an idiot, stupid or a "silly little man".

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

What's "liberal" about disagreeing with intolerance? Seems more like commonsense and fairness to me - doubtful that's held by a minority.

Therein lies the problem D. What some liberals perceive as 'intolerance' is actually viewed by mainstream opinion as positive discrimination in favour of an underserving minority. Tomato; tomato, etc.

Freddie59

marienbad wrote: »

But one persons intolerance is another's normality . Subjectivity is everything in that argument

Checkmate!

RepublicanEagle

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Well you didn't imply it very well

"Well you didn't read it very well"........

AngeGal

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

My point was Ange is that people can hardly call him an idiot, stupid or a "silly little man".

Why? Because he went to Cambridge? You think everyone who goes to Cambridge/Harvard/Yale is smart? Connections open a lot of doors, especially back then, this may not be true for Griffin but his father was a conservative councillor so I would imagine he knew some important people.

While connections can get you in, they generally can't sort your grades out. I would find it more instructive to look at those. Griffin graduated with a 2:2 degree, the lowest rank of degree Cambridge gives out.

AhSureTisGrand

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

"Well you didn't read it very well"........

The "vice versa" implies that he has more brain cells than them yet they also have more brain cells than him, somehow.

Even if you take it to refer to the opposite of "left-wing liberal", it still doesn't make much sense, as the opposite of a lefty liberal is pretty much a fascist. And saying "Nick Griffin is smarter than the fascists" sounds plain silly

RepublicanEagle

AngeGal wrote: »

Why? Because he went to Cambridge? You think everyone who goes to Cambridge/Harvard/Yale is smart? Connections open a lot of doors, especially back then, this may not be true for Griffin but his father was a conservative councillor so I would imagine he knew some important people.

While connections can get you in, they generally can't sort your grades out. I would find it more instructive to look at those. Griffin graduated with a 2:2 degree, the lowest rank of degree Cambridge gives out.

It is doubtful his father got him into Cambridge on the basis of connections. Regarding his Cambridge education,he did history and law, I am a law student and to do law itself in university is difficult enough but to do law in an institution such as Cambridge with its extremely selective criteria for its calibre of student and its incredible academic standards and reputation and qualify with a 2:2 is still a very good achievement no matter what you or any else would think.

AngeGal

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

It is doubtful his father got him into Cambridge on the basis of connections. Regarding his Cambridge education,he did history and law, I am a law student and to do law itself in university is difficult enough but to do law in an institution such as Cambridge with its extremely selective criteria for its calibre of student and its incredible academic standards and reputation and qualify with a 2:2 is still a very good achievement no matter what you or any else would think.

You may consider it doubtful and it cannot be proven but nor can it be ruled out. If we were talking about an Irish person then it would be impossible due to the way the Leaving Cert works but the system in England, as with the US allows for such influence to sometimes have a bearing on the admission decision.

By the way I happen to know a bit about Cambridge, as with most top universities, a 2:2 is the absolute minimum you can come out with, provided you go to exams and write anything close to relevant. Getting in may have been an achievement, getting a 2:2 was not.

Edited to add, he never qualified/worked as a lawyer, which is quite strange no? If his Cambridge background meant so much, he would have been highly sought after by top firms and received a well paid traineeship. It also would have looked great in his future political career, which he had likely planned, cambridge educated, worked with big international firm in London. Or perhaps firms simply don't rate a 2:2 from Cambridge very highly.

RepublicanEagle

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

"Nick Griffin is smarter than the fascists" sounds plain silly

I assume you say that just because Griffin himself is right wing.To equate Nick Griffin to the dregs of society;neo-nazi skinheads and their ilk who go around in gangs targeting people of various ethnic backgrounds, to do that because he is a right wing politican is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

By your logic you would compare the likes of James Connolly to Stalin, or Che Guevara to Pol Pot, just because they are left wing........

Stop making such idiotic assertions.

RepublicanEagle

AngeGal wrote: »

Edited to add, he never qualified/worked as a lawyer, which is quite strange no? If his Cambridge background meant so much, he would have been highly sought after by top firms and received a well paid traineeship. It also would have looked great in his future political career, which he had likely planned, cambridge educated, worked with big international firm in London. Or perhaps firms simply don't rate a 2:2 from Cambridge very highly.

