Shami Chakrabarti | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 08. 2015
- 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 Believes the Right to Free Speech Always Includes the Right to Offend.
Debate speaker 5 of 6. Watch all the speakers for this debate in order of appearance: • Brendan O'Neill | Free...
Sharmishta "Shami" Chakrabarti CBE is, since September 2003, the director of Liberty, the British civil liberties advocacy organisation. In September 2014, she took up the role as Chancellor of the University of Essex.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 192 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
"Everybody loves human rights, including free speech. They love their own. It's other people's are a bit more of a problem." Incredibly well said Shami.
+_olas Always love to hear Shami talk. It's a pity she couldn't talk for longer :)
+2thinkcritically She wasted a minute of her speech celebrating vagina. She could have used that to discuss free speech more. Besides that she did pretty good.
+MGTOW FTW Listen to one of the previous speakers, Kate Brooks, and you'll understand why Shami had to say what she did
+ch1gz Yeah, Tim Squirrel and Kate Brooks are full of shit to defend no-platform and pretend it's in any way progressive.
@@2thinkcritically That's because America, England, where ever, is in a police-state. It's just simply an in denial police-state. While more and more rights are eroded and people are led to jail in shackles for free speech issues, privacy rights issues, etc, everyone else looks the opposite direction and says, "It's so great to be living in our free society." Nope, just people playing pretend that they're free.
"They weren't designed to keep us comfortable. They were designed to keep us free." Well said!
+MiracleBuffalo Indeed. The best line of her speech.
"Freedom of speech paid for in blood not designed to make us comfortable it was designed to keep us free." Good quote!
"Pedophiles, Jihadis or columnists."
THE BURN IS REAL
"They weren't designed to keep us comfortable. They were designed to keep us free"
Golden words!!!
"Everybody loves human rights, including free speech. They love their own. It's other peoples [free speech] a bit more of a problem" Truth be told!
"They weren't designed to make us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free...."
Thank you CZcams for not allowing your algorithms to block this video.
It’s honestly the one time I have agreed with Shami.
Usually on interviews and question time it’s not really that good.
Thank you for changing my mind.
You have a right to free speech, you don’t have a right not to be offended.
I love watching these Oxford debates. Free speech is paramount. I disagree with many of the speakers, but I would never, ever want them silenced. I always want to hear alternative views.
>pedophiles, jihadis and...columnists
I died
Speech is only ever silenced wherever the oppressor is being offended.
Without the right to offend, freedom of speech is meaningless by definition.
so calling someone a "retard" is okay?
@@danialkhan3959 with all due respect. it's not about whether it's right or virtuous it's about whether you can if the need arrives someday.
“I don’t denigrate the Other, not because I don’t have the right to, but because it would make me pretty unethical person.” - Gems of wisdom.
Holy shit, I think I found a reasonable feminist who isn't Christina H. Sommers.
+Tweedle Dee Calling her a feminist makes her sound sub-human.
+Xean Thomas 99.97% of them are sub-human. But at least not all are.
+Xean Thomas Seems like the vast majority of feminists are like the purple woman or support people like her.
She used to be awful, better now
G Horn She does look familiar. What exactly made her awful in the past?
Kate Brook's question clearly demonstrated the level of her thinking, and it's not impressive.
"If the publication of those cartoons leads to women who want to take their exams in hijabs being subject to violent attack, would you still defend that?"
Ms. Brooks genuinely believes that the publication of cartoons can lead to violence. If violence of that sort were to occur, there would certainly be a multitude of causes and influences behind it, and the odds of the publication of a cartoon being the deciding factor are minuscule.
This is how someone like her justify censorship. She believes, or at least argues that, publicly expressed speech can lead directly to violence. If that were true, censorship would indeed be justified in some cases. Unfortunately for her, in reality no speech can lead to violence unless the people who are to commit the violence already are primed in some other way, by more important factors, to commit the violent act. If people are going to start attacking people with hijabs, it will be because over along period of time they have grown to hate people wearing hijabs and what they represent. A set of cartoons could have been some small part in strengthening that belief, but no one is so weak minded that a set of satirical cartoons is going to cause an otherwise non-violent reasonable person to attack a Muslim woman.
Written so well. To the point.
