University College London president Dr. Michael Spence, in office for less than two months, has said in a radio interview that he would have no problem with the University hosting a Holocaust denier to speak on campus. The report on his free-speech absolutism is here.
In a radio interview Monday that the school’s “commitment to free speech” would extend to hosting a Holocaust-denying campus speaker, if invited, but that it would make sure Jewish students were “looked after.”
Free speech is nowhere an absolute. Even in the United States, where free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, speech that tends to incite or provoke “imminent lawless violence” – the rule in Brandenburg v. Ohio – can be prohibited. There are now sixteen European countries that have banned Holocaust denial; none of those countries believes it is impinging upon legitimate free speech. Those who publicly insist that the worst crime in human history never took place, know full well that such denial is part of what feeds the contemporary resurgence of antisemitism worldwide. It is a form of hate speech.
And he will make sure Jewish students were “looked after”? What a strange and condescending phrase. How exactly would these hypersensitive Jewish students and staff be “looked after”? Would there be psychologists standing by to counsel those snowflake students and staff, trying to convince them that they shouldn’t be upset that Holocaust deniers are appearing on campus to freely spread their venom? Would they be “protected” from Holocaust-deniers by being warned about the content of their speech, so they could stay away and not be offended?
“Are there people that you wouldn’t want speaking at UCL? How absolute of a free speech person can you be — where’s the line you’d have to draw before you can say, ‘You’re not welcome at UCL?’” asked host Stig Abell on a Times Radio interview.
Michael Spence replied:
“At UCL, we would have anybody to speak who was invited by an academic or by a student, so long as the speech was lawful and there weren’t going to be public order problems that we couldn’t control or whatever. We’re deeply committed to the notion of free speech,” said Spence, UCL President and Provost.
Abell then queried whether that would hypothetically include a speaker engaged in Holocaust denial, which is not illegal in the United Kingdom. “Is there a point there, where the lawful point is one argument but there’s a layer beneath ‘lawful’ which is still potentially problematic?” he asked.
Spence would have anyone speak on campus whose “speech is lawful,” but he fails to note that he has the discretion to ban speech at UCL that may be “lawful” but still is certain to cause great anguish to many people, and to confuse and mislead many others, and to encourage still others in the antisemitic belief that the Holocaust has been invented or deliberately exaggerated by Jews to obtain sympathy for Israel.
“I think if a Holocaust denier were to be invited by an academic to speak at the University, then the University would obviously have a responsibility to make sure that its Jewish and other students and staff were looked after; that that event took place in in an environment in which other views were expressed; and all the rest of it,” Spence replied. “But yeah, our commitment to free speech is `deep.”…
Is Holocaust denial okay as long as “the event took place in an environment in which other views were expressed”? Doesn’t that put on the same level the Holocaust deniers and those who oppose them? Who would be expressing those “other views”? Would they be on the stage with the Holocaust deniers, so as to answer their malignant propositions? Doesn’t this put Holocaust deniers and truth-tellers on the same level? Or does President Spence mean that critical comments from members of the audience should be sufficient to meet the need that “other views [would be] expressed”?
Holocaust denial is not a trivial offense; it takes place in a contemporary context in which antisemitic acts are everywhere on the rise; where many Muslims in particular either deny the Holocaust or minimize it, claiming that Jews instrumentalize the “so-called Holocaust” to win sympathy for the “Zionist” entity. Mahmoud Abbas himself wrote a book in which he claimed that not six million, but at most a few hundred thousand, Jews were killed, and that Zionists benefitted from a collaboration with the Nazis, for the more difficult life became for European Jewry, the more of them would flee to “Palestine.” The Iranian media constantly engage in Holocaust denial, either denying outright that the Nazi murders of Jews occurred, or that the numbers have been greatly exaggerated by the Zionists. And Holocaust deniers, especially those who are Muslims, are also insistent that the “true” Holocaust is that which the “Zionist entity” has inflicted on the “Palestinians.”
Michael Spence seems oblivious to this surge in antisemitism and Holocaust denial. He says he’d have no objection to a Holocaust denier speaking on the UCL campus, failing to realize that such an appearance would lend academic legitimacy to these absurd, cruel, and murderous views. It is not enough to say that he would ensure that “that event took place in in an environment in which other views were expressed,” and all the rest of it.
What a travesty of free speech, what a humiliation to have to “make the argument” for what sensible people know should need no argument. Just imagine a solemn debate at UCL, on the question “Did the Holocaust Really Happen?” Only one side profits from such an absurdity, the side that has conferred upon it a meretricious legitimacy by the UCL administration, when it allows these Holocaust deniers both a literal platform and an audience on the UCL campus, where they work to undermine the stability of truth.
