(FULL) OXFORD UNION DEBATE - Dec. 3, 1964 - W/ Malcolm X

Eric Abraham: Order, order.

Humphrey Barclay: Order, order.

Speaker 3: I call upon the secretary to read the minutes of the last public business meeting and also the minutes of the ordinary private business meeting held Monday, 30th November, 1964.

Speaker 4: The 7th debate of Nkrumah's term, 1964, was held on Thursday, November the 26th, with the president, Mr. Eric Abraham of St. Peter's College, in the chair. The secretary read the minutes of the last public business meeting, which were carried. The librarian brought forward his weekly list of books, which was approved. The treasurer made an announcement. The president announced the arrangements for the society's elections. Questions were asked of the officers with regard to the discharge of their official duties, and the officers replied. The secretary made an advertisement for the Summerville pantomime. There being no further private business, the house proceeded to public business. Mr. Neil McCormick, Balliol Librarian, rose and moved that deterrence and not reform is the most important aspect of criminal punishment. Mr. Roderick Flood, Wadham Treasurer, opposed. Mr. John Smith, MA, LLB, ex-convener of debates at the Glasgow University Union, spoke third. Mr. Arnold Goodman, MA, LLB, Downing College, Cambridge, LLM, London spoke for. But also spoke for the motion Mr. Robert Rhodes, Pembroke, Mr. Fred Reid, Queens', Mr. Michael Berkson, Merton, Mr. Philip Kelly, Magdalen, Mr. Montek Singh, Magdalen, Mr. Guy Brown, Balliol, Mr. Butt Phillips, St. John's, Maiden, Mr. Tony Lambert, St Edmund Hall, Mr. Anthony Bird, St. John's, and Mr. Jeremy Beloff, St. Catharine's. And against the motion, Mr. Anthony Winscombe Clark, Bailey, Mr. Jacob von Exco, Mr. PDP Jones, BNC, Mr. Parkinson Christchurch, Mr. RJ Holdsworth University, Mr. Guy Parkhurst Lincoln, Mr. Simon Pitt, St. Peter's, Mr. Rip Barclay, Exeter, Mr. Richard Condon, Exeter, and Miss Suzanne Maiden Somerville. The hour for the closure of the debate having arrived and the honorable mover having waived his right of reply. The House proceeded to a division with Mr. Jeremy Beloff, St. Catharine's College, telling for the ayes and Miss Suzanne Maiden Somerville telling for the noes. And when there appeared for the motion 197 votes and against the motion 246 votes, the President declared the motion lost by 49 votes, and the House stood adjourned at 11:55 PM proctorial time. The first private business meeting of Michaelmas term 1964 was held on Monday, November 30th, with the President, Mr. Eric Abraham, St. Peter's College, in the chair. The President read the minutes of the last private business meeting, which were recarried. The Librarian presented the financial report of the library, which was unanimous— unanimously approved. The Treasurer presented the financial report of the Society, which was unanimously approved. Questions were asked of the officers relative to the discharge of their official duties, and the officers replied. There being no further private— further business, the President declared the meeting adjourned at 6:45 PM.

Speaker 3: Has any honorable member any objection to raise or question to ask with regard to those minutes?

Humphrey Barclay: Mr. President, uh, Mr. Jacob von Exkow, Christ Church.

Eric Abraham: There being no further objections or questions, I declare those names carried. I call upon the librarian to bring forward his weekly list of books.

Speaker 5: The following, Mr. President, is the list of books proposed by the Library Committee for purchase by the Society: The Quantum Theory of Solids by R.E. Peierls, The Russian Language Today by Dennis Ward, Elizabethan and Jacobean Poets by John F. Danby, Shakespeare and Reason by Terence Hawkes, The Cerna: Studies of Some Problems in the History of England by H.P.R.

Lord Stolman: Finberg, The Quest of—

Speaker 5: The Quest for Love by David Holbrook, On Competition in Economic Theory by B.W.S. Andrews, The English Face of Machiavelli by Felix Raab, Efficiency, Equality, and Ownership of Property by J.E. Mead, The School for Dictators by Ignazio Silone, Ambitions and Strategies by Peter Stansky, making a total of £15 16 shillings altogether. For the Special Lending Library, we have purchased A Kind of Anger by Eric Ambler and A Caribbean Mystery by Agatha Christie, the 2 books together coming to a price of £1 14s. We've also received one presentation. It's the president's own autobiography entitled Not So Much a Way of Life, More a Programme.

Speaker 3: Does anyone remember any objection to raise or question to ask in regard to that list? There being no objections or questions, I declare that list of books carried. I call upon the treasurer to make an announcement.

Malcolm X: Well, my last announcement as treasurer, Mr. President. Um, I'm happy to say that the ball is very nearly sold out, but that there are just a few tickets left.