And it's half true. Since 1905 in France you can't wear any religious symbol in a public school. No kippa, no christian cross and no hidjab. The law is the same for all!
Worse yet, you could interpret her words as defending the terrorists at Charlie Hebdo, which is ironic. Should I deplatform her because I misunderstood her words, and because I believe there is a slim chance that her words might cause harm?
See, you don't have to be caustic when speaking. You can be both passionate and sober. I liked this one.
Shami nailed it hard.
Yes she did real good job for advocating free speech and rights to offend, And they should go hand in hand with each other, also that shut down on Kate for misleading the to offend equivalent to activate promoting act of violence.
+Linkage Ayexe She was very good - but I think it was Brendan O'Neill who nailed it. However Shami raised the most pertinent point of the evening - the rights we enjoy now have been paid for in blood, many times over. If we have to, we'll probably pay that price again - but I for one think the debt should be cleared.
Give Us Liberty or Give Us Death - I know what I'd be willing to do, but I also know which I'd prefer..
Is the speaker saying that she believes in the right of a person to do satire but at his or her own peril?
Is the speaker comfortable herself with occasionally being satirical towards others (if she feels that such behaviour in speech or in the written words is warranted)?
If you believe in kindness, and are described as kind, does that mean that people should not perceive you as being a person who is sometimes satirical towards others? Ever?
Is there still a price to be paid for being satirical even if only a tiny segment of people are offended?
I'm still not sure about Shami's speech here,
@@Dustshoe
She mentioned about the RIGHT to offend, BUT it is NOT a Duty to do so. I think this includes about satirical cartoons that shouldnt be oppressed or outlaw. BUT if one can choose to be more SENSITIVE, GENEROUS IN KINDNESS towards others.. I think that was what her defends.
Well presented. " they weren't designed to keep us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free." Well said Shami Chakrabarti
A right is not a duty-- Shami. So well said.
Free speech is universal. YOU are in control of how offended you are. Other people don’t have to censor themselves for your feelings.
I find it rather hypocritical on the part of Oxford Union to private the video featuring Kate Brooks.
+Miroslav Georgiev I guess they realised that everyone cant stand her. But still you are right that it is quite hypocritical.
they did it because she wanted it taken down herself!
+Miroslav Georgiev Right?
I watched it... was it put back up?
No, it wasn't.
4 mins in where the hell is she going with this
I like Shami's perspective more than Kate's, you can't call for freedom and equality and deny it to the other party. It's a strange fascism through victimhood.
@Angry Young Man Vanquisher of Tyranny
Yup... STFU 2 u
Why is the 4th video private? Anybody knows the story behind that? Might be just an uploading flaw, but i'm quite curious. It would be pure poetry if it was deliberately censored and made private because it is an offensive or inappropriate talk by a speaker.
I felt her speech overall was a bit too centric on herself, compared to the other two, but it was also much more down to earth and smoother to follow. Nicely done.
+Sam O'Floinn That's why I think it was a good balancing with the others. Two on the wider implications and one with a more personal angle.
+Sam O'Floinn more natural than giving a complete speech thats been written down word for word.shows charisma
Touché.
I don't side with her side of politics but thought her debate was spot on.
One point of disagreement, when she told Brendan that everyone has a right to offend but that doesn't mean they have a duty, I think she knows he meant when it is called for, but instead decided to give a bizarre nod to the opposition. For example, when many news outlets in Europe refused to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo, or any of the cartoons at the center of that massacre in January 2015, they had failed in their duty as members of the press. The journalists failed in their duty as journalists because they censored their own coverage and said they did so to avoid causing "offense". They had a duty to print the cartoons that angered Jihadists to the point of shooting up unarmed people on a January morning in Paris, a duty to the public, and they failed to do their duty, because they would "offend". That never should have stopped them.. they had a duty to cover the event properly even IF people would be offended.. they HAD a duty to OFFEND!
Brendan was not suggesting that we should all go out of our way to offend everybody in society, he clearly was talking about how there are people in society who want to shut you up if they find your speech offensive and in the face of that, you have a duty to be offend. He didn't go through all of this historical examples to provide NO context, Shami.
+JDela10
It's fine to mock Islam. It's also okay to create a work of art called "Piss Christ." So where are the cartoons of Moses eating stool while being buggered by a goat who ate a Torah?
