Chris Bryant is pants
/Via 'Miss Pontins 2007' "We do not live in the world that they promised us"
I can't be arsed to post on the ludicrous fuss over the Oxford Union and its invitation to David Irving and Nick Griffith except to say that there is something bizarre about protesting that these two men are to be allowed to speak in a debate about...erm...free speech.
But bizarre is a term that one of the objectors, the MP for Rhondda, Chris 'Y-Front' Bryant, is all too familiar with. Listen to him debating with Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance and check out Gabb's email to Ms Danicki with some follow up thoughts.
Peter Tatchell is wittering on about this over at Harry's Place and is scandalized that someone with a history of promoting 'prejudice against Muslims', Nick Griffin, should be given a platform to debate his ideas (even if the debate is about the concept of free speech and not about his views on Blacks, Muslims, Jews or homosexuals).
Someone like Tony Blair could, I'm sure, be invited to speak at the Union without attracting the opprobrium of Tatchell, Bryant and other moral worthies in spite of the fact that rather than 'promoting prejudice against Muslims' our Tone simply supported and facilitated an invasion and occupation that has ended up killing several hundred thousand of the poor bastards.
If you had just one lampost and one rope which one would you hang?
UPDATE:
Check out Luke Tryl, president of the Oxford Union, on 'Why I Invited Griffin and Irving'.
And Frank Ferudi on 'Turning Free Speech into a Negotiable Commodity'.
UPDATE ll:
The debate went ahead eventually, after the obligatory chants and sit-downs (yawn).
Martin Mcluskey, from the Oxford University Students' Union, said: "What we are doing here tonight at the Oxford Union is putting them on a platform that will give them legitimacy and credibility. It is as if we are saying that we agree with what they are saying and that we think it is valid."
And that's what an Oxford education does for you? What a complete fucking idiot.
I can't be arsed to post on the ludicrous fuss over the Oxford Union and its invitation to David Irving and Nick Griffith except to say that there is something bizarre about protesting that these two men are to be allowed to speak in a debate about...erm...free speech. But bizarre is a term that one of the objectors, the MP for Rhondda, Chris 'Y-Front' Bryant, is all too familiar with. Listen to him debating with Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance and check out Gabb's email to Ms Danicki with some follow up thoughts.
Peter Tatchell is wittering on about this over at Harry's Place and is scandalized that someone with a history of promoting 'prejudice against Muslims', Nick Griffin, should be given a platform to debate his ideas (even if the debate is about the concept of free speech and not about his views on Blacks, Muslims, Jews or homosexuals).
Someone like Tony Blair could, I'm sure, be invited to speak at the Union without attracting the opprobrium of Tatchell, Bryant and other moral worthies in spite of the fact that rather than 'promoting prejudice against Muslims' our Tone simply supported and facilitated an invasion and occupation that has ended up killing several hundred thousand of the poor bastards.
If you had just one lampost and one rope which one would you hang?
UPDATE:
Check out Luke Tryl, president of the Oxford Union, on 'Why I Invited Griffin and Irving'.
And Frank Ferudi on 'Turning Free Speech into a Negotiable Commodity'.
UPDATE ll:
The debate went ahead eventually, after the obligatory chants and sit-downs (yawn).
Martin Mcluskey, from the Oxford University Students' Union, said: "What we are doing here tonight at the Oxford Union is putting them on a platform that will give them legitimacy and credibility. It is as if we are saying that we agree with what they are saying and that we think it is valid."
And that's what an Oxford education does for you? What a complete fucking idiot.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. Sarah Irving (above) said "I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."