Eric Abraham: Um, as a result of the ball and the arrangements we have to make for it, we have to close the Yes.

Speaker 4: The Society's rooms from 3:30 PM tomorrow, so that I hope that everybody who has left anything in the Society will go and get it before then.

Malcolm X: Um, able-bodied helpers are urgently needed to help us with the preparations from 10 o'clock tomorrow, um, and on Saturday morning especially for clearing up after the ball, and remuneration will be made on a scale of which any union would be proud.

Speaker 3: It is with great pleasure that I read out the results of the recent elections. Library Committee: Mr. Ian Fox, Exeter, 157 votes. Mr. Chris Collins, St Edmund Hall, 181 votes. Mr. Leo Frank Halford, Strevens, Christchurch, 188 votes. Mr. Robert Rhodes, Pembroke, 192 votes. Mr. R. Mills, Baeliol, 198 votes elected. Mr. Michael Deeny, Morden, 201 votes elected. Mr. Ian Morrison, Lincoln, 217 votes elected. Mr. Michael Harlow, Worcester, 232 votes elected. Mr. Anthony Wilcombe, Baelil, 243 votes elected. Mr. Thomas DeCarlo, Pembroke, 244 votes elected. Mr. Howard Belton, Christchurch, 267 votes elected. For Standing Committee, Mr. Jacob Bond, Exeter, Christchurch, 124 votes. Mr. Manav Rao, Baelil, 167 votes elected. 186 votes. Mr. Stephen Marks, New College, 188 votes. Mr. Tony Lamberts, Edmund Hall, 193 votes.

Malcolm X: Mr. G.R.

Speaker 3: Brown, Ballarat, 199 votes. Miss Prue Hyman, Somerville, 226 votes. Mr. Simon Petson, Peter's College, 240 votes. Mr. Simon Head, Christchurch, 242 votes. Mr. Ashley Davis, Christchurch, 251 votes elected. Mr. Richard Condon, Exeter, 256 votes elected.

Speaker 8: Mr.

Speaker 3: Mr. Hanlon Rose, Pembroke, 266 votes elected. Miss Suzanne Maiden, Somerville, 292 votes elected. Mr. Red Barclay, Exeter, 334 votes elected. For secretary, Mr. Jacob Bonn, Exeter, Christchurch, 16 votes. Miss Pooh Hyman, Somerville, 68 votes. Mr. Simon Head, Christchurch, 90 votes. Mr. Tony Lambert, St. Edmund Hall, 199 votes. Mr. Ashley Davis, Christchurch, 172 votes. Mr. Richard Conlon, Exeter, 228 votes. Mr. Joshua Banfield, Pembroke, 271 votes elected.

Speaker 8: For Trent Road, Mr.

Speaker 3: Stephen Marks, New College, 74 votes.

Humphrey Barclay: Mr.

Speaker 3: Guy Brown, Bailey, 126 votes. Mr. Rick Barker, Exeter, 277 votes. Mr. Jeremy Barlow, St. Catharine's, 313 votes elected. The librarian, Mr. Madhav Rao, Bailey, 87 votes. Ms. Suzanne Leiden-Somerville, 126 votes. Mr. Hannan Rose, Pembroke, 168 votes. Mr. Simon Petson, Peter's College, 248 votes. Mr. Douglas Hogg, Christ Church, 305 votes.

Eric Abraham: Elected.

Speaker 3: Mr. President, Mr. Roderick Lord Waterman, Nuffield, 214 votes. The minimum quota is 455 votes elected. I have to note that certain ladies and gentlemen, not having paid out the The subscriptions and fines for this term have had their names removed from the society's list of members. Their names will be found posted in the main hall in accordance with Rule 5. Has any honorable member any question to ask the officers and graduates at discharge of their official duties? There have been no questions.

Hugh McDermott: I don't know how we'll be able to all speak at the same time.

Speaker 3: Sit down.

Eric Abraham: There have been no questions, no further questions.

Speaker 3: The motion for debate is extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Eric Abraham: The motion was proposed by the president Opposed by Mr.

Speaker 3: Christy Davis, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, President of the Cambridge Union Society. Mr. Hugh McDermott, LLB, Edinburgh. Mr. Humphrey Barker, MP, Pembroke College, Cambridge. Mr. Malcolm X and the Earl of Blanford, who should have come and who was cancelled, but instead our Lord Stolman will speak in his place. I am very grateful to him since he has accepted with 2 hours, uh, notice.

Eric Abraham: I call upon the president—

Speaker 3: Bring forward the motion standing in his name, Mr. Tariq Ali, ex-treasurer, to take the president's chair.

Speaker 8: I move that Mr. Ali, ex-treasurer, be elected president of the Tonight, Mr.

Eric Abraham: Chairman, I must say farewell, a formal farewell, to the Oxford Union.

