Robert French | We Should Support No Platforming (3/8) | Oxford Union

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Supports No Platforming.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@OxfordUnion]

Watch the full debate here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ6conmgpq9ql9U

[@richardjoyce848]

What use is free speech if you can't talk to people about things they dont want to hear.

[@elainewilkes1937]

Absolutely bang on Richard..Long ago when i was young i remember my mother saying ...There's non as deaf as those who don't want to hear!!!

[@richardjoyce848]

@@elainewilkes1937 if you want to know how bad censorship is look into jeffory epstine, the media wont touch it, he is a multi billionari connected to the royal family and many of the u.s. presedents, the u.s. and other goverments and big buisness as well, i have posted other information on these pages but they have been censored, he is currently on trial for the second time on child sex trafficing charges and he is probably going to slip through the cracks in the system if awareness is not raised on this issue, it won't fix everything to get him put away for good but you've got to start somewhere. Please reply if you even see this post, i will not be suprised if this is censored.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

Richard Joyce I see your post

[@richardjoyce848]

@@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904 then it seems my new account has slipped through the net, hopefully there will be enough awarness to put the creep away for good this time.

[@richardjoyce848]

@@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904 thank you for replying, it is greatly apreaiated.

[@undefinedfreedom8580]

I feel sick when a retired Chief Justice advocates for no platforming.

[@Egilhelmson]

undefined freedom Better a retired one, than one still in office.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

You should have seen some of the decisions !! More introverted drivel that were a waste of public resources.

[@prasadyoutube7823]

how good of a judge he would have been when he were no-platform the defendants?

[@theseustoo]

Indeed! I'm feel even sicker as I live in the country for which he once was a Chief Justice... One can only wonder what this fact says about the state of the whole concept of Justice in this Wonderful Land of Oz... :/

[@digeorgesyndrome2944]

This was great, Katie Hopkins surprised me! Thank goodness I was not deprived of hearing her speech

[@biospiritofthewest5961]

This one thinks he can win the argument by putting everyone to sleep by blithering on with legalese. Boring.

[@andrewdraper8336]

I did , did not not did did not not go to sleep

[@ME-gs6yn]

Yeah, I guess nuance is pretty hard to follow

[@supportme123]

@@ME-gs6yn on the contrary, he is very short on specifics and keeps the criteria for no-platforming so general that they can be interpreted as broadly as possible - to the benefit of his viewpoint of course.

[@BANKO007]

Not sure if he really believes what he is saying, but admirable that he at least tried, however hopeless the argument.

[@kal-elofkrypton252]

IMHO. Stop projecting your Aboriginal guilt on us! No offence.

[@jeremyb6361]

This guy's argument was very poor. Way too many things to beef with, no one has the right to 'allow' me to hear anything, I decide for myself.

[@scatton61]

Not sure what he said..... was there a point of clarification i missed?

[@allenkennedy99]

Looking at the ratio: I love Democracy

[@benchapple1583]

Yes and I've just contributed to it. However there is a bias. Those who support no platforming would not watch as they would have to see and hear arguments against their point of view which is why they support it. Thus most people watching this are in favour of free speech. QED

[@Teasehirt]

The Banning of Katie on Twitter is unacceptable.

[@Maehedrose]

While I disagree with this argument, I do appreciate that he wasn't an extremist. However, I fear that once you open that door, there will never be a group of people you can trust to judge who does or does not deserve to be no-platformed.

[@kannabi]

fundamentally, that's the problem. All "no platforming" does is creates a divide, meaning 2 sides will never talk, leading to the kind of extremism these types claim not to want.

