The Oxford Union has voted 2-1 to invite the BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier "historian" David Irving speak in a debate. My reaction is simple: So what?

Mike Ion thinks that this is wrong because it "will only help legitimise the BNP". Will it really? No. The Oxford Union is a student society, for crying out loud, and a debating society with it - and debates require representatives from both sides, however repugnant you may find their views. That they have invited them gives neither the BNP and their racist ideology or David Irving and his historically inaccurate Holocaust denial any more credibility or mainstream appeal. After all, the Oxford Union passed the motion "This House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country" in 1933, and yet I bet they did go on and fight in the Second World War.

Besides, it would have been extremely ironic to have backtracked on this issue and refused to have these people speak, considering that this very debate is supposed to be about free speech!

UPDATE: Tory MP Dr Julian lewis has quit the Oxford Union over this. What an idiot. Free speech means free speech. Saying that they can't be allowed to speak at an event because most of us disagree with them is just idiotic. Just prove that their views are wrong by beating them in debate, rather than just banning them from speaking.

If you tell a joke about gay people, you could sent to prison for seven years under measures in the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through Parliament. The Bill, intended to stamp out homophobic behaviour, has been criticised by the comedian Rowan Atkinson, who points out that it has

Indeed it does, especially when the penalty is so high.

When it comes down to it, you can't "stamp out" homophobia. It's not something that can be forced out of people. It is best just to ridicule the idiots who feel that way for their narrow-mindedness and get on with our lives.

Also, being a homophobe is not illegal, and nor should it be. The expression of this and an incitement to hatred of gays is and should be - but that does not need this new law. Nor should any group - whether they be able to be defined by age, gender, race, religion, sexuality or anything else - should be "protected" like this. All it would result in is an ostracisation of that group since any remark that could possibly be interpreted in an "illegal" way could lead to excessive punishment, such as seven years in prison. It would cause an apartheid rather than prevent discrimination.

This sort of law are utterly unnecessary and, really, prevent full and complete social inclusion of any "minority" group rather than facilitate it.

Source: The Telegraph