Posts Tagged "Debates"

From the 'Man on the Inside'

My good friend Simon Budden has written in to give his account of the event on Friday. Here he tells us what happened from inside the building.

By Simon Budden

While Hadleigh stayed outside during the protest at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute (BRLSI), I managed to make my way into the building and I remained there throughout the protest and the speeches that eventually took place.

I have little to add to Hadleigh’s account of the evening, which is very accurate and records how an evening of speeches (to which all candidates in the European Parliament elections were invited – including the BNP) was protested against but took place, albeit, in a reduced form.

Long past the original start time and with only four candidates, the event eventually began. I should note that, due to the protest, the audience consisted of approximately 80-90% BNP supporters and the candidates were only given 5-10 minutes to speak with (unfortunately) no time for questions.

Thus, the audience received speeches from the candidates of the English Democrats Party, Libertas, the Christian People’s Alliance and the British National Party (in order).

The English Democrats Party’s speech outlined their main (only) policy, that of fighting for an English Parliament. This seemed out of place given that the European Parliament elections were the focus of the evening.

Libertas presented themselves as a pro-EU party with their single policy of reforming the European Union. This is mainly by means of empowering the elected representatives of the Parliament, as opposed to the appointed Commission. This seemed reasonable and honest; although I profess that I am not an expert on Libertas.

Stuck Inside: A few punters who breached the blockade

The Christian People’s Alliance, similar to that of the English Democrats candidate, spent a large portion of time describing what his party was and didn’t give any European policies.

Finally, the British National Party candidate took his turn to speak. He began by commenting that he had recently returned from Gibraltar, claiming that the Gibraltar Chronicle and the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation had been “very sympathetic” to what he had said.

He also laid out his stance as pro-U.K. and (in contrast to other candidates) found it necessary to point out that the suit he was wearing was made by an Indian gentleman and that his account was Chinese, before she sold her company.

Moving on, he informed the audience that there was absolutely nothing that the United Kingdom could do in order to stop immigrants from entering the U.K., due to the European Union. Immigrants who only take from the welfare state, and contribute nothing. Added to this, was the promise that the BNP would eradicate all foreign aid, instead helping pensioners.

The BNP candidate finished with the claim that the European Union is very wasteful. He gave the figure that each MEP costs £125,000 per year, although the sources were not elaborated on and no description was given of the work that MEPs undertake.

The BNP candidate then received a standing ovation from many in the audience, all of whom, I suspect were BNP supporters before the speech. A number of people (author included) neither stood, nor clapped.

Overall, the impression that I came away with was that the BNP thought of the evening as a victory for themselves, in the guise of the democracy. They had beaten the protesters and been allowed to speak. However, had the evening gone as planned and had many people from many parties taken part, I feel that there would have been a different outcome.

The lack of time of questions (along with the large BNP contingent) meant that we were unable to tackle any of the claims made. This would have been avoided, had the public been allowed to enter the building.

Since it hasn’t been mentioned here yet, the following quote was used twice to sum up a part of the spirit inside the building.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your rights to say it”

Most people attribute it to Voltaire, but there is some debate. However, I wish the event could have been summed up with another quote:

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously” – Hubert H. Humphrey

Anti-BNP Demonstration at BRLSI Meeting

Further to my previous posts here and here regarding the controversial decision to invite the BNP to speak at a debate on the European Elections of June 4th 2009, this is my account of what occured at the meeting.

Arriving at about 1830 (I had aimed to get there at 1800, but the bus hit a very expensive looking-car half way down Bathwick Hill, so we decided to walk), there were dozens of protesters from various different groups, including the Bath Activist Network, Unite, Bath Labour Students, Bath LGBT group, the various political parties, a group whom I suppose were “Anarchists” and some people who probably didn’t know what was going on.

For about 30 minutes everything remained reasonably calm as cars passed by and occaisionally beeped their horns, greeted by a return cheer from protesters. Doors opened a little after 1900 and by 1913 things started to kick off.

As punters arrived and attempted to enter the public meeting, a few of the Anarchists (with the black hoodies and scarves over their faces) sat at the top of the stairs to block people in. An elederly gentleman tried reasoned argument about democracy and freedom of speech and so on, but it fell on tin, hoodied ears. He tried to step over the teenagers but was tripped up. Eventually he managed to get in.