[@ukee31]

Glad to see comments like this. Giving me hope because everyone else is so extreme on one side or another. It's getting scary that centrist opinions are rare to find

[@FarhanAmin1994]

​@@ukee31 True. The idea seems to be that each side may see centrists, and I count meself as one, as apologists of the other. This is what needs denouncing in the strongest possible terms. Some of us are not noncommital, nor indecisive; for us, a compromise solution, a less extremist solution i.e. the middle-path is more favourable. As an example, some folks might think that the very fact of being transsexual or transgender is 'wrong' and should be banned. The other extreme says that not only must we all buy into the idea of 'gender as a social construction' (something I doubt any of us in India had heard of and is likely a Western thought), but that even young children need to be taught what gender is and that they can 'be any gender'. Both these extreme ideas are unacceptable to me, in terms of principle. The middle path is decidedly less dramatic and hence unappealing to those attracted to the charms of this-wing or that-wing politics. Some of us centrists would say that dysphoria is indeed a condition that exists and that, as such, individuals with said condition should receive the treatments deemed appropriate by medical professionals. At the same time, this is a condition that affects a minority of people. The rest of us don’t have to rearrange society totally for a small group of people. They can be respected without us having to confuse young kids with ideas about a concept as nebulous and self-centredness-encouraging as 'how you perceive your social role', which can be even based on your likes, dislikes and clothing. Giving kids a reason to take seriously these utter frivolities when they should really be bothered about income inequalities, pollution and climate change. How silly is that? In any case, social media whips up people’s self-love (what with the pressure to 'update statuses' and 'upload display pictures' and opine on a subject, never mind if you don’t know the first thing about it). We don’t need that exacerbated by an ideology that makes people think that the fact of their uniqueness (not a big deal tbf) entitles them to 'choose a gender and pronouns' for themselves. The idea ought to be 'you are a man/woman and there are many ways to be one and this is hardly something to go gaga about; there are nicer and deeper things to engage in'.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

The stupidity of no platforming is that this very debate could potentially not even be happening if you are a no platformer. Why? Because some would argue that the four people against the proposition are arguing in support of racism and other moral inadequacies. And yet every person who attended and argued for either side felt as if the debate was worthwhile. Why? Because it was if course! So I rest my case - no platforming is a horrific concept.

[@anthonylondon3366]

French skirts around and fudges issue about who decides what and whom should be platformed.

[@0sba]

To see how many people agree with him is truly showing for the herd mentality considering the way it is received by the general public on KZbin. Even at an institution that should be a safehaven for free thinking, there are now people that would like to see other opinions get shut down.

[@tonylayfield8750]

He's a typical legal type, i.e. capable of arguing for either the defence or the prosecution but believing in neither.

[@alexneigh7089]

'No platforming' is a way to kick-start communism.

[@nondominum2233]

Deplatform those who call to deplatform

[@yengsabio5315]

😂😂😂 they'll cry foul when that happens!

[@nondominum2233]

@@yengsabio5315 they'll cry no matter what

[@yengsabio5315]

@@nondominum2233 I agree! Here in my country -- Philippines -- the Left, plus Liberals, they always shout the death of freedom of speech & press! On the contrary, they are still on the streets doing their stuff, their media friends still operating (i.e., broadcasting, publishing) even though they are spewing lots of lies on their platforms. Their problem, really, is that more Filipinos are becoming less & less trusting of the Left & the Liberals! And they are having a hard time regaining their lost ground which, if we go parliamentary, might be all the more totally lost!

[@nondominum2233]

@@yengsabio5315 the left are not liberals. Liberals believe in freedom of speech, small government, in liberty, the left believe in engineering society with coercion according to whatever is the popular ideals currently are

[@yengsabio5315]

@@nondominum2233 that's supposedly the case! However, those Liberals in my country are acting differently! Weird actually!

[@louisefox4852]

Absolutely pathetic speech - no substance whatsoever. NEXT!!!

[@yannik246]

No platforming is fascist to the core.

[@Damudean]

Who decides what others should hear?

[@ericadler9680]

His conclusion did not at all follow from what he said.

[@nomorelies86]

That asian dude is on every goddam debate! I watched the whole safe space debate and he was the only dude asking question. He is brilliant.