Hugh McDermott: Farewell—

Speaker 8: Wait!

Eric Abraham: Farewell to this place, which more than anything else has contributed to my enjoyment of Oxford, my stay in this country. Farewell to my friends, that is, to those of them who haven't already said farewell to me on the election of the president-elect. Thanks to those who have encouraged me in the pursuit of a union career, and to those who have fired me with the extra Thank you. Thanks to all the tolerant audiences who have put up with the frequent cancellations which we have had this term.

Speaker 3: You have been absolutely wonderful.

Eric Abraham: I would like also to thank the staff. Unfortunately, our organization is such that it is It's not possible to keep all our staff in permanent employment, and term after term they come back to us despite the fact that we're unable to pay them throughout the holidays. I would ask the society to show its gratitude in a moment, uh, in the usual way, and also the end of this debate by giving generously, uh, to the Thank you.

Speaker 3: Persons who will be at the door with collection plates, uh, we're making— taking up a collection to provide them with a Christmas packet. I would also like to thank my officers who have shared, I think, uh, with me the burden of finding all the replacements that we have had to find this term. I think that the term Uh, has been to a certain extent spoiled by the fact that we have had so many cancellations.

Eric Abraham: This isn't our fault, it's, it's the English electorate's fault.

Speaker 3: Because every time a Labour MP comes down, it means that the government's majority is cut by 25%.

Eric Abraham: But I think we managed to find most occasions very suitable replacements. On one occasion when in particular, uh, when Mr. Robert Morley canceled and we had Miss Fenella Feeling standing in for him, There's a little incident that I tell you about. It occurred over dinner.

Speaker 3: Miss Feeling leaned across me and said to Stokely Carmichael.

Eric Abraham: And said to Dr. Justice, uh, who hasn't been making many films recently, uh, Jimmy, when did you make your last film?

Speaker 3: And he, a little embarrassed, said, uh, well, I'm afraid I'm persona non grata with the film industry. And she leaned back and said, I know.

Eric Abraham: Tonight I welcome to the Oxford Union Mr. Hugh McDermott, poet and politician. Mr. McDermott is the recent Communist candidate against Sir Alexander Douglas-Hume. Mr. McDermott polled 127 votes. I think it is fair to point out that Mr.

Lord Stolman: McDermott is more successful as poet than as politician.

Eric Abraham: We welcome as well Mr. Humphrey Barclay, a radical Tory who we have produced tonight just to show that such things do exist. As well, Mr. Malcolm X, who like Tariq A— Is a Muslim. The difference, the difference is that one is a red Muslim and the other a black Muslim. A very special word of welcome to Lord Stoneham, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, who accepted our invitation to standing for, uh, the speaker who was to be on the order paper, who in turn was standing in for Mr. Edward Heath, who was in turn standing in for Mr. Dennis Healey, etc.

Speaker 3: I ask the House to Express our appreciation to all these guests for having come here tonight.

Eric Abraham: Define and to defend— it is my task to define and to defend a statement of political principle Yes. Which has in recent months become notorious. Notorious not because of what the statement really means, but because of what was meant when it was said. Barry Goldwater, after months of preaching prejudice and inciting insecurity, sought to justify his words by a passionate defense of liberty. I think the thing that frightened the What I want to say about Goldwater was his desire to dominate other people's destiny, and all in the name of liberty. My first contention tonight is this: if Barry Goldwater had really stood for liberty, if his liberty or the liberty of his nation had really been threatened, then this statement, rather than becoming a source of ridicule, Would have been the rallying cry of a threatened America. And I would like to preface everything that I shall say tonight with this reminder: many fools have said wise things, many despots have spoken liberal words. Tonight we are debating a political principle. It matters not that Barry Goldwater repeated it. It matters not That's right. That I, Mr. Hugh McDermott, and Mr. Malcolm X defended. The only thing that this House is asked to do is to pass judgment on the efficacy of this particular political principle. We are not in any way supporting the words and the actions of Mr. Goldwater. We are looking at a specific statement which he made, and we are analyzing it for its validity.

Speaker 3: Define.

Eric Abraham: Define and defend. Perhaps I ought to have said clarify rather than defend, because the word that stands out in this motion is the word liberty. And who can really define liberty for an audience such as this? Because what is justice to one thought process is not to another. What is liberty for one man is not always the same thing for the other. And my problem tonight is that of finding a definition which will please Trotskyist Kirkwood and ultraconservative Halford-Strevens at the same time. And perhaps even more difficult is finding a definition which will please Mr. Bulkley any time at all.

Speaker 8: What is liberty?