At this point, a few punters were able to hop over the line as they followed a policemen in. This could not have been more than ten or so, before more protesters began to copy the television and linked arms, blocking the steps as seen here:

By 1923, the entrance was totally blocked with only of handful of police around. Soon after, a group of BNP members arrived, most of whom conformed to the stereotype of big, shaven-headed types. Albeit in ugly suits. It was sad to see a few young teenagers who probably weren’t into being shouted at, but I didn’t really stop to chat.

At 1945, traffic was stopped completely and a second wave of police arrvied, numbering about ten. There was a lull while people waited for something to happen. The police put on their helmets. The speaker from one of the fringe parties (I understand the member ship was 2) made an empassioned speech that bemused the crowd.

A large police van pulled up at 2004 and a “senior police officer” proceeded to read a statement to the blockade claiming that the meeting was cancelled. (Image below).

The police, numbering about 25, formed a circular barrier around the entrance to clear a space. One by one, the protesters were peeled off from the blockade at 2023. (Image below) Most of them came quietly, and were ‘released into the wild’ with everbody else. A few of them decided to put up a bit of a struggle, but the police carried them out.

Though there were cries of “pigs” and “fascists” and other insults (like what they saw covered by the G20 protests) directed towards the police, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Bath Police did a really good job at what was clearly a very difficult situation. They weren’t equipped for dealing with crwods and it seemed like nobody was sure what to do, but in my opinion it was handled very well.

As the BNP group was admitted, at 2031, it became apparant that the meeting was not really going to happen. Ricky Knight from the Green Party took the stage by shouting face-to-face at the BNP candidate, there was chanting of “Shame on you” (presumably they were unaware of Al Murray’s comedy catchphrase)  seen in this video:

By 2040, Liberal Democrat Graham Watson MEP was fed up and went home. Inside the building, the speaker sfrom the BNP and the English Democrats were ready to speak. A vote was taken and it was decided that they would be permitted to give their speech.

Back outside, somebody had got hold of a megaphone and was passing it around as every randomer suddenly had something to say”Um, er, you know. Fascism is bad.”  Next.  I was waited patiently for my turn. It didn’t come. Glyn Ford got to the mic to explain his position. Here he is talking about Jean-Marie Le Pen:

At 2048, the few people inside, now including Libertas, began to speak, though the crowd was mostly BNP. There were no questions. The protesters didn’t know this (I had a friend on the inside) and left as it got dark , probably time for dinner anyway.

Some police dispersed and traffice was reopened at 2051. Only a few people stayed behind and a group of policemen stayed around the door.

So, by way of a conclusion: Sadly, democracy was obstructed. Glyn Ford specfically said that although he was taking a ‘No Platform’ stance, he was no there to prevent the meeting from taking place, but the various other groups didn’t take this line. I don’t know what the teenagers thought they were doing, but it didn’t work anyway.

The BNP spoke, which some of the protesters tried to stop (and failed) and it was another own-goal for them because now there was nobody inside to listen and challenge them.

In my opinion, though I think it’s good there were so many demonstraters around from very diverse organisations, it was wrong to stop the meeting. I can totally understand why people operate a “No Platform Policy” but I, like many others, prefer to challenge and question. Chances are they’re damned out of their own mouth anyway.

All very messy.

Update: BNP back in Bath

There have been some changes to the BRLSI event regarding the hustings for the European Elections.

In light of the wave of walkouts lead by Labour’s Glyn Ford MEP, followed by Lib Dem Graham Watson MEP and Green Party Ricky Knight who all refused to share a platform with the British National Party candidate Jeremy Wotherspoon.

Conservative Dan Collier then jumped on the bandwagon. As a result of the boycott of the all three major parties, the format of the event has changed from a typical panel debate to that of a “job interview”.

Graham Watson MEP of the Lib Dems, while understandably (and respectably) keen to debate, quickly changed his position, justifying the U-turn with a cop-out; “I only said I wouldn’t share a platform with a BNP representative.”

The Conservatives are now are “considering [their] options in light of the changing circumstances” and the Green Party candidate has said that “It seams a very surreal compromise, and I am not really sure what action we will be taking.”