[@pathacker4963]

I need English subtitles for the kid in the blue jacket. As a Yank I didn't understand a word. Insulting and intimidating speech is not illegal that I know of. Promoting of illegal activities probably is, but that's not who are being deplatformed.

[@lebenergy247]

the guy in the blue jacket needs subtitles ( I am just a silly American)

[@kurtiousmaximus7130]

The gay inflections baffle me

[@eronan03]

He's RAPID. He also asked a question to Jordan Peterson, and was very well presented. He speaks fast, for sure. But his wording is very cogent.

[@Smudgie]

Why such massive ears if you are not prepared to listen? Seriously, I can somehow expect this standpoint from the youth of today but not from a gentleman of his age.

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

4:40 It's certainly true that there is not such thing as the right to be invited for a speech yet any university deserving that title should turn actively seek controversial speakers so that there won't be any need for perspective speakers to wonder whether they've got the right to be heard or not in the first place. For is the mission of University to investigate divergent opinions instead of indirectly censure them by wilful deplatforming positions and ideas which are not in line with the general consensus. For some of the major leaps in human knowledge have derived from positions and ideas which were at odds with the general knowledge of the time where they were first assembled.

[@nicksibly526]

Intellectual rubbish is what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation excels in

[@douglasarthur2673]

He's correct in saying 'it is up to ME to decide what to hear' !!! Someone else (whoever that may be) deciding for me is the fundamental issue. How then can he go on to assert that it's fine that others, who have the power to do so, can decide what I can and cannot hear?

[@MrMurph73]

Who's the guy at 3.10? I saw him challenge Jordan Peterson also. He seems really interesting - should start his own KZbin channel.

[@Egilhelmson]

Andrew Murphy More importantly, what did he say? The acoustics where he spoke were terrible. He could be the best speaker, or a total fool, or anything in between, and we cannot tell which.

[@lynnmacleod5005]

By the way,,,it is always the ones that want to censor,,,,that mock and disrespect others. They are the worst hypocrites.

[@googletaqiyya184]

There are literally millions of platforms. Anyone with the audacity to believe they can judge what is not to be heard by anyone that is not them or their kids has a serious God complex and ignoring them is best until they find humility and respect for their fellow man. Mommy, we are all grown up now and need the lack of supervision more than more of it. We are all big boys and girls now.

[@shantigs]

All those supporting no platforming, think about this..... If you get your way, you will be silencing yourself, your views, your opinions, your right to speak..... How utterly stupid that this is even being considered let alone encouraged.

[@pallidbustofpallas4679]

Of all the ones arguing for no platforming this gentleman is the most shameful because he is old enough to know better.

[@rounsterbout]

IF there is no platforming KNOCK THIS STUPID OXFORD UNION DOWN AND BUILD HOUSE ON THE LAND

[@tcrown3333]

Much of his points were so convoluted and garbled; I found it difficult to focus on the thrust of his argument. To me, it was one long ramble.

[@romanempire8705]

Did he just change the well know definition of NO platforming? It’s not about not inviting speakers but rather banning speakers from ever speaking in ANY platform available.

[@jamie306]

People in the comments are quite...unlearned. Such a well articulated speech with quite a balanced POV. Neither entirely exclusionary, nor all too accepting of everything without legislation. I doubt people would be all too welcoming of individuals such as Polanski, Harvey being given a platform for debate.

[@MeekayUK]

When they ring the bell. What does it mean?

[@kirked007]

I personally deplatformed him by keeping the sound off for the duration of his speech. I'm now going to address his key points and why he is wrong. Er..........

[@buddhistsympathizer1136]

I didn't hear a coherent argument backing the proposal - I tried to find one . . . I really tried

[@gbennett58]

He attempts to make the case that no-platforming does not impact freedom of speech. Unless the speech is "rubbish". So who decides what is rubbish? His argument that no-platforming does not affect freedom of speech speaks for itself. It is rubbish.

[@gbennett58]

@Michael Craig McGee Non sequitur.