Eric Abraham: I would offer this as a general statement on the word liberty. Men are free when they regard themselves as free. At any rate, I think that it will do to say, for the purposes of this debate, that men should have the right to protect what they regard as freedom. And if even there are some persons of a particular ideological persuasion Should, for example, feel that people in this country are not free, I think even them would concede that if the people of these— of this country feel themselves free, then they have the right to defend that freedom. One more point on liberty. Liberty in the past, and it still does, has inspired many a poet and many a patriot Amen. Men your philosopher and men your soldier. Men throughout history have given their lives for it, and men have been prepared to take others' lives for it. And we who inherit a situation of freedom should be very careful that we do not become super sophisticated and overblase about it all.

Hugh McDermott: And what of moderation?

Eric Abraham: Moderation is one of those Yes. Fine-sounding words that we very often try to apply to every situation. It is purposeful, perhaps, to be moderate in defense of one's right to demonstrate, to be moderate in defense of that right, but it is not necessarily purposeful to be moderate in the defense of one's life, for example. Or one's human rights. And the division in this house tonight is not one simply between extremists, pure and simple, on the one hand, and moderates, pure and simple, on the other hand. It is a division between those who are prepared to be extremists in the specific instance of a threat to our liberty, and those who, on the other hand, find it agreeable to be moderate. And even if they call us on this side of the house extremists, let us take consolation from the fact that Chartists in Britain, Republicans in Spain, Hitler's opponents in 1933, even India's Gandhi, the philosophers and the activists of the French Revolution and the American Revolution have all at one time been called extremists. And let us Look at history, the history of the moderates, the history stretching from Pontius Pilate to Neville Chamberlain. Men who have sought to postpone the day when they had to fight for their freedom just for peace at the present time. To defend the statement I would like to start with a quotation which is only too well known, but only too easily forgotten. Man was born free and is now everywhere in chains. What greater right does a man have than his freedom? And it is my contention tonight that any man or any nation who seeks to deny another man or another nation Yes. Of his liberty is by definition an extremist. He has tried, he has tried to take away a man's most basic right, and we must be extremely vicious in our reaction to such men. Because what are the methods that they use? Which despot, which dictator ever threatened another's liberty with reason and moderation? Which nation was ever subjugated By— in a gentlemanly fashion. Tonight we are asked to say to despots, who traditionally always use force, that we are prepared to be just as extreme in our assertion of liberty. We must say that we are prepared to be jealous of our freedom. We are prepared to resort to war and violence for its protection. There can be no soggy sentimentalism About this. A few days ago, I spoke in the Cambridge Union on the question of the use of violence in South Africa. On that occasion, the argument which the moderates advanced was simply this: think about the innocent women and children of South Africa. It is my contention that this is the price that we have to pay for liberty. We have to be prepared to give our lives and to give the lives of the people that we love in the same way that we are prepared to take lives. Britain couldn't. Britain couldn't. And Britain didn't ask, what about the innocent women and children in Nazi Germany? Britain couldn't even ask, what about the women and children of this country?

Speaker 8: Yes.

Eric Abraham: If our liberty is threatened, we have to resort to extremist measures, because always those who threaten our liberty are extremists and use force. And if we are afraid to meet oppression with extreme action, then we will be oppressed, because the oppressors— the oppressor uses force and understands nothing else.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Eric Abraham: And I do not think that there is need for anyone to be ashamed to say that when despots threaten us, we must reply in the only language that they understand. In closing, I want to say that tonight we are free because we have fought to protect our freedom. Tomorrow we will be enslaved if we, if we falter in doing the same thing again.

Lord Stolman: I beg to move.

Eric Abraham: It is with great pleasure that I call upon Mr.

Speaker 3: Christy Davis, the president of Cambridge Union, to oppose that motion.

Lord Stolman: I would first Mr.

Christy Davis: Chairman, sir, I'd like to— oh, Mr. Edwards is back again. I would first like to thank you, sir, for inviting me here to speak tonight, and I would also like to congratulate Mr. McCormick on his election. I must say that since being here, I am very impressed by the essentially religious atmosphere of the Oxford Union.

Speaker 8: Hear, hear!

Christy Davis: In the president's room, they hang together pictures of Eric Eberhans And Neil McCormick, and between them there stands a crucifix.

Hugh McDermott: Shut up!

Christy Davis: I must also congratulate Mr. Abrahams on a very passionate speech, which he ran through the whole gamut of human emotions from A to B. However, however, I must say that I found His arguments a little obscure. Indeed, I saw them as through a fast darkly. Oxford indeed, sir, is the only place where sound travels faster than light.

Speaker 8: It was—

Christy Davis: It was with great relief that I heard that Lord Stoneham was to speak. On this side of the House, for I had feared that speaking alongside 2 such prominent conservatives, I should automatically be associated with their party, the party of the long connives, the party of deceit.

Speaker 8: Boo!

Christy Davis: Where a man is apt to speak with his tongue in someone else's cheek.

Speaker 8: Boo!