That was his own prerogative.

AhSureTisGrand

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I assume you say that just because Griffin himself is right wing.To equate Nick Griffin to the dregs of society, neo-nazi skinheads and their ilk who go around in gangs targeting people of various ethnic backgrounds, just because he is a right wing politican is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Why do you equate fascists with neo-nazi skinheads? Mussolini certainly wasn't a neo-nazi skinhead

RepublicanEagle

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Why do you equate fascists with neo-nazi skinheads? Mussolini certainly wasn't a neo-nazi skinhead

/facepalm

AhSureTisGrand

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

/facepalm

Well he wasn't and he wouldn't be if he were alive today. He and Hitler were both respectable. Assholes, yes, but scumbags, no

AngeGal

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

That was his own prerogative.

So you believe. I would find it more likely it wasn't. Employers, in every sector, will rarely hire someone with a bare 2:2 to their credit. They don't like basing their decision on grades alone, but when one is a new college grad with no experience, there are no options left. Now I am not saying that a 2:2 means the end of the world. But it generally means the person takes a longer route (eg. unpaid internship/perhaps some more university) to get to where they wish to be.

In my opinion, Mr. Griffin would have found it very difficult to get work, certainly impossible with the medium sized to large firms, he wouldn't have been suitable for small firms either, who would prefer someone from their locality who has a network and can bring in extra business. The above leaves one option, a small firm whereever he grew up, but they likely were aware of his personality and did not want someone with such controversial views.

Black Leather

Nick Griffin of the BNP is basically saying ' Britain for the British ' and ' British jobs for British Workers ' and likewise ' Ireland for the Irish ' and ' Irish jobs for Irish Workers ' . At least 99% of the people of this country would agree with him. So why is there a problem if he wishes to speak at Trinity?

AngeGal

Black Leather wrote: »

Nick Griffin of the BNP is basically saying ' Britain for the British ' and ' British jobs for British Workers ' and likewise ' Ireland for the Irish ' and ' Irish jobs for Irish Workers ' . At least 99% of the people of this country would agree with him. So why is there a problem if he wishes to speak at Trinity?

%99 would agree with him on what?

That the holocaust was a 'holohoax'??

That there is no such as a black welshman?

When a former member of his party bombed a gay pub, his response was

"The TV footage of dozens of 'gay' demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive."

He is a vile and disgusting man. We're having a tough time in Ireland at the moment, but if ever a politician of his ilk were to get elected in Ireland, it would only make things worse. When informed thoroughly about his opinions, I think you have it inverted and would find that %1 would agree with him.

talkinyite

Other: Shouldn't have invited him in the first place

Plautus

I don't know if people actually understand what Freedom of Speech is. If Griffin was precluded under law from making any public utterances, prevented from attending an event as a member of the audience (and asking questions), or otherwise not granted Freedom of Association and the right to book his own venue and speak at it then you'd have a point.

However, Free Speech has never meant a right to an audience (or right to a platform.) Think about that. You're posting on a forum where freedom of speech is not interpreted in that way either. The man does not have a right to speak at Trinity anymore than he has a right to come to my home and spout ****e.

You're not going to have a very productive debate with characters like Griffin and the sole reason that college societies invite his type is for the attention/the tease and the inevitable withdrawal of the invitation. We had it in UCC a few years ago with David Irving, Holocaust Denier extraordinaire who was comprehensively debunked in a High Court libel trial (Irving v. Penguin Books & D. Lipstadt). What was the point? The man would have soap-boxed, provoked walk-outs and refused to be open to the weight of evidence against his position. But it got the UCC Philosoph in the papers alright.

I find it hard to believe that Griffin was invited in good faith with a view to having an adult discussion. We know the man, entrenched in racism for as long as he is, isn't going to give you that. The arguments are well rehearsed and decidedly won in favour of anti-racism. We would have learned nothing.