[@gbennett58]

@Michael Craig McGee Only that no one should be deplatformed. Regardless of their views.

[@gbennett58]

​@Michael Craig McGee Probably he doesn't think his views are rubbish, and would not agree he should deplatform himself. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[@APP1E5]

One person's intellectual rubbish could be another's or the world's intellectual treasure. IE Bjørn Lomborg.

[@soundssimple1]

Who then decides the 'when ?' or the 'unless' . if all cards are not on the table then how can the correct cards be identified and supported or the wrong cards identified and dismantled. ....right /wrong, left right, black/white, ...all opinions must be heard and only then will the way forward be exposed.

[@stormyskyz4251]

We support no platforming WHEN ... aka but That’s a very big “but”

[@stormyskyz4251]

I disagree with French but very glad to be able to hear what he has to say ... no matter how offensive his view is to me.

[@kyledrake9750]

It is not really the "No Platforming WHEN" but rather the "HOW". He assumes that the how will be via rational judgment from administrators but instead it is normally fear of pressure from cry bullies. This is the worst reason to No Platform someone.

[@Pal-ve1bt]

Ahh.. No platforming, but only "When I don't agree with you" ?

[@coltmagnus6572]

Such a position for a mature person taking this position is just disgusting. How can you know what you're up against or even, how can you know you're right, if you've never considered the opposition of your position? Also, how can someone be considered a debater if they are unwilling to debate their opposition?

[@mpetersen6]

Anyone who supports this should experience it.

[@stefankurlak9556]

Mr French - I will politely suggest a public speaking class unless your goal was to put all to sleep

[@DoctorNerf]

It isn't a legitimate basis because listen to your wording you're saying 'they feel', it doesn't matter what 'they feel', what matters is those in favour of no deplatforming wouldn't want to stop that exact person from coming and talking. The fact is they CAN talk, and we will listen. That is the fact. How they 'feel' about what is being said is their interpretation and they can do with it what they want, but what they do with it won't change that their opinion can be heard.

[@sparkymmilarky]

What a disgrace, what have universities become?

[@straylight2378]

Marxist propaganda factories. Breeding grounds for communist bullies & social justice demagogues.

[@DonnieTHORMacLEOD]

Dear Mr. French you sounded like the guy who was telling his mom that his girl friend was half pregnant in your subjectivity.

[@josuaniu9219]

Katie Hopkins came on my feed . Speech so good i just had to watch the rest of the opposition to see who even came close .

[@cydo8581]

only Ann came close tbh

[@nicksibly526]

Please deplatform the guy in the blue coat

[@stefankurlak9556]

Mr French - I can neither disagree not agree with you if you were to be “ no platform “ It appears that the surfs have not valued their freedom

[@dangumbo4835]

I love listening to racists. They make me feel intelligent. Give them as many platforms as you can I say.

[@mostlyanchors168]

So many words spoken and so little useful information given that has any relevance of the true subject at hand.

[@lynnmacleod5005]

Find speech unacceptable. Who decides what is unacceptable????? Free speech laws were written to protect offensive speech Because if there was never offensive speech, ,then free speech would have never been protected in our constitutions.

[@MyrkDomolith]

A reasonably reserved approach, mostly sticking to "don't give a voice to what's already illegal." Has some tricky grey area, which would make it difficult. It's the expansion to "don't give a voice to what's stupid" and the reasoning behind that that fall apart, and unfortunately, take the above stance with it. What's described doesn't reside in a medium where no-platforming would affect it in a way that'd get the intended result. No-platforming that would instead help those ideas spread further both in and out of those mediums, as no-platforming would give those ideas validity through such opposition.

[@RatherPlayChess]

My solution is, when morality and the law overlap, err on the side of the law. Give as much leeway to the individual to act immorally as possible.

[@SocialHigh]

Yes there is a 'lot' of intellectual rubbish. But we still heard what you had to say.