Christy Davis: A party led by a man whose election to Parliament caused a vacancy both in the Lords and in the Commons. He may not be a great light, but he's a very good candlestick.

Hugh McDermott: A man—

Christy Davis: a man chosen by that Darwinian process I'm afraid this time they have a freak mutation. I must also, I must also first refute a malicious rumor put around by Mr. Abrahams that I am a liberal. This cannot be true. Since the Liberal Party does not exist anymore. At one time, at one time, at one time, the Liberal Party existed as a party occurring by definition to the right of the Labour Party but to the left of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party moved left, the Labour Party moved right. And they now occupy what is mathematically an imaginary point in space. No, sir, I will also disassociate myself from that party of the glibs and the adlibs, the party whose policy is the Gladstone bag. You can fill it up with rubbish and carry it back and forth across the political stage. And so, Mr. President, sir, to the motion, which— which consists of 2 separate and unfortunate value statements, 2 statements, as you have stressed yourself, of general principle. I want to look at the meaning of the first of these and draw conclusions which I think can be applied to both of them, since they are unsatisfactory basically for the same reasons. Yes.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Christy Davis: Well, I would stress that this is a statement of general principle, and I would argue that it is illicit to argue that because in certain select instances— we've already been told about South Africa, and we've already been told about the Second World War, which in fact the 2 that I predicted would be used— we've already been told about these. But I put it to you that it is not, it is not permissible on the basis of 2 exceptional circumstances To draw a general principle as strong and as definite as this one. You cannot use a limited number of explosive or revolutionary situations to justify a motion that is as sweeping and as total as extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. This is a statement that comes perilously close to asserting Firstly, that extremism is justified in all circumstances where liberty is felt to be threatened. And the key word is felt to be threatened. It's all very well to say that in 1939 that liberty was actually threatened in a big way by the German army, but if this motion— if one takes this motion as it stands, this implies that under all circumstances where you feel there is a threat A threat that may in fact be nonexistent, then you are justified in being extreme in the defense of what you consider to be liberty. And the second feature, which I think is against this assumption, is that it implies that the adverse side effects of extremism— the violence, the deprivation, and the witch-hunting— are of no consequence.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Christy Davis: It ignores them. What I would put to you is that whilst extremism in the deficient— in the defense of liberty may sometimes be a cruel necessity, as in the Second World War, it is still a vice. It is still the lesser of two evils. This is the key thing. It no longer becomes no vice. It no longer becomes something that we can just assume. It becomes the lesser of two evils that is forced upon us.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Christy Davis: And it is certainly not a means of action that should be lightly used or widely used. If it is no vice, it is something that one can just pick up and use as it takes one, as the mood takes one. It's something that one should use only when one has to, and then after a great deal of consideration concerning the question of which is the greater evil under the circumstances. The difficulty, uh, which Mr. Abrams again has already drawn attention to, with words like Justice— I like the capital J— and, uh, Liberty taken in isolation, is, as I think will become apparent during the debate, is they mean different things to different groups of people. I'm afraid Mr. Abrams' definition didn't satisfy me, and since I came plunk in the middle Of the political spectrum that he outlined, I hardly see how the people at either one end or the other could have been satisfied. Now, even if we make the simplest of all possible assumptions, if we assume that all men could agree as to what constituted true justice or true liberty, that there was, if you like, a single scalar lump of stuff called liberty If we could assume this, even then one would have to answer one basic question: how much? It's no good just saying extremism in the defense of liberty. One has to say extremism in the defense of how much liberty before one gets any further. How much of this particular value does one consider desirable in a society? Liberty is only one social value. If we are extreme in our defense of liberty, then presumably in our defense of liberty we are prepared to neglect or even to ride roughshod over the other social values, such as equality or prosperity or solidarity, in order to obtain for each of us the maximum amount of liberty. One just goes for liberty bald-headed, neglecting the other values which do not necessarily come in the train of liberty, or at any rate at its mildest form, one is prepared to ossify the social system in order to defend and preserve all existing liberties. It says, in the defense of liberty, in a given society one has certain things which the people in that society consider as their liberty. The implication is that under no circumstances will one permit an inroad into those liberties, however great the gain might be in other spheres. I cannot under any circumstances accept this. And similarly, I think that to eschew moderation in the pursuit of justice is possibly to neglect questions such as the need for order and stability. If, for example, one comes across people who argue that it is unjust Ever to punish an innocent person. And if one were to rigorously apply a tenet of this kind, if one were, if you like, to pursue justice in this sense to an extreme limit, then nobody'd ever be convicted and the system would break down completely. What