Glyn Ford has remained result, stating that “”It is vital to mobilise people to combat the threat of the British National Party. Unfortunately, we are in a position in the South West, which could well see a member of the BNP being elected to the European Parliament in the elections on 4 June this year.”

Far-Right French MEP, Jean-Marie Le Pen, of the Front National (You might call it the French BNP) has previously described Glyn Ford as “one of the seven most dangerous left-wing men in Europe.”

Also on the ballot will be Katie Hopkins “the really evil one from The Apprentice” who is running as an Independent.

I was invited to a Facebook group recently called “Students voting against the BNP on the 4th of June”. I declined to join, as I will not be voting against anybody, I will be voting for someone. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you who.

Union Council Sandwich Solution

While Don Foster MP has been in starring in Attack of the Urban Seagulls Bath Union Council has been debating about the sandwiches they have on offer in their meetings.

Students’ Union Policy Resolves:
1. All Students’ Union Meetings, where buffet food is provided, should have a 60% – 40% vegetarian – meat (and fish) offering.

I’m not sure where they got the 60:40 figure from, but even if it’s true that “Meat products have a significantly higher carbon footprint than vegetarian food” you will still have to raise cattle for things like cheese and even the milk that might go into bread, so they’ll still be producing methane. You’ll need eggs as well, and I don’t think they come from eggplants! The initiative is made in the name of the worthy cause of environmentalism, but I would be interested to find out what the ratio was before this vital policy was drafted, consulted, redrafted, debated and passed.

Though it looks like I’ll never know since, in a later meeting, they decided to get rid of sandwiches all together: (my emphasis added)

Student’s Union Council Notes:
That at present a number of internal meetings, including Academic Council and Union Council, are provided with sandwiches.
That these sandwiches have been a point of previous internal discussion regarding reducing costs and green issues.

Student’s Union Council Believes:
That these sandwiches are provided both as an incentive to attend meetings otherwise held over lunch times, and as a reward to those who volunteer their time to participate in these meetings.
That such meetings should not need to be incentivised in such a way.

Student’s Union Council Resolves:
To discontinue providing sandwiches or similar catering at all union meetings.

However, councillors need not fear. If they are REALLY hungry, “under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to provide sandwiches” so all the bases are covered. I can see why MPs’ expenses are so carefully discussed. Although it doesn’t state whether the options will be fairly balanced 60:40 meat:vegetarian, I’m not sure the original policy applies in said circumstances.

This is too funny to be an accident; we really are 40 years away from May 1968.

Mass Debate in Bath

On December 1st, the Bath University Debating Society (BUDS) hosted its annual Inter-varsity competition. A total of 24 teams from around the country participated in the event which took place at the Bath Royal Literary & Scientific Institution (Queen’s Square, Bath).

In the university debating circle, The Bath IV is always held in high esteem as something of a more amusing competition with a lighter tone compared to the more pompous and serious tournaments. This is partly because all the debates throughout the day are “open motions” meaning that it is entirely up to the proposition to decide what the subject of the debate shall be.

After the four initial rounds, the break to the final occured, which saw Exeter’s Jekyll and Bristol’s EJ proposing “This House Believes that Hate is a Force for Good” deciding to interpret the motion into meaning that ‘military intervention against dictatorships is essentially a benefit to humanity’. They faced opposition from Bristol’s FTW and Reading’s Cruel and Unusual, the latter of whom won the day. Charlie Williams began his animated speech with “We are Reading’s Cruel and Unusual. I am the unusual one and she [team-mate Ro Cabral] is the cruel one.”

Inevitably, during the final, a great number of poignant ideas were flying across the table. As soon as Chris Hopkins of Exeter said, “We did cut, we did run, and what a mess we made” Winner Ro Cabral jumped in with “If we give dictators a choice to either let go of power, or to hold on to it, keeping it is always the one they like to do!”

Daniel Feld, Secretary of BUDS and a key judge in the day’s proceedings said after the final that “It was a decidedly close match and a difficult topic to discuss; however, we decided that humour was a vital element. A good debate is always heated but never too dry.”

