A friend currently studying at Oxford University attended a recent controversial debate at the Oxford Union between Holocaust denier David Irving and British National Party leader Nick Griffin, who discussed free speech.

What a fiasco tonight was at the Oxford Union. In my four years as member of the Union, I have never experienced anything quite as frightening as standing in the middle of angry mob which was screaming “death to the BNP!”

Despite all the news reports coming out of Oxford that the BNP and various racist, neo-Nazi organizations would be sending protestors and demonstrators to the Oxford Union, the vast majority—no, virtually everyone—that protested tonight was from the “anti-free speech” student camp. I would estimate that 500 to 600 protestors stood outside the main entrance and another 200 to 300 stood outside the back entrance. It’s ironic, actually: we were warned of neo-Nazis, but the real physical danger to the streets of Oxford was the politically correct crowd.

I witnessed an old woman probably in her late 70s planning to attend the debate being pushed over by the angry mob trying to get inside (I helped her up); I saw kids no older than 18 or 19 with megaphones and screaming over the gate as they drank beer and laughed as people were trampled; I saw much older students leap over the large brick walls protecting the Union from the side streets, and others, still, climbing the gates to incite the mob of protestors to scream their chants even louder.

A small group of us were members of the Union, held tickets to the debate, and were told to arrive at 8pm to be seated promptly, according to our ticket stubs. We showed up early at 7:15pm. The mob was already there. The police never bothered to cordon off the side streets for reasons unknown, so the protestors had free access to all entrances, thus making it impossible to distinguish between peaceful Union members just wishing to enter, and everyone else. Slowly but surely we inched our way closer to the main entrance (it was difficult to move because there were so many protestors outside.)

When we finally reached the main gate, we stood outside and waited for a sign that we would be let in. But nothing. The longer we waited, the louder the protests grew. We were all about to go home, when somehow a protestor climbed the gate and unlatch the locks, allowing throngs of people to pour through the iron gates. It was like something out of the movies. My friends and I were part of the group who saw this as our chance to get in. We forced our way through. Before I knew what hit me, a large bouncer grabbed me by the right arm and the neck, forcing me to the ground, banging my head on the cement. As I struggled to tell him that I’m a member of the Union and that I have a ticket, dozens of protestors rushed the Union Hall with their megaphones, beer bottles, protest signs, and God knows what else.

The bouncer lets me up; I dust myself off and just walk away….stunned.

Inside, the dozens of protestors tried to enter the doorway but were stopped
by Oxford Union security. I ended up standing next to the former Program Director on the International Convention of Human Rights was shocked and appalled by what the mob was doing. She turns to me and says, “I’m actually scared for my safety.”

“You and me both, sister,” I said. Based on all the screaming and commotion, I honestly started to worry if someone brought fire arms into the Union. A policeman standing next to us commented that this was his fear, too.

By the time that David Irving actually spoke it was already 10pm GHT. He said nothing that I found to be overtly controversial. In fact, he simply agreed most of the time with the earlier comments made by Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris (whose comments, in turn, were quite sensible). Harris, for example, wants to repeal the British Blasphemy Laws, which I, as an American, never knew existed, to begin with!

When the floor opened for questions, most of them were directed to Irving. Obviously, there’s never any chance to deal with substance in situations like this, so one has to wonder about the point of it all is. Irving just stood there, listened intently to the various questions, and then offered up trite replies which sounded rational enough. But as Irving spoke, the crowd outside just screamed louder and louder, making me wonder what the take home message will be tonight when all is said and done.

I had a thought: “Who’s going to pay for my doctor bills tomorrow?”

Spanish King Juan Carlos tells Chavez to “shut up”.

Chavez repeatedly interrupted Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero at the Ibero-American summit in Chile last weekend, calling former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar a “fascist.” Zapatero, a socialist who defeated Aznar at the polls after the Madrid bombings, argued with Chavez openly that Aznar was a democratically-elected leader. The back-and-forth went on until King Juan Carlos of Spain leaned into his microphone and said: “Por que no te callas?”—“Why don’t you shut up?” You can watch the footage here (which, because of only one microphone, doesn’t look nearly as dramatic as it sounds).

The king’s admonition has since pinched a nerve across the Spanish-speaking world. From newspaper headlines to cable television news, to clips on YouTube, to T-shirts and cellphone ring tones. The scene has become a comedy skip on a television show in Mexico, and in El Salvador, the phrase has became a playful greeting. It remains uncertain a week later who put whom in his place. Some say it Chavez was the loser for his boorish lack of etiquette, or the king for unregally insulting a national leader at a forum whose theme was “social cohesion.” The leaders of Peru and El Salvador have since defended the King, while Cuba’s Castro and Brazil’s Lulu have come out for Chavez.

Each side made its own interpretation of the incident. The Spanish framed the incident as a simple case of the king upbraiding Chavez for not relinquishing the floor and for referring disrespectfully to a former PM, and Zapatero said this mere “moment of tension” would never have become known had TV cameras not been rolling.

Chavez ignored the comment at first, but four days later used it as an example of the former colonial power’s condescension. Chavez now demands a letter of apology from the King, and has “joked” with reporters using the word, according to Reuters. Venezuela’s state-run media has played footage showing King Carlos standing in the 1970s with Spain’s fascist ruler, Francisco Franco, and describing the king as the late dictator’s lackey. (Unmentioned in the footage of Carlos and Franco was the fact that the monarchy was endorsed by the Spanish people in a vote in 1978, and the king played a key role in quashing an attempted military coup in 1981, and the King is widely loved because of it.)

For me, the appearance of the incident is obious: Chavez is being his typically disrespectful self and is unfit to even be in the same room as other world leaders. I’m surprised if you can see the incident in his favor. And Chavez may think Aznar is a Fascist, but the Spanish could have told him the real meaning of the term—Zapatero’s grandfather was murdered by the real fascists in Franco’s secret police, and the King’s family was sent into exile by them. And as Venezuela blog Daniel’s Diary points out, and from where the picture to the left is taken, let’s not kid ourselves as to who’s tactics and leadership most rescemble fascistrule.

As for the summit, Argentina’s largest daily newspaper the Clarin said it would be remembered for “the differences, lack of agreements and opposing views made more noise than the accords and shared processes.”