one has to realize is that the system is complex. The goals that we follow have to be complex. They have to be many, and therefore to be extreme in the pursuit of any one of them Is to neglect the other, with consequent bad features for the society in which we live. Liberty and justice are not the sole social values. The implication of this motion is that they alone are significant. I think one way in which people get to this point is by defining liberty and justice in terms so all-embracing that they subsume all other social values. The word then becomes meaningless, because liberty merely becomes a collective term for all good things. On this definition, Mr. President, sir, you are a liberty. And indeed, indeed, indeed, since all good things come to an end, one day you will be a dead liberty. May I then, may I then offer you the epitaph? Of my cousin John Longbottom. Vita brevis est, ars longa. Now, even the question is even more complex than this. I mean, this is on the simple assumption, but if one looks into the greater complexities of meaning of this word, where the trouble really arises is that people differ in their ideas of what constitutes liberty. Or more accurately, of what liberties people are entitled to, since of course liberty is a very complex quantity. Each group has its own definition of liberty, which will be enmeshed in its own particular social philosophy or social ethic. And the motion really reduces to extremism in the defense of liberty as defined by me is no vice. Because anybody who says this is obviously acting on his own notion of what constitutes liberty. One has to see this question in a context of social action. One cannot just regard liberty and action as 2 completely separate things that one can discuss separately. One has to consider this decision of a person who feels his own concept of liberty to be threatened, how he should act. Under those circumstances, should he be extreme? This is the basic question. Now, for one group, true liberty may be being permitted to participate in activities which, for reasons— various reasons I shall specify— A, B, C, and D. Whereas another group may just turn around to them and say, well, no, this is rubbish. Liberty consists of being permitted to participate in activities E, F, G, and H. I won't go on in case I run out of an alphabet, but I think you get the point. Um, for example, in the United States, the liberty of an individual to own private productive property is considered a basic component of liberty. If you argued in the United States that one could have capital L for liberty without any property rights at all, then one would just be shouted down. Whereas on the other hand, in the Soviet Union, the opposite is true. This is not considered a basic component of capital L for liberty. It's considered a mere inferior bourgeois liberty. And it's always that one has to consider that these notions do in fact differ. Or more locally, for a conservative, liberty includes the right to manufacture steel. Well, I feel that to leave the steel industry in the hands of men who never see a blast furnace until after they are dead— —is not a liberty this country can afford. In this case, In this case, one is deliberately restricting a certain kind of liberty in the interest of economic prosperity. And this is a question that always has to be settled. One cannot just take liberty and say, well, if you've got liberty, you've got everything else. I mean, what happens, for example, if you're fighting an external war? How does one then decide whether or no to censure the press? I mean, how is this question decided? It's no good just saying, right, we'll be extreme. I mean, the question then is, I mean, you sort of— you either have no restrictions at all, or on the other hand, you restrict them completely. This is a question that has to be just— it has to be settled in a fairly pragmatic manner. So that one now comes to the point where one has to settle these differences of opinion as to what constitutes true liberty. And it's no good blindly asserting on one side or the other That my notion of liberty is as pure as the driven slush and therefore must prevail. This is no argument, because others with equally contradictory views may turn around and say, ah yes, but my motives are equally pure and my definition of liberty is equally valid. Yet in practice, these definitions of liberty may be opposed and even completely contradictory. I think Basically, there are 2 ways of settling this difference of opinion as to what constitutes liberty. And I would stress that this is a question of settling a difference of opinion. The one method, the method that I would advocate, is that of political bargaining, that of compromise, that, if you like, of accepting less than one's full demands when it comes to the crunch. And this includes Something such as the notion and implementation of liberty. Now, the other alternative to this is merely to hammer on the table and shout, I am right! If you accept this method in defense of your concept of liberty, then equally well you must expect other groups to adopt the same attitude. It's no good, Mr. Abrams, saying that Goldwater didn't really think this. Because his notion of liberty was wrong, or because there was no threat to it, which is merely postponing the definitional problem from one word to another. What one has to admit is that Goldwater had a concept of liberty, and he was genuinely prepared to be extreme in his defense of it. Now, it may have been a crackpot concept of liberty, but it was a concept of liberty as he saw the word. I think that's a very important point. And I also, I don't, I don't think, I don't think that one can turn around and sort of dogmatically say, I am right on this matter. It's just something that has to be thrashed out. This basically, this motion attempts to provide a simple answer to complex problems. It's the kind of motion that says, ah, if only we fight hard enough for our liberty, which is a good thing, unspecified, then all our problems will be solved. And this strikes me as a solution that's too simple and therefore is silly, irrelevant, and dangerous. It's as silly and as irrelevant and dangerous as the kind— sir?

