Shami Chakrabarti | Freedom of Speech and Right to Offend | Proposition 

"They weren't designed to keep us comfortable. They were designed to keep us free." Well said!

"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.

"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!

>pedophiles, jihadis and...columnists I died

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.

Thank you RU-vid 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.

Speech is only ever silenced wherever the oppressor is being offended. Without the right to offend, freedom of speech is meaningless by definition.

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.

Holy shit, I think I found a reasonable feminist who isn't Christina H. Sommers.

"They weren't designed to make us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free...."

“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.

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.

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.

I find it rather hypocritical on the part of Oxford Union to private the video featuring Kate Brooks.

Shami nailed it hard.

See, you don't have to be caustic when speaking. You can be both passionate and sober. I liked this one.

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.

4 mins in where the hell is she going with this

Well presented. " they weren't designed to keep us comfortable, they were designed to keep us free." Well said Shami Chakrabarti

Free speech is universal. YOU are in control of how offended you are. Other people don’t have to censor themselves for your feelings.

A right is not a duty-- Shami. So well said.

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.

07:00 How is a cartoonist responsible for the acts of the readers?

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.

Shami Chakrabarti! Excellent. Great choice of Shadow Attorney General by Jeremy Corbyn.

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.

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.

She made a great point at the end, millions died so we would have these rights. millions of men and several thousands women.

What a fantastically intelligent speaker!! Great points and great sense of humor.

What happened to the video for speaker #4? Who was speaker #4?

People need to stop applauding every points they agree with, it really slows these things down.

"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

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.

Based Shami.

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

i wish i have a wife like her in future! She is so much intellectual.

Must say for the first five minutes I didn't know which side of the debate she was on

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.

Rights and duties go hand in hand. It is my duty to ensure and support your rights and vice versa.

Well-argued indeed.

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.

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

What happened to the 4th video? Is it private for you too?

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".

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.

"pedophiles, jihadis, and columnists" Oooh, that's a sick burn.

Good speech! Very good speech! Absolutely on-point.

This is a great speech! In my opinion the best of the three on the proposition side.

why cant I watch the previous video =[

Was video number 4 in this playlist so bad they had to make it private?

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

5:03 "ASBOs, CrASBOs, Public Order Offences have created such an authoritarian climate we've forgotten...the act of kindness, politeness, sensitivity..." To play Devil's Advocate, these pieces of legislation are designed to tackle those sociopaths out there who don't give a damn about kindness, politeness, decency etc. and will just intimidate all those around them and make their lives a misery because Reasons. Let's take the Public Order Act: without it, there is nothing under law to stop a drunk standing in the middle of a busy town street shouting and screaming abuse at passers-by. What of their rights to go about their business in peace? Quite rightly, a short time ago the word "offend" was taken out of that legislation but if we are going to tackle "Oppression" overall, then a good place to start is to acknowledge that it is not only the big bad state that can oppress people. Oh, and I am genuinely glad that women can have their say these days but - 50 points for 0:58 and the talk of white men having to move aside and shut up. Most of the white men in the audience were not even born when the injustices committed by *other* white men were done. Being white and male does not make a person's opinion worth more, but it doesn't make it worth less either.

“A right is not a duty” that’s a good argument actually.

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)

Why is Kate Brooks' speech listed as a [Private video]?

Why is the video of the speaker before Shami Chakrabarti private?

Watching from Kenya

The lack of accessibility to video 4 offends me, ps where is it? I'm assuming its another opposition video

People love their human rights. Not so much the rights of others. That was one hell of a mic drop.

8:02 great ending !

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.

Brilliant presentation. Thank you.

That was brilliant

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.

"A right is not a duty" /debate

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!

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.

Great sense of humor with serious contents

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

*"Free Speech does not exist, nor has it ever." PROVE ME WRONG.

i am offended that people think the word 'fuck' or the word 'tits' are offensive. these are perfectly good words, regular parts of my dialect, which is poor ontarian.

7:49 Allum Bokhari confirmed.

I am applauding in my livingroom(wife and son looking on quite oddly)...Bravo...rr

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.

The woman who spoke just before this....that video has been deleted. Can you re-post?

I am a brown indian man, and her opening about white men was horrendous. I'm all for the freedom of speech and I hate the fact that the indian government didn't publish that documentary. But why the hate against white cis men. #WeAreNotResponsibleForTheCrimesOfOurAncestors

maybe my opinion is ill received but I'll put it out here anyway. About not being able to wear hijab for graduations, I don't see how you should be able to if you have entered into a university by choice and the rules and regulations for that entity is special garb for special events. It seems to me that you have not been forced to wear anything you don't want to. Am I way off or does this seem logical?

Why the fuck is part 4 private? I really want to see the rebuttal.

Lawyers are precisely the people who have destroyed ordinary human interaction. Words such as kindness, accident, stupidity, love, have all been swept aside in favour of blame culture, ambulance-chasing, and codified living: all done by lawyers (especially those sitting in our Parliament!) in the cause of creating work for themselves.

