Madam, – As an undergraduate at UCC in November 1999, I witnessed the cancellation of a debate which was to involve the notorious Holocaust-denier David Irving due to the violent protests of various groups. The resulting media attention afforded Irving the opportunity to speak to the nation unopposed on the radio the following morning. Rather than challenge this man’s views with reason and debate, he was allowed to speak freely without contradiction.
With the walkout involving several countries at a UN conference on racism in Geneva in response to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech on Israel on Monday, we find a similar example of attempts to silence those we disagree with backfiring. By storming out, like petulant teenagers arguing with their parents, these countries have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak unopposed to the world, and fuelled his contention that the West is “arrogant and selfish”.
Surely, a greater purpose would have been served if each of these countries had stood in turn and heavily criticised Ahmadinejad for what can only be described as a hate-speech? If he is so wrong, (and he is) then surely words and argument would meet with little resistance; rather than this ridiculous posturing? And perhaps other nations should have taken the issue more seriously and sent their own leaders rather than letting this man stand alone for all to see and hear? – Yours, etc,