Humphrey Barclay: Uh, as a co-matter of interest, what possible answer would the honorable members supply to the question If you were in a situation in, let us say, South Africa or Southern Rhodesia, what would be your answer?

Christy Davis: My answer would be shoot the bastard.

Speaker 8: All the bastards.

Christy Davis: No, under this circumstance, I think it is perfectly consistent for me to say That's a violent— I mean, as happened in, in the Cambridge debate, that a violent revolution under these circumstances would be justified. But this does not justify the general principle. This is my point. Extremism in the defense of liberty can be justified, but to say it's no vice, this is saying that under all circumstances this is a course of action that one ought to take. This is what no vice means, is that there is nothing wrong with it under any circumstances. And even while advocating such a revolutionary standpoint under such circumstances, I would still be forced to admit that my actions would have unfortunate consequences, and therefore I would be prepared to admit that my actions might be called a vice. They might be a justifiable vice, they're a vice nevertheless. I mean, the law, the, the law, as far as I'm concerned, that says, that says thou shalt not kill, you can get around it okay for the sake of convenience.

Malcolm X: According to your definition, the law does not say thou shalt not kill bastards.

Christy Davis: That, sir, depends on whether they are by birth or by vocation. This motion is a part of the kind of simple paradises that we are offered from various sides today. From the Marxists, we are offered the mystical trinity of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. I'm not a Marxist. By the Welsh nationalists, we are offered 3 acres and a Welsh-speaking cow. And by various other people in the fields of molecular theology, which is the science of converting the unknowable into the not worth knowing.

Eric Abraham: Yes.

Christy Davis: By all these people, we are offered simple solutions. And these solutions, in this instance, in this instance, and these other solutions are more or less on a par with this one. They're just as absurd. These solutions are an attempt to dispel the particular anxieties of our society by postulating some mysterious threat Yes. To our liberty, some actual or potential tyrant or subverser. And the sort of argument is that if we sweep away the tyrant who threatens our liberty, if we get the bandwagons in a circle, then everything will be wonderful. This is, is a means that when one is faced with a problem where there's a great deal of uncertainty, where there are a great deal of cross-cutting issues, where one isn't quite sure what one ought to do, That when a hammer's on the table, one gives out a slogan of this kind that has emotional appeal, that has a capital L and a capital J, that in this way one tries to introduce a measure of security. But it's a dishonest solution. Now I'm afraid that we on this side of the house cannot offer you any simple or emotionally satisfying slogans of which this is an example. We cannot offer you clear enemies or clear scapegoats, as the case may be. All, I'm afraid, that we can offer you in the solution of any problem is patient effort and difficult progress towards many goals in a complex world of very few certainties. The path of moderation is not as easy or as glamorous as that of extremism, but it is an honest path.

Humphrey Barclay: Thank you.

Christy Davis: It is an attempt to face up to realities, not to project all the evil and mistakes in the world onto one particular enemy. I am convinced that it's only through moderation, only by taking this path, that one can get to a better world. In some few circumstances, one may be justified in saying that we shall use extremism. But this is not the point at issue. The point at issue is, on the one hand, under those circumstances where one is forced to use extremism, is it no vice? Is it in no sense a vice? Is it in no sense a vice to wage war, however justified? Can one honestly say that a war has ever been fought that was no vice, where there was nothing wrong in the motives or the methods used by the protagonists of that war? Maybe justified, but it's certainly not no vice. That is to say, it is some vice. This, this is the problem that faces us. And also, we are faced by a world in which most of the problems Yes. Most of the problems stem from complicated situations. There is nobody whom we can be extreme against in the defense of our liberty. The only way we can safeguard it is by watching carefully and, as I say, making slow progress toward a number of goals, of which liberty is only one. Thank you.

Hugh McDermott: Mr. Chairman and friends, I rise to speak in support of what the first speaker said in approval of the propositions now in debate. The Pauline doctrine of moderation in all things Seems to me the most abominable, anti-vital doctrine that has ever been promulgated in the history of mankind. I prefer to take Blake's dictum that the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom and is the only road that does. One can respect any man who, no matter how wrong he may be, acts sincerely according to his lights.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Hugh McDermott: But this does not apply to a man who has no lights, who deliberately chooses darkness because his deeds are evil and he has a guilt complex which doesn't allow him to come out into the open in his true colors. Our liberties, such as they are, have been hard-won and must be continually re-won if they are to be retained, let alone extended. It is becoming not easier, but more difficult to keep and extend them. And I see no reason to believe that they can be kept in any other way than they were won in the past. There are far too few extremists, far too immense a mass of conformist, unthinking, and indeed moronic people, like a millstone round the neck of all progress. Extremism is necessary to act against that deadweight of apathy indifference and ignorance. I know no national liberation movement that has been won without a terrible struggle, without civil disobedience, violence, war, or civil war. No great national movement was ever founded on caution and half-hearted measures. I do not understand at all how, in regard to any principle, it can be claimed that one can go too far. I think that's a very good question. It ceases to be a principle and degenerates into a matter of crass opportunism. This has always been recognized in the great utterances of human history. Let me mention one or two of them. I'm a Scotsman, as you can hear. In the Declaration of Arbroath, way back in 1320, perhaps the greatest democratic pledge of all time, My people, the Scottish people, swore that as long as 100 of them remained alive, they would never allow themselves to be dominated by the English.