I think people forget that we, in France, have this thing called "laïcité" (secularism ? idk I don't hear the word much in English, surprisingly), is that the state is separate from religion, thus all public, state owned spaces are not to show any affiliation with any religion, and this includes people not showing their thangz. It's also in tie with equality, as not showing that you pertain to a certain group means that you have equal treatment in front of the law. It's the equivalent of wearing a uniform in schools in the UK i guess ?, except for religion. Christians here hide their crosses below their shirts only to let them out when they go to church or when at home (so, in private circles). Of course, it wasn't exactly supported by law years ago, but very frowned upon (plus, it's more of a common right), and it was a big problem years ago when muslims started to show up in public schools with religious apparel. You weren't supposed to do that, because you were to show that everybody had an equal chance to have an education in schools, regardless of religion. If you wanted to practice your religion while recieving an education, you had to find a private school, not a public one. That's why there are no such things as public religious schools here. Only private schools can be catholic, etc. Thank the freemasons for that, it's their idea. And the reason it's a huge problem here is because of the "equality" they've fought for for decades. It's straight out disrespectful to walk over the thing that was supposed to keep everyone in check and not feel -that- different, equal chances and all that, especially in a public institution (state). When the state starts to make laws up to defend a religion, it's a problem and secularism isn't "working" anymore. In my city, the mayor gave some money to a muslim support group and, oh gawd, you should've seen the local freemason's reaction. That's basically when state has crossed its own line and blown secularism up (which is part of our motto !!). Otherwise, you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your home or chosen institution, as long as it's not public. Also, I see people compare hijab and burquas with simple rags, but rags are often worn by old people here in the countryside and they has no religious signification. The burqua or whatever don't count as "rags" because they actually have a religious purpose, so yeah. I've discussed this with several other people, and in the end, you can't really compare a very old institution from Europe with a "new" one such as those of North American countries, as the needs and experiences are not the same.

Loved this!

Right to speech and right to offend? Defend and Protect the Most Marginalized and vulnerable groups in the society

So who won the motion?

anyone notice that the opposition before(part 5) has been made private? the woman that was super racist and sexist has removed part of a debate because it made her look bad.

There are plenty of instances in which, if anything could be a "duty", it would be a duty to offend people.

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!

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!

I wish she'd have said something like the idea and speech of education for women was at one time censored, but it took not just women, but also the men in this very university to speak in spite of the censorship. the idea and speech to stop the rape (she mentioned in india) to be stopped is being censored because it is offensive. What is mire offensive, the rape of a child, or a government covering up and enabling the rape of children?

Does anyone know who this "Abby Katarda" (sp?) is?

regardless of whether the state has some kind of public ban on the burqa or hijab - it SHOULD be banned in exams, because it's important that exam invigilators can see the faces of students before and during the exam. Is it not accepted that these things are not acceptable at airport security and in banks?! The other aspect to any kind of head garments in exams is the possibility that they are concealing something in them. For this reason, I do believe baseball caps are banned, balaclavas and various other things.

One should ask, is it the cartoon about hijabs that lead to violence, or the inability to speak freely about them without sanctions and threats that do? People don't just have a right to be heard, we have a need for it. I would argue it is our need to be heard that makes free speech a right, as if we didn't need it it would merely be a privilege.

Reality in debate constitutes the nuances of great essence.

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.

If you love fruitful debate, you must be prepared to offend and be offended, but more so, don't be either, embrace all opinions as valid and carries weight of thought

hm. this somewhat amuses me - at 1:30 shami mentions something about how women weren't allowed in colleges an universities, but misrepresents this as women were not to be educated. in fact, it was the opposite. women were more likely than the men to be educated as part of their 'household training', despite the distaste folks have for that style of phrasing. women were the keepers of the house. the mens duty was rather a simple one, and didn't frankly require an education except in terms of profession - a woodcutter had to build up the physical affinity for the job, and/or the brains to do the job well. consider it to be the difference between 'wisdom' and 'intelligence', loath as I am to use those terms in this circumstance. while men attended universities when they were available and able to do so, women were taught, typically by their mothers if naught else, how to effectively run the household which required at the least basic math, and depending on the time period it required literacy as well. in other words, while men were trained to a specific trade, typically involving heavy labor. women were trained to maintain the household. a task which anyone who is familiar with it could tell you is as much mental as it is physical. to state that women were uneducated simply because they could not attend college is laughable. while men were out hunting and collecting and growing, women were at home keeping track of what they had and needed (math), preparing their own spices and basic medicines (herbalism, the early incarnation of chemistry), learning at least basic first aid (biology), as well as how to deal with people, be they the husband, children or other (psychology). was this formalized education? no. was this a better education typically than the men got? yes. because the women got an education spanning multiple topics. men typically got trained to specialties and not much else. rather small point to rant about I suppose, but it just irritates me in its... commonplace assumption. otherwise, great speech by this lady, excepting the improv bit in answering the question.

my god i almost stood up at my computer screen and applauded for that one. why cant this be feminism in 2018 and beyond!