Plautus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Well he wasn't and he wouldn't be if he were alive today. He and Hitler were both respectable. Assholes, yes, but scumbags, no

I should like to think engineering mass-murder and his tawdry little coup d'etat attempts in the 1920s should make 'scumbag' the understatement of the century. The man was, as we say, 'known to the police'!

Mussolini had a vaguely respectable pre-dictatorship career, but, again, the murder of political opponents and dissenting voices meets the litmus test of 'scummer' for me.

andrew

Plautus wrote: »

I don't know if people actually understand what Freedom of Speech is. If Griffin was precluded under law from making any public utterances, prevented from attending an event as a member of the audience (and asking questions), or otherwise not granted Freedom of Association and the right to book his own venue and speak at it then you'd have a point.

However, Free Speech has never meant a right to an audience (or right to a platform.) Think about that. You're posting on a forum where freedom of speech is not interpreted in that way either. The man does not have a right to speak at Trinity anymore than he has a right to come to my home and spout ****e.

I've heard this argument a lot, and I don't get it. It's a weird way to weasel out of having to confront the issue that this is about of free speech. You say that since there isn't a law against free speech, this can't be about free speech. But surely if someone is prevented from sharing their opinions , in a legal manner of their choosing, then it is an impingement on their right to speech, no? You say that he has the right to book a room and speak if he likes, but do you really think that if he were to organise such an event here that that wouldn't be shut down by violent protesters too? If you invited someone to your home, and I prevented him from going by threatening violence if he were to go, would that not be an infringement on your rights? I know the situations aren't exactly analogous, but I'm having trouble buying your argument.

You're not going to have a very productive debate with characters like Griffin and the sole reason that college societies invite his type is for the attention/the tease and the inevitable withdrawal of the invitation. We had it in UCC a few years ago with David Irving, Holocaust Denier extraordinaire who was comprehensively debunked in a High Court libel trial (Irving v. Penguin Books & D. Lipstadt). What was the point? The man would have soap-boxed, provoked walk-outs and refused to be open to the weight of evidence against his position. But it got the UCC Philosoph in the papers alright.

I find it hard to believe that Griffin was invited in good faith with a view to having an adult discussion. We know the man, entrenched in racism for as long as he is, isn't going to give you that. The arguments are well rehearsed and decidedly won in favour of anti-racism. We would have learned nothing.

Ah, the classic 'it would've been a pointless debate anyway'. Well if so, then let the society have it's pointless debate. I've been to more debates than I can count; debates in which I've learned nothing are the rule, not the exception. At least if he did speak, there's the slight chance that someone would've learned something. The point of inviting controversial people like that is to provoke debate. Obviously there's a publicity aspect to it, but often student debates are, like I said, learn nothing bore-fests. People only ever disagree in stupid technical ways, and there's never a core clash of issues. By inviting people with extreme views, there's more substance against which the other side can argue.

Plautus

You say that he has the right to book a room and speak if he likes, but do you really think that if he were to organise such an event here that that wouldn't be shut down by violent protesters too?

That kind of intimidation is inimical to free speech, sure, and is criminalised. But, I'm just arguing that the ultimate right of Trinity to invite or dis-invite speakers isn't a free speech question per se.

I suspect the motives of any society which announces these kind of invites to great aplomb and controversy; but (of course) they shouldn't be intimidated by threats of violence into withdrawing an invitation. I don't think the poll question takes this into account so much though (at least not explicitly.) That is to say: in the absence of violence, would Trinity have been harming free speech by withdrawing an invitation? No, I don't think so.

By inviting people with extreme views, there's more substance against which the other side can argue.

Inviting Griffin to speak on an issue like immigration is borderline baiting. His views are well-known and out there in the public domain. Would his appearance really have added 'substance' or 'value' to the debate? I have trouble believing that. I also accept your point about most debates being bore-fests: but I think there's a spectrum of pointlessness. This is tending toward the end of 'useless exercise.'

If the society had maintained the invitation, so be it. I wouldn't have liked him there, but it would still be Trinity's ultimate prerogative.

marienbad

Plautus wrote: »

That kind of intimidation is inimical to free speech, sure, and is criminalised. But, I'm just arguing that the ultimate right of Trinity to invite or dis-invite speakers isn't a free speech question per se.