For each round, six different debates took place simultaneously. A theme that is stressed at the Bath IV is that not all debates are centred on politics or morality, “The very nature of open motions makes for a lively debate.” said Feld. Indeed, when it came to round three, “This House Would Bring Them Home” the various teams chose this to mean a wide range of topics, some arguing that the West must remove troops from Iraq, some tried to legalise prostitution, some tried to abolish boarding schools. One ambitious proposition team attempted to outline plans to legalise necrophilia, at the end of which, one of the judges exclaimed humorously “I have to say, I wish I was dead!”

Some other notable debates included proposals to take away a criminal’s right to remain silent and one planning to legalise bestiality under the banner of “This House Believes in Love”

Sometimes, however, open motions can give the proposition team an unfair advantage, as it is up to them to decide what direction to take. Chris Spencer, head of BUDS explained, “Sometimes you will find that teams have prepared a speech beforehand, hopefully this is not the case today.”

The event was organised by Alex Vakil as BUDS IV Co-ordinator, who was responsible for liaising with the other universities and the logistics of the event. The Chief Adjudicator for the day was Andrew Fitch, Debates and Education officer from the English Speaking Union. BUDS was also fortunate enough to have a large number of representatives from the ESU Bath. Steve Smith, chief co-ordinator of the Bristol IV that took place some weeks ago was also present as a judge.

Despite having argued with each other from 10am to 8pm, the one thing all the debaters could agree on was that Bath University Debating Society has evidently lived up to its outstanding reputation and provided a stimulating and entertaining forum for debate.

Stem Cell Research (Debate Speech)

The following was a speech for an Opposition Debate on 21/03/07 with the motion “This House believes that Stem Cell Research is wrong.” I agree almost entirely with what I have written.

“Researchers and biotech executives foresee the day when the effects of many catastrophic diseases can be reversed. The damaged brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients may be restored. Severed spinal cords may be rejoined. Damaged organs may be rebuilt. Stem cells provide hope that this dream will become a reality” Wrote George Wolff in The Biotech Investor’s Bible. Indeed, Stem Cell Research can no longer be labelled a maybe; it has proven to be a success.

Evan Snyder, at the Burnham Institute in California, has used stem cells to repair spinal cord damage. In addition, a team at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles removed neural stem cells from mice foetuses and produced a chemical known to kill gliomas. Mice that were treated survived significantly longer than those that were not. A third even developed long-term immunity to brain cancer.

Not only will this research yield results, but we have the resources as well. We already accept ‘spare’ embryos for cycles of in vitro fertilisation treatment. IVF facilitates the creation of human life. Stem cell treatments will allow the saving of existing human life. The infertile will still survive. The sufferers of Huntingdon’s Chorea, or those who urgently require an organ transplant, will not. Thus the moral argument in favour of allowing stem cell treatment is even stronger than IVF. As John Kerry pointed out in a presidential debate, “We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren’t taken from abortion. They’re from a fertility clinic, and they’re either going to be destroyed or left frozen.”

We have the reasons; we have the resources, now all we need are the responses. On the 28^th of November 2004, two thirds of the voters in Switzerland strongly backed a new law permitting research on the stem cells of human embryos. Countries such as Britain and Sweden already have much more relaxed laws and moreover, the usage of embryos can be strictly controlled. The 1998 report ‘Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine’, was informed by the views of the national scientific community and was crucial to the passing of legislation to permit stem cell research in the United Kingdom. There should be no fear of ‘Frankenstein science’.

It is always the case that medical research is consequentialist. Although the research procedure may involve the creation and destruction of some embryos, the resulting benefits will far outweigh the cost in human material. Even so, a variety of adult stem cell therapies already exist, particularly bone marrow transplants that are used to treat leukaemia. Interestingly, on the January 7^th of this year, Scientists at Wake Forest University led by Dr. Anthony Atala and Harvard University reported the discovery of a new type of stem cell in amniotic fluid. They were able to extract the stem cells without harm to the mother or the foetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone while sidestepping the controversy over destroying embryos for research. This could eventually lead to the discontinuation of controversial so called “embryo harvesting.”

Stem Cell research is the way forward. It can cure the incurable, without necessarily harming the foetus. As Former United States President Ronald Reagan said, “Stem cell research will revolutionize medicine, more than anything since antibiotics.