So far sixteen European states have outlawed Holocaust denial. These countries do not regard such legislation as having wrongfully diminished the right of free speech. Unfortunately, the UK is not among them. These countries recognize that Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech, a means for antisemites to trivialize Jewish suffering and to attack Jews — “Zionists” — as profiting from made-up or exaggerated stories about a so-called Holocaust.
The obvious hypothetical presents itself. Would Michael Spence care to comment on whether he would allow speakers on the UCL campus who wish to treat such topics as: “Did Muhammad exist?”; “Does Islam encourage pedophilia?”; “Is Richard Dawkins Right In Denouncing the Misogyny and Homophobia of Islam?”; ”Is Islam Inherently Violent?”; and others of that same critical ilk?
Spence doesn’t have to answer. Let’s not embarrass him. We already know what his answer would be.
Mike B says
Hello
LB says
“What a travesty of free speech, what a humiliation to have to “make the argument” for what sensible people know should need no argument.”
Disagree. Giving unpopular–or even outright false (such in this case)–speeches is exactly what freedom of speech is all about. College is supposed to be a place about a myriad of different ideas sharing one space and interacting with one another in a manner that emulates real life that comes after graduation. If you know for a fact that something is false, no one is forcing you to attend the speech. Even better yet, DO attend the speech and then proceed to obliterate the speaker during Q&A with your own sourced facts and counter-arguments. This is the way to filter out bad ideas from the good ones.
The problem with college campuses in the West today is that they only support ONE idea — the far left one, which includes Jew-hatred, islamophilia and basically anything that is anti-Western. Anyone that dares to tow outside that line gets swiftly battered into submission (sometimes literally) by the leftist students or the college itself (or both). Cancel culture is the Left’s favorite and most often-deployable weapon these days and they won’t hesitate to pull the trigger on the smallest thing they perceive as “offensive” to their narrative.
In a span of several decades, colleges have transformed from learning centers to indoctrination facilities. Anything other than STEM fields is not worth going to college for. If I was a Western parent, I wouldn’t want my kid going in there only to come out as gender-fluid trans-racial otherkin. It would save my kid from brainwashing AND my wallet from bankrupting, it’s a win-win as far as I’m concerned.
mortimer says
I agree with LB about full free speech, but I would, in this case, require a chance to rebut and even debate what the Holocaust denier claims. I would stand outside such a lecture with a picket sign to express my disagreement with the distortions and conclusions of the denier.
Every holocaust denier is DISTORTING HISTORY and ignoring historical facts to reach such conclusions. The HISTORIOGRAPHY (methodology of determining facts) of such people is lacking in rigor and honesty.
LB says
Exactly. As I say to graven below, Q&A session should be mandatory by the contract the speakers sign with the college that is renting out the space for them to speak. So no need to stand outside with a sign, you can debate them directly during Q&A. Furthermore, after giving a platform to Holocaust-deniers, the college has absolutely NO grounds upon which to forbid Holocaust-approvers (forgive my lack of a better word) from having an event of their own.
That exact same logic can be applied to literally ANY topic of discussion, so long as there are people who want to hear it. After all, why should the college rent out it’s big auditoriums to people who will have close to zero public interest of hearing them speak. That is the beauty of capitalism and freedom of speech.
gravenimage says
It is necessary to allow all non-violent speech, even that which is false and abhorrent.
But the idea that one is required to give a platform to such speech is quite mistaken.
LB says
Depends what you define as a “platform”, because a platform can be a cardboard box in the walkway towards the school. Are you saying that someone cannot speak on the entire school grounds at all? That sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
But if you’re talking about big classrooms and auditoriums, then of course there needs to be a proper procedure of some sort through the college staff who rent out rooms for these kinds of things, namely whether the speaker and his group have any sort of backing among the student-base. In other words, how many people (if anyone at all) will show up for the speech. So regardless of whether the topic of discussion is 100% factually correct, if a big organisation with huge following shows up, it is the capitalist way to grant them that space and rake in a good profit from the ticket sales while you’re at it.
Needless to say, the speakers shall sign the agreement with the college which states that they (the speakers) are responsible for securing the event and shall be held legally accountable for any damage or disruption of peace caused by the speech. This should ensure that both those who support and those who are against the topic of discussion will remain neutral, lest they receive the same treatment they gave to their opposition when their event is being held. Ideally, in addition to that, all speeches will be recorded and logged into college data base, Q&A session will be mandatory by contractual obligation, and attendees to the speech will be required to provide any form of ID.
Point being, in a sane world, the concept of college is that maximum freedom of speech guarantees that all sides of the isle are more or less equally represented and therefore balance each other out. You want to bring a jihadist preacher? No problem. But then don’t you DARE to ban experts on islam like Robert Spencer from attending that speech, asking questions during Q&A, and giving a speech of his own at a later date. This is how true democracy and freedom of speech should be done.
gravenimage says
LB, of course I was not saying that someone–unless preaching violence–should be prevented from speaking on Campus grounds.