Equality!
+JDela10
I agree with you, they should have printed the cartoons so we can see what caused the offence, also it's clear to any sane person that your NOT trying to offend Muslims by publishing it.
However you can't blame the media organisations, they were taking safety into account. Your words will be no consolation if gunmen storm a media companies HQ and kill people. Saying they are martyrs of free speech isn't going to bring them back from the grave.
Shootings and riots create a climate of fear but the media also does to a much lesser extent by reinforcing certain stereotypes such as "Muslims will kill you, if you offend them". It's a shame because your giving the fundamentalists a voice when they don't deserve one; we shouldn't tolerate intolerant people.
+Dot Com Refusing to print the cartoons because of safety fears is understandable. However, when you refuse to print them out of safety fears, and pretend it was actually just to protect the average Muslim from offence, that's an entirely different thing. That's cowardice in my view. As many others have said in better ways before me, when your colleagues have been killed for the crime of printing something they are freely allowed to print, and the entire media is then on notice that doing so may result in them being murdered too, they should ALL print the "offensive imagery" to spread the risk, and leave no more Charlie Hebdos standing out like a sore thumb for jihadists to target. It tells them that their actions are pointless. If they shot up one outlet over some cartoons, and then the next day thousands of outlets make a point of reprinting them, they have achieved nothing.
BTW, when it comes to stereotypes that you mentioned... the average Muslim won't kill you if you print a cartoon of Mohammed and that's clear as day to anyone with a brain. However, the extremists might and have killed for that non-crime, and that is a risk we all know about. There is also the uncomfortable truth that many other Muslims when polled will sympathise with the extremists who do murder for blasphemy. For example, in the UK it was over a quarter of Muslims that answered one poll that sympathised with the murderers in Paris, and about 10 percent who outright said they had it coming.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html
Now of course, that still leaves the sane majority who know that these actions are unjustified, but the minority is significantly larger than people might think. It gets worse when you ask these questions in predominately Muslim countries. You don't have to shoot up a Paris-based magazine for blasphemy, or murder an apostate, or carry out a suicide bombing, in order to be an extremist. All you have to do to get the label extremist is try to justify and support any of those vile acts in any ways. That's the bar we NEED to set.
BTW, I understand that one poll is never fully trustworthy, but when multiple polls over multiple years in multiple countries keep showing that an uncomfortably large number of people support or try to justify extremist activity, we need to acknowledge that as a major problem!
+JDela10 They also had a duty to keep their employees safe.
+Fiona Warsame (iman101) -- Like I said in my reply right above yours, I understand safety concerns, but instead of saying "We're afraid to print the cartoons", most media outlets claimed they didn't want to offend Muslims. They tried to present their fear for their safety as some kind of noble awareness of a "marginalized group's feelings". These same media outlets wouldn't bat an eyelid at printing "offensive" Christian imagery though, or other things that might be considered in bad taste. For example, many media outlets that wouldn't print the cartoons printed pictures of the blood-soaked office. Sky News didn't show the cartoons but showed the gunmen shooting a police officer point blank in the head. Sky News also showed Lee Rigby's murderers, one of them wielding a blade that was dripping with Rigby's blood. They don't give a fuck about anybody's feelings, what's in good or bad taste etc.
So when they refuse to print a silly cartoon (even just the Charlie Hebdo cover!) and then proceed to stick their privileged noses in the area and spew bullshit about being sensitive to Muslims feelings, you can forgive me if I don't sympathize with them. After all, if every media outlet had originally printed the Danish cartoons that really led to this nonsense (that's when Charlie Hebdo first came under threat and every time it was threatened or attacked it printed something about Mohammed in defiance) then Charlie Hebdo never would have stood out. All media outlets in Europe should have printed in solidarity and spread the risk of an Islamist backlash among them all, but they have no spine.
What a fantastically intelligent speaker!! Great points and great sense of humor.
Shami Chakrabarti! Excellent. Great choice of Shadow Attorney General by Jeremy Corbyn.
People love their human rights. Not so much the rights of others.
That was one hell of a mic drop.
