COMMENT: CONDEMNATION AND CONFRONTATION ISN'T THE SAME AS CENSORSHIP

It's a tired all standby of the embattled far right that they refer to any challenge to their rhetoric as being 'censorship', from the BNP bleating about the liberal media bias on down to the angry little bigot called out on his Islamophobia, they all reach for it like a garter-belt six-shooter firing argument-settling full stops: “If you're so 'liberal', how come you're oppressing my right to free speech?”

No, nobody's challenging your right to free speech, people are merely exorcising their own by disagreeing with you. The militant left may have its fair share of foaming extremists, but their voices aren't always united and only the most ideologically regressive Antifa zealot would deny the right an opportunity to display how flimsy their pretence of civility really is.

The message of protest and counter-protest is simply, 'there is an opposing view and this is it'. While that's an argument as valid for the English Defence League or British National Party wishing to hold their knuckle-dragging Nuremberg knock-offs in the face of UAF or Hope Not Hate placard waving and petition signing, it's purely theatre for the vast majority of apolitical chaps and chapettes going about their lives, occasionally scanning the papers or rolling news for enlightenment as to this troubled orb's eventual destination. It's the duty of the left to make sure things which are inherently, morally repugnant don't go unchallenged, and allowed to make the headlines without riposte, and, unless you're getting socialism drastically wrong, and you are demanding censorship or worse, your message should be infinitely more appealing to that of the meatheaded right.

Obviously there's a delicate balance to be struck by presenting your view in such a way that it makes the news agenda and takes your message out into the world, and presenting it in such a way that the actual message disappears amid fire extinguishers being thrown from windows and equine royals being poked with sticks, as was the case with the student protests. While it might seem like a victory when Nick Griffin is rejected from Buckingham Palace or Geert Wilders is initially discouraged from showing his odious film in the House of Lords, there's a danger that someone otherwise ambivalent to their agenda will suddenly go, “Well... that's not really democracy, is it?” and out come the lazy  comparisons to Stalin, the tearful cries of 'censorship' and a realistic grab for the moral high ground.

Universities UK's report suggesting the academic world open its doors to potential controversy is a rare streak of reasoned moderation in a world of chest-beating extremes. University is often where young people temper their views on the world from the squishy little ball of preconceived notions and utter comprehension into something more substantial. If Nick Griffin, or for the sake of balance, whoever the current in vogue 'burn in hell, infidel scum' hate preacher is, are considering an appearance at your Student Union, then let them, set up your proverbial barricades inside the building, not outside. Tolerance and dialogue will always win out over factitious demagoguery in a country defined by its reluctance to 'make a fuss', but if said demagoguery isn't even given a chance to be aired, let alone challenged, the loudest message is one of meaningful silence, that the left are aggressive, the right are victims and basic liberties are being threatened by the former, not by the latter.

Debate is important, that way we can feel as though we've come to the conclusion that these people are cunts all by ourselves.