I suspect the motives of any society which announces these kind of invites to great aplomb and controversy; but (of course) they shouldn't be intimidated by threats of violence into withdrawing an invitation. I don't think the poll question takes this into account so much though (at least not explicitly.) That is to say: in the absence of violence, would Trinity have been harming free speech by withdrawing an invitation? No, I don't think so.


Inviting Griffin to speak on an issue like immigration is borderline baiting. His views are well-known and out there in the public domain. Would his appearance have really have added 'substance' or 'value' to the debate? I have trouble believing that. I also accept your point about most debates being bore-fests: but I think there's a spectrum of pointlessness. This is tending toward the end of 'useless exercise.'

If the society had maintained the invitation, so be it. I wouldn't have liked him there, but it would still be Trinity's ultimate prerogative.

The issue is'nt whether he had anything relevant to say or if it could be seen or read elsewhere . The motives of the society that invited him are equally irrelevant .

What is relevant is that a group of people took it upon themselves that he had no right to speak.

What next ? Prevent a Jew from speaking or a Palestinian or perhaps someone giving information on abortion ? Oh wait- that happened already
and we had to have a bloody referendum to sort it out.

Free speech, within the law, is free for everyone or it is free for no one

Plautus

We're getting caught up on the is-ought problem here. Ought they not have invited him? Yes, as a matter of their own discrimination and judgement. Can they and should they be allowed to? Yes, but I see no reason not to be able to peacefully protest or otherwise scorn Mr. Griffin's presence. I can only speak for myself, that if I had any part to play in inviting certain speakers, I wouldn't invite him. I've got to be honest about that.

The Graduate Students Association of Trinity similarly wrote the Irish Times expressing their disapproval at the invitation, wishing it had not been made. But that is the extent to which I would take it.

As for the motives, they're definitely in play when considering whether it was correct judgement to issue an invitation. But, again, I'm not proposing any restrictions in law on who they can or cannot invite, or, indeed, dis-invite. And I don't support threats of violence to get an event cancelled. So I don't see how this places me against Free Speech.

ukbrian

i feel that if you ban him from speaking then its going to make a lot of debate and to highlight the character is want he wants lots of people talking about him... if the council would have ignored him he would of possibly had a terrible turn out and only a few people would ever of known.:pac:

Micklaus

Dana has taken up our quota of free speech for the year.....

irishconvert

dlofnep wrote: »

Nick Griffin was due to speak at an event in TCD, but Trinity was forced to cancel after caving in to pressure from protesters. You won't find anyone who detests Nick Griffin and his ilk more than I, but I do support freedom of speech and I feel he should have been given the opportunity to speak.

What say AH? Should Nick Griffin have been afforded the opportunity to speak, or was TCD right to cancel the event?

He should have been allowed to talk. As an Irish Muslim I would have loved to sit there, listen to his garbage, and then tear strips off him ;-)

John Doe1

irishconvert wrote: »

He should have been allowed to talk. As an Irish Muslim I would have loved to sit there, listen to his garbage, and then fly a plane into him ;-)

FYP:cool:

Herb Powell

John Doe1 wrote: »

FYP:cool:

Too far.
And not even really funny.

irishconvert

John Doe1 wrote: »

FYP:cool:

How about an original 'joke'???:rolleyes:

TheyKnowMyIP

This guy stretches the concept of "free speech" a bit too far in my opinion. I hate most socialist ideology as much as the next man, but his "talk" in Trinity a fortnight ago would have just degenerated into racial bile. I am all for free speech, but the ****e that comes out of this clowns mouth oversteps the mark. Would you agree? Now as I said, I am no liberal lover, but they have a point on this one. Why should he be given a platform to "debate" his hatred towards any non national? The BNP is a complete disgrace imo.

OutlawPete

Total and utter wrong'un but Eastenders has never been the same without him.