Freedom of speech is of the upmost importance. Debate and logic will always prevail even if I disagree with what some one says I’ll fight for there right to say it. Education and debate is the only way forward just because your offended doesn’t mean your right.
Where is the 4th video in the series? It's showing up as "private video." I'm really enjoying this discussion but would like to watch each one.
She made a great point at the end, millions died so we would have these rights. millions of men and several thousands women.
07:00
How is a cartoonist responsible for the acts of the readers?
Rights and duties go hand in hand. It is my duty to ensure and support your rights and vice versa.
Must say for the first five minutes I didn't know which side of the debate she was on
Most of this was already argued, in the 17th century, by John Milton in 'Areopagitica' (the lacking need for apology or external authority over rational sense). She's somewhat timid as a lawyer, and her arguments have been made long ago, though many have long since forgotten. So I guess she needed to do it, however unoriginal.
What happened to the video for speaker #4?
Who was speaker #4?
7:04 How the hell would she know whether or not a cartoon “led to violence?”
SJWs always claim that “offensive” speech leads to violence but you never hear them explain how they determine that.
Such thoughts could only come from the actual land of the free and the real home of the brave aka India. The largest democratic republic there is in current times. Long live the profound Indian wisdom and equally the courage to speak for the unspoken and
ill-privileged. May God bless the righteous Indian spirit of freedom and the essence of democracy imbedded in it through our all inclusive and all encompassing "the constitution of India".
Many thanks and regards, keep up the all inclusive free speech. Well said indeed Shami for saying what many don't. I always wear a badge - JE SUIS CHARLIE - pined to my overcoat in support of those 12 free thinkers that were killed at Charlie Hebdo's offices on 07-01-2015 - Like my Grandfather in the great war and my Uncle, Bill Lock who died at Alam El Halfa on 8/9th September 1942 , they died fighting for the right to offend and speak freely in a free world.
Well-argued indeed.
"pedophiles, jihadis, and columnists"
Oooh, that's a sick burn.
The problem is that people get offended because they think they are right, and if everybody who thinks they are right and gets offended gets to ban everybody who offends them from speaking their views, then we will all be gagged.
Why did u make 4/6 video private
why cant I watch the previous video =[
Watching from Kenya
Good speech! Very good speech! Absolutely on-point.
People need to stop applauding every points they agree with, it really slows these things down.
Was video number 4 in this playlist so bad they had to make it private?
Brilliant presentation. Thank you.
“A right is not a duty” that’s a good argument actually.
Absolute legend. I appreciate a measured approach like this in the mix of ideas. If we only have the most extreme voices on either side, the collapse and purge is set in stone. So Shami gives me more hope. I also hope many agree with that..... And trust me, my views are getting more extreme (well within legal limits) about free speech. Because the other side *is* reaching tyranny and gaslighting beyond fairness.
"Freedom of speech and human rights were pay for in courage and blood the weren't designed to keeps us comfortable they were design to keep us Free" Well Fucking said shami:D
Why is the video of the speaker before Shami Chakrabarti private?
+Shunarjuna Because of the backlash she received for her authoritarian argument, just to prove the point/to concede she has obviously requested this.
Her speech is by far the most fair, complete (looking the issue from many sides) and therefore the most persuasive. The other two seem to mostly highlight the selfish right to offend, without any responsibility and maturity. And what is worse, they display anger towards people who want to avoid hate speech. Come on, I understand the point you make when you defend the right to offend, but hating on people who want to fight hate is just stupid. To me, this is not what the right to offend is really about. And whereas this could be defensible, it lacks the dignity and sensitivity that only this speaker brought to the discussion.
This is a great speech! In my opinion the best of the three on the proposition side.
i wish i have a wife like her in future! She is so much intellectual.
Why is Kate Brooks' speech listed as a [Private video]?
I am applauding in my livingroom(wife and son looking on quite oddly)...Bravo...rr
What happened to the 4th video? Is it private for you too?
+Swifterbator yeah how ironic lol
Great sense of humor with serious contents
That was brilliant
Freedom of speech is one thing and a great thing to have. The wearing a full face covering in other countries is illegal due to safety concerns and not about religious views.
"A right is not a duty"
/debate
Loved this!
Based Shami.
A right is not a duty in a particular sense, but it is in a global sense. Sometimes it is your duty to offend, as the only way to break echochamber of mentally-deficient.