But I very much doubt that this was the case here–likely they were provided with a nice audatorium to speak from–Michael Spence spoke about “hosting” Holocaust deniers.
Mount Zion says
I would like to ask this Prof. if he would agree to invite a muslim rape gang denier on campus . The problem would be that this rape gangs are very well documented , so is the death of 6 Million Jewish people .
Infidel says
Hey UK, it’s only a matter of time until holocaust denial is the law! Yeah, they may not tolerate National Front or other such people peddling such garbage, but let muslims peddle it, and it will be A-OK!
Rarely says
The fact of the Holocaust is not “another opinion”. In fact it is not an “opinion” at all but a historical event.
gravenimage says
+1
Ruislamicky? says
Yeah. Looked after where in the showers?
gravenimage says
Is this creep sneering at the victims of the Holocaust?
Charlie in NY says
Spence was careful to limit the exercise of free speech at UCL with this caveat: “so long as the speech was lawful and there weren’t going to be public order problems that we couldn’t control or whatever.”
The second condition is his get out of jail card to de-platform any speaker who would speak anything but praise about Mohammed or Islam. After all, UCL knows that uncontrolled violence would not only follow but likely precede any public event that subjected Mohammed and Islam to critiques similar to those long allowed in discussions of Abraham and Judaism and Jesus and Christianity
mortimer says
Agree. He might de-platform any counterjihadists who claims from valid evidence in the Islamic texts and in Sharia that Islam contains a canonical teaching of religious warfare against disbelievers.
gravenimage says
Grimly spot on, Charlie.
Violent Muslim thugs get to control any conversation we have.
The fact that Jewish people and their supporters are seldom violent makes this ugliness OK.
mortimer says
The Holocaust stands on solid historical ground, therefore, holocaust deniers should be held to account, at least in a debate. Such a ‘debate’ about the Holocaust already occurred in England.
IRVING V. LIPSTADT was a legal case initiated by Holocaust denier David Irving against defendants Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, tried in a London court from January to March 2001, and resulting in the defeat of Irving.
David Irving was a Holocaust denier who had written many books on the Third Reich. Deborah Lipstadt was a history professor who had written, among other works, a book about Holocaust denial, Denying the Holocaust. It described Irving as a Holocaust denier. He did not care for the description, because he understood it to mean that he was something less than a reputable historian.
The judge decided the case in favor of the defendants, Lipstadt and Penguin. Irving’s falsifications and distortions were so egregious, and his animus towards Jews so plain that he won the case for them. They had proved the truth of their allegations against Irving by demonstrating Irving’s manipulation of the historical record (which became the issue in the case).
The judge also decided that he was an anti-Semite, a racist, and a falsifier of the historical record. David Irving’s appeal was later dismissed.
To deny the Holocaust, clearly, one must FALSIFY the historical facts which are voluminous.
gravenimage says
+1
JOEYN says
As long as he allows people like Robert Spencer to speak the truth about Islam at the University, I would be okay with Holocaust deniers to speak at the University. That is what free speech is. Otherwise it is blatant hypocrisy.
JOEYN says
Of course he should also allow people who speak the truth about the Holocaust and falsehoods about Islam to speak at the University. Debates between speakers should also be allowed. No speech from any speaker should be banned at the University as long as his/her speech is not directly inciting violence. Otherwise free speech at the university is utterly shallow and BS. Do not even bother to call it free speech since it is not.
mortimer says
Many of the British elites have ties to Arab governments and are likely bribed by them to cast Islam in a favorable light in exchange for British oil contracts.
Tony Blair, an imaginary socialist, enriched himself by advising and promoting Gulf state petty kingdoms and whitewashing Islam.
JOEYN says
Sadly Britain seems to be going to the dogs.
mortimer says
Here’s the bottom line, I think: promoting a speech denying the Holocaust WILL NOT offend oil-producing Arabs who finance the university, but permitting a speech about the jihad doctrine will expose the game of those same Arabs who have been financing jihad for decades.
Does anyone know how much Muslim money University College London is getting?
gravenimage says
Univerity College London also runs a campus in Qatar–obviously this is controlled by the Qatar authorities.