[@benjamaya5199]

I guess he's trying to be pragmatic about how it's implemented but WHO is deciding when? Left leaning university officials?

[@huntergray3985]

Absolute Sophism!

[@chanman2001]

At the end. I'm not sure of his position. Trying to sound wise by not saying anything meaningful.

[@nomorelies86]

I do partly agree with him on the point that you should have a moral etiquette when it comes to debating. Racist slurs should not be accepted. However, to achive that, deplatforming seems like a to harch of a measure. And also his point with the ”alien interbreeding with humans” suggestion is a good and valid point. However again whether something is offensive or not is subjektiv and a subject of debate and i do admit its a tough one.

[@affarokurz1486]

Who won the motion??

[@ManInTheBigHat]

What's with this interruption? That allowed?

[@lubberwalker]

Katie Hopkins said this guy was boring and nonsensical.

[@zacharylai]

Promise to stop driveling. Drivel for the whole 9 minutes.

[@CaptainSeamus]

Illegal speech? Why not just throw someone using the hall to scream "Fire" while you're at it?

[@creedynotechnique]

There is no excuse to support 'no platforming' in universities whatsoever. If ANY speaker whether left, right, radical or otherwise is due to speak then all that's needed is a notice stating 'speakers views/topics may cause offence', then it's up to the attendee to make their decision also most students will already know the position of the speakers and need not attend if they so wish. It really does just boil down to the fact that the 'no platforming advocates want censorship of speakers that they may find offensive no matter how they 'dress it up'. If i had their mindset i wouldn't even allow this debate as i feel the notion of censorship of free speech with no crime being committed is abhorrent but fortunately i'm not and believe all speech should be permitted if legal no matter how infuriating it is to the individual

[@thebeautifulones5436]

Well of course. No platforming when.... When the ideas challenge the establishment.

[@Hunsuck_O_Rama]

The use of the phrase, “unlawful speech,” sends up the hackles on this American

[@thiruvalluvar3880]

Same. Holy shit that is authoritarian

[@DavidMeddowsTaylor]

I watched this twice but still can't make out anything remotely like a logical thought. Just looking at the conclusion "we talk about no platforming but there can never be no platforming there has to be judgement and having regard to all of the above this house can should and I would respectfully submit must support the proposition that there that it supports no platforming" makes my head spin. "there can never be no platforming ... this house ... must support the proposition that there that it supports no platforming". How can they support it if it can never be?

[@JACKMILLER200738]

A champion dribbler, he should be drafted to Manchester United.

[@TheDORTOH]

This Generation needs to grow up. These Corrupt Schools should be closed or all their teachers replaced with people who have some common sense.

[@ultravires987]

Poster boy for no platforming @3.07. Was he speaking English?

[@pr1me840]

(5:23) Your face mocks me, and diminishes my dignity as a human being, I want it removed. Who will judge it?

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Exactly. - You had hit the relevant point that the speaker here mentions but then fails to acknowledge the reality is that it involves someone deciding that who ever makes a comment then someone else is going to judge if it is mocking or not. I believe he is just making a foolish unworkable case for some appointed as judge (perhaps himself) to decide that someone who speaks is being mocked. Just an illustration of setting up power play situation where free speech is suppressed by someone else. It is an example of someone who thinks the "law" comes first and everything can be achieved by law or pre set number of rules. I also wonder about the level of his undertanding or experience of engineering, financial and economic concepts that create real wealth or the differences between cultures in the world that higher level judges rarely come into contact with and have to deal with on daily basis.

[@Hunsuck_O_Rama]

The use of the phrase, “unlawful speech,” sends up the hackles on this American. Nightmarish how easily it’s said by French...who ostensibly represents an institution of higher learning...though clearly, these institutions have devolved into something less...

[@SRPC21]

I feel the like/dislike ratio is a big unfair with this speaker (I don’t agree with his position but he at least says he believes in free speech, only non-platforming in exceptional circumstances).

[@allahspreadshate6486]

He doesn't provide any evidence. It's all opinion and supposition.