"Sometimes" being the keyword here. I think "duty" surmises a kind of lack of freedom. It says that not only can you offend, but you MUST offend. Sure, you could say that a right is taken as a duty by many in a Lacanian sense, but sorry, that is still an infringement on freedom. If some people don't want to offend, they shouldn't be forced to.
We, the Indians rises every part of the universe
The lack of accessibility to video 4 offends me, ps where is it? I'm assuming its another opposition video
Reality in debate constitutes the nuances of great essence.
Free speech should NEVER BE DEBATED!!!
8:02 great ending !
*YAWN* already 4 minutes in and she's still said NOTHING.
Brilliant!
Freedom of speech is very important for the human kind.... We have the right of what to do and how to do it our own ways.... We haven't damaged government or any governments stuffs... Its just speech of an individual... Thats it... With that no one can be jailed .... If its jailed that means there is no freedom for none and have to bow down ya surrender before the law.. 7 billion people in this world has got 7 billion perceptions and tastes in life.. We are humans came to this world not to love or hate any body ... Not to have empathy or sympathy fir others... But to live our life in our own ways .... Iam sorry what I said is my concept... And it will be view till death...
Whatsoever enjoy
Very well said .
like got electric shock..shaking hand and head. Freedom of speech is only one right thats all
why is the previous video, the opposing woman speaker I presume, a private video. I heard her's was the most ludicrous argument and id like to hear it
What right does anyone have to offend others? Is it a part of freedom of speech.
True it is a debate. But freedom of speech does include an implicit guarantee that there will be no ban of any sort. I do personally believe that self restraint in language and civility in discourse are essential
Completely overlooked this video previously because I was too preoccupied worshipping Based Hitchens and laughing at Kate Brooks.
But man, Shami is one awesome gal! I'm completely on board with her. She speaks straight up logic!
brilliant speech, brilliant argument
Why the fuck is part 4 private? I really want to see the rebuttal.
Whats wrong with your faceeee?
Brilliant speech.
A lot of people seem to confuse free speech with the wish to hide themselves. Free speech does not mean hiding and making yourself anonymous behind silly comments. Free speech dictate that you can post anything within the scope of the law, however, your id must be verifiable.
One has a right to be offended... but that's where it ends... one doesn't have the right to impose force upon another in light of offence taken at something they have said or done (so long as no force has been imposed upon them either etc...) sticks and stones etc - very sensible saying we should all remember (most learn this in primary school)
Her speech was perfect, I liked the other 2 speeches but she not only covered the importance of free speech, but also the importance of freedom of expression in general while pointing out what the other 2 failed too. The opposition was trying to paint offense and incitement to violence as the same thing, she made it clear that they were separate and that offense isn't always necessary but that sometimes it is unavoidable when discussing something truly worth discussing.
She makes a really fair point: The anti-hijab law of France is an "anti-offence" law, since it is based on others being offended by the sight of women in hijabs.
+Lars Kristian You don't believe people walking around with their faces hidden could be a security risk?
+Lars Kristian Or it is the possibility to cheat on exams? Just playing devil's advocate.
+SugaryCoyote
The hijab doesn't cover the face.
Steve Bob The law is much more broad than specifically mentioning "hijabs".
SugaryCoyote
Yes, and since the hijab does not cover the face, any concerns about not being able to see it for security or other reasons do not apply.
So who won the motion?
Excellent
Human rights is the configuration of ideation.
Right to speech and right to offend? Defend and Protect the Most Marginalized and vulnerable groups in the society
Brilliant.
Right is not duty......
If you are wearing a mask, who knows who you are besides you? No masks in public. PERIOD.
OHHH THAT OPENING FUCKING WRECKED SON
Wow
*"Free Speech does not exist, nor has it ever." PROVE ME WRONG.
Don't disable replies you babies. As for the most cogent and on point of the speakers, nope. It took her five minutes to get on the same page as the rest of the speakers, spending the earlier part of it rambling and self-aggrandizing.
Shami , I rarely agree with you. But on this motion I do. And the things I disagree with you on, well that it is a difference of opinion. Long live democracy!
The woman who spoke just before this....that video has been deleted. Can you re-post?