Celly Smunt

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

This guy stretches the concept of "free speech" a bit too far in my opinion. I hate most socialist ideology as much as the next man, but his "talk" in Trinity a fortnight ago would have just degenerated into racial bile. I am all for free speech, but the ****e that comes out of this clowns mouth oversteps the mark. Would you agree? Now as I said, I am no liberal lover, but they have a point on this one. Why should he be given a platform to "debate" his hatred towards any non national? The BNP is a complete disgrace imo.

why shouldn't he? it's a political opinion and this is a democracy.

ejmaztec

Nick Griffin's a dirty bastard.


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/879892-paedophile-nick-griffin-arrested-on-cambodia-return-amid-child-rape-allegations

AhSureTisGrand

He is fully entitled to spout his views in this country

TheyKnowMyIP

pmcmahon wrote: »

why shouldn't he? it's a political opinion and this is a democracy.

Free Speech is not absolute, especially when it's directed towards a section of society. If he could at least make some rational scientifically supported points beyond "they tuk our jubs" and "british first", I might have taken him more seriously. "Hate Speech" comes to mind instantly whenever I hear this guy speak. I thought we have moved on from the Facism of the 40's. Free Speech is fine when you at least have a coherant argument.

Eric Cartman

free speech is an all or nothing situation , its not free speech when you dont want to hear someones agenda , nick griffin has as much right as the looney left, occupy whatever lads, catholic church or anyone else disagreeable to speak , nick griffin may be a racist but atleast he wants to have a discussion about immigration thats not just a jerk circle of lefty hippys saying 'diversity is great and without fault'

nick griffin will talk to anyone about immigration , the supposedly 'open minded' groups that want us to embrace diversity wont talk to anyone that disagrees with them...yet hes the fascist

Elliemental

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

This guy stretches the concept of "free speech" a bit too far in my opinion. I hate most socialist ideology as much as the next man, but his "talk" in Trinity a fortnight ago would have just degenerated into racial bile. I am all for free speech, but the ****e that comes out of this clowns mouth oversteps the mark. Would you agree? Now as I said, I am no liberal lover, but they have a point on this one. Why should he be given a platform to "debate" his hatred towards any non national? The BNP is a complete disgrace imo.

He's a Fascist, not a Socialist. Also, this is a democracy, so his party is entitled to a platform, however repellent they may be. We're only in danger when people actually start to take him seriously; something that is yet to happen.

The British people, by instinct, are very wary of extremists/revolutionaries etc, etc. Hence the very low level of support for him and his fellow racists there. What does shock me, however, is the level of support for the BNP here is the North of Ireland.

My name is URL

If he's partaking in a debate then I have no problem with him speaking whatsoever. If he's on a soapbox in the street preaching to the masses and inciting hatred then I would have a problem with it. There's a world of difference between the two.

AhSureTisGrand

If I refused to allow him speak in my home I would not see it as an attack on free speech. Trinity is not much different.

However, it was rather rude to invite him then withdraw the invitation

TheyKnowMyIP

Eric Cartman wrote: »

free speech is an all or nothing situation , its not free speech when you dont want to hear someones agenda , nick griffin has as much right as the looney left, occupy whatever lads, catholic church or anyone else disagreeable to speak , nick griffin may be a racist but atleast he wants to have a discussion about immigration thats not just a jerk circle of lefty hippys saying 'diversity is great and without fault'

nick griffin will talk to anyone about immigration , the supposedly 'open minded' groups that want us to embrace diversity wont talk to anyone that disagrees with them...yet hes the fascist

You have a point. There should be a cull on the number of people who can claim welfare outside of the country for instance, but the point that we should not let foreigners in during dire economic times is more a financial than racially oriented decision.

I would consider myself more right than left, but even this guy is a bit much for me:)

Ellis Dee

I'm as liberal sort of person and I believe the likes of Griffin should be allowed - indeed encouraged - to spout their bile as publicly as possible. Only that way will people know what he stands for, if he is honest about it, or else he will have to tone down his utterances, which will only create tensions within his cretinous movement.;)

Banning him only makes him look like a martyr. The same way putting Hitler in jail for a few months only bolstered his stature and gave him extra "street cred" with the thugs that he came to lead.:):)