[@mostlypeacefulrowan8747]

I couldn't understand the lispy Asian guy. What did he say?

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

hehe no idea.

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

hehe no idea

[@edsharp5906]

He basically gave a "Slipery Slope" reduction. Quite rightly, I might add.

[@CbrigBear87]

he's been there for 20 years. i think he's a janitor

[@monoman4083]

what is he on about

[@melaniehowd9160]

Wow!!!...intellectual rubbish is right!!!...feel so sad for Australia.

[@undefinedfreedom8580]

Melanie Howd , I hope not all Australians are as embarrassing as him. Having saying that, I support his right to express his embarrassing viewpoints.

[@melaniehowd9160]

His right to speak goes without saying...in relation to Australia, I was not referring to an Australian personality but rather alluding to the ideological stance and consequent policies being pushed in Australia currently. I can assume that he is either involved or supportive of these developments given his opinions...and I will reiterate...I am sad for Australia that creatures with these kind of opinions...a corrupt and criminal elite are in power as in the US, UK and many other nations showing similar political trends.

[@stefanfrei6199]

we all know where this path leads to i assume

[@aragon7369]

Not the first time I'm seeing a Chinese dude wearing exterior clothing indoors. Just saying, what's with that.

[@robinthrush9672]

His arguments sound reasonable, but I know the application of his arguments is not in alignment with the reasons he has. Yeah, people who are just there to insult a group don't need a platform; they aren't contributing anything of value. How this idea is applied starts with people discussing a topic and mere notion that there is someone in opposition to an idea is seen as insulting and thus worthy of no platform. "Drag queens are evil" "drag queens should not be performing erotic dances for 2-8 year olds"

[@TNO73]

Shouldn't a non- asian snowflake be screaming at this guy for using the term oriental? Speaking of that...why exactly is that a non- no nowadays. It describes someone from the far east and derives from the Latin word oriens meaning "east" (lit. "rising" < orior " rise"). The use of the word for "rising" to refer to the east. And yet some non oriental people have deemed it offensive on their behalf.

[@joeboorer5341]

This is not intellectual rubbish, its just boring 😴

[@hansdampf640]

As soon as you willingly stop listen to what the opposition has to say,you become an advocate of war... willingly! me 2019

[@kannabi]

This guy is just making an argument against no platforming lol

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Making an argument against or for "platforming" from his position on a platform !. The hypocrisy of this is demonstrated by the position he has put himself in. This shows an inability to examine one's own thoughts before jumping into the discussion.

[@Nonstopgamer681]

Well I still have my freedom of speech. Problem anyone?

[@benzman7347]

Toqeer Hussain facebook said that PJW is a dangerous individual. And should be silenced. So to show your opinion to others on a platform/channel is too big. If it is only in the comment section of a video it is not a danger. It is harder to be heard.

[@Nonstopgamer681]

@@benzman7347 thanks for the advice.

[@benzman7347]

@@Nonstopgamer681 wich advice?

[@pops1507]

What utter twaddle ....... sheesh!

[@czarmangis]

Cringe intermission @ 3:00 😬

[@ritafernandes7218]

Robert French, I’ve listened to all the speakers, but you’ve “No Platformed” yourself : blah blah blah blah 😴😴.

[@DG_Haus]

This speakers arguments are seriously disingenuous. Current topics being no platformerd are relevant to current social discussion/discourse and there are plenty of speakers being no platformerd who are not provocateurs

[@truthmatters-jt5up]

good god, no wonder today's graduates know so little. what unbelievable rubbish.

[@design7054]

Thug.

[@supportme123]

Inconsequential rubbish

[@maureensalter5752]

He is reading all this. Shows he reads something and then spouts it out. A bit like the Pakistaní girl. You are extremely . The human rights law was passed by the EU dictatoship in order to bring in wrong think. Read ORWELL that might help you to re think.

[@maureensalter5752]

Extremely boring.