Here’s an article about Muslim funding of Universities in general:
https://www.meforum.org/6205/foreign-muslim-funding-western-universities
James Lincoln says
As they say, “money talks”, gravenimage…
b.a. freeman says
yowie!!! this article puts me in the position of a hard-core leftist attempting to prevent robert spencer or pamela geller from appearing on campus. let me be clear: FREE SPEECH MEANS FREE SPEECH – NO EXCEPTIONS. the entire idea is based on the premise that if an total A**HOLE is allowed to speak freely, then those who are “mainstream” (whatever that might be) are pretty much guaranteed to also have free speech. free speech has NEVER been about agreeing with the majority. if *THAT* is what U want, take a look at western universities, which are run by hard-core leftists, all of whom agree to silence those who are not “mainstream” (meaning hard-core leftist, or one who parrots such vile ideas).
as far as “putting the shoah deniers on the same level as the truth-tellers” goes, should the university *not* be putting opposing ideas on the same level so as to help students learn to discriminate truth from bulls**t? how are they supposed to learn critical thinking if they never see it in action? *surely* there are people who can be paired with the lying antisemitic a**holes on the same stage to refute their stupid arguments. the time to present ideas as true without going into detail on the opposing idea is when it is first presented, presumably in elementary school. in a university setting, the students should *ALREADY* know critical thinking, and should be treated more like adults.
WTF are U thinking, mr. fitzgerald?!!???
gravenimage says
Such speech needs to be allowed–but no one need provide a platform for it.
For instance, you do not need to allow Holocaust deniers to speak in your living room.
Further, criticism of speech is also free speech–my saying that Holocaust denial is disgusting does not actually curtail freedom of speech.
Joeyn says
True. I guess if it is a private entity it can decide what it wants to allow and disallow but if it is a public entity then it should allow all forms of speech as long as they are not about inciting violence.
gravenimage says
+1
tgusa says
General Eisenhower in a letter to General Marshall, “The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty, and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.”
Another Eisenhower quote, ““Of all these [Displaced Persons] the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For years they had been beaten, starved, and tortured.”
During the camp inspections with his top commanders Eisenhower said that the atrocities were “beyond the American mind to comprehend.”
gravenimage says
Thanks for that grim description, tgusa.
tgusa says
You are welcome. Also, an order was issued to US personnel in the area not to feed the survivors as giving them food would likely kill them. Eisenhower ordered that every citizen of the town of Gotha personally tour the camp and after having done so the mayor and his wife went home and hanged themselves.
Eisenhower wrote to his wife Mamie, “I never dreamed that such cruelty, bestiality, and savagery could really exist in this world.”
gravenimage says
Yes–and of note is that many of those now denying the Holocaust are threatening Jews with a new Holocaust.
tgusa says
Yes. Even the great and well traveled Eisenhower didn’t comprehend that cruelty, bestiality, and savagery could really exist in this world.
gravenimage says
University College London, Where Holocaust Deniers are Welcome to Speak
…………
Just appalling.
And by saying Jewish students would be “looked after” does he actually mean silenced?
DAS REICH says
fuck off you freak.
gravenimage says
I see that soneone using the username “DAS REICH” considers me a “feak” for opposing the Holocaust and for believing that Jews should be allowed freedom of speech–I must say this does not surprise.
David says
‘Looked after’ (Escorted out) sounds slightly better than ‘taken care of’.
Hadrian says
To be fair, censorship is often counterproductive. Remember, when something is forbidden it becomes more attractive, contrary to what one’s true intents are. Such censorship will push Holocaust deniers towards an echo chamber, and embolden their case among fellow deniers. The best solution to such “bad speech” is more speech, we should take the opportunity to refute and school such people.
I do agree on the last line, though. That part, is obvious to everyone here. They’ll never protect the Jews, who’d faced one of the worst crimes in history, from the Islamist scum. They want whites and Hindus to play that part, never the Muslims oh no.
Andrew Blackadder says
Let me know when this guy allows a ex muslim to speak on Campus about leaving islam and he can make sure the muslim students are protected as they may have a bloody melt down when truth is put up right in front of them.
Im so glad I am not a student today nor have children in school either.
James Lincoln says
So, Dr. Michael Spence, you have no problem with the University hosting a Holocaust denier to speak on campus.
Sounds like you support freedom of speech.
Based upon that, you should also welcome speakers like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
“Virtually”, of course, because they are banned from entering the UK:
“A government spokesman said individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” could be excluded by the home secretary.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23064355
Jack Holan says
Robert, I’d love to see a student or professor invite you or Pamela Geller to this school and see the excuse Michael Spence would come up to ban the two of you but Ms. May, former PM UK has solved that dilemma for him by banning you two from the UK altogether. Nevertheless, you have fellow writers on your team that could hold their own if invited. What if Bibi or President Trump was invited?
Deeperinfo says
Invite Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer…
David says
What would be the point of having this ‘debate’? It is really a one-sided propaganda exercise, attempting to indoctrinate the audience into believing an obvious untruth. This meeting would hardly differ from a regular session in a mosque. The difference would be that the audience would be mostly non-muslims.