Christy Davis: That's the word.

Hugh McDermott: Well, for so long as 100 of us remain alive, we shall never, under any conditions, submit to the domination of the English. It is not for glory or riches or honors that we fight, but only for liberty, which no good man will consent to lose but with his life. My people have done little but betray their oath ever since. Luckily, there have been and are others of a different caliber. I agree wholeheartedly With the words of 2 men who I do not share their concept of what constitutes freedom. First of all, then, it is entirely fitting that the memorial stone at Runnymede should bear the inscription, this acre of English ground was given to the United States of America by the people of Britain in memory of John F. Kennedy, followed by this quotation from his inaugural address. Let every nation know that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, or oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. Alongside that— alongside that, I would cite another man for whom in many respects I have as little regard as I have For the source of the sentences we are debating tonight, a man who, when he offered blood, toil, tears and sweat, announced his policy in these words: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all the terror, victory however hard and long the road may be. Mr. Winston Churchill. Extremism is a word that has been badly prejudged.

Lord Stolman: Yes.

Hugh McDermott: —and is generally perhaps equated with violence. But it is necessary to remember, as the Independent Television Authority insisted the other day, that while conflict, the clash of persons and purposes and personalities, is a major element in drama, and not least in great drama, persecution, bullying, intimidation, humiliation, and cruelty are forms of mental violence, and it is well to remember that the suffering thus caused may exceed that caused by physical violence, though not a hand has been raised to strike. One of the main reasons for misunderstanding and failure consistently to maintain and pursue liberty and justice in this and other so-called civilized and, for the most part, so-called Christian countries Yes. Is the continued confinement of the people of these countries to a mere earthly eudaimonism with Christian nuances, that pseudo-religious mental climate which keeps our harmonies and solutions on so contemptibly narrow a level than the conflicts and tragedies which encompass our lives. It is true that it is only an individual, or a few individuals, who constitute the spearhead of the extremism I am defending. But in this connection, it is necessary to remember that all our arts and sciences, all we comprise in the term civilization, have been built up by a very small percentage of the population, a tiny percentage that has been a constant throughout historical time, and that if that minority were destroyed, the masses of mankind could do nothing whatever to reconstitute these arts and sciences. That so-called civilization. The arts knew no compromise. The ruthlessness and egocentricity of the artist knows no limit. That is the only possible model we can take in this matter. That is why the cultural issue today is the vital one. The elimination of human drudgery that's promised by automation, giving abundant leisure, enabling what John Agassiz called The sensitive extension of the world. Mao Zedong was right when he said, what is the strength of the imperialists? It lies only in the unconsciousness of the people. The consciousness of the people is the basic question, not explosives or weapons or atom bombs, but the man who handles them. He is still to be educated, but he is being slowly but surely educated. The revolutions in Korea, Cuba, and Algeria succeeded. These revolutions changed the balance of world power, saved the Soviet Union from its long capitalistic encirclement, tripled the population of the socialist nations, and opened the way for national liberation movements in 3 continents. All these revolutions were won against an imperialism That wielded the nuclear bombs and threatened many times to use them. Would the world have been safer, more peaceful today, if China had yielded in 1950 to MacArthur's atomic blackmail and let the United States forces pass through Manchuria against the Soviet Union? Or if Ho Chi Minh had lifted the siege of Dien Bien Phu When Dulles twice offered the atom bomb to France, or if Algerians had obeyed the French communists who urged the peaceful road, or if Cubans had feared to provoke the H-bombs only 90 miles away. All these were perfect targets, but a bomb dropped on Havana might have lost all Latin America to the United States, and bombs on populous Shanghai or beautiful ancient Peking of the Yellow River dikes might well have lost Asia. 20 years ago, Mao said, the people of the world turned against it. Is there not in this some truth? The people of the world are only partly conscious, but they know enough to hate the nuclear bombs. When they are fully conscious, they will know how to end them. Is it not then true that the basic question is the consciousness of the people? To confuse the people's consciousness is the deadly sin. Mao once said, humanity is only in its infancy. When it is full-grown, what will it make of our world? I'm not arguing on humanist or humanitarian lines. J.J. Thomson said, humanism won't do. Now the basis for it is gone. What is needed is transformation. Lord Brain at the Southampton Conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sir Leon Baggett in his current brief lectures, have both stressed the need for a great human mutation, a mutation that is indeed in process, and the fact that we are entering today a world with no precedent in human experience, a world which will profoundly change The whole nature of man. But I am confident it will be a world in which the principle for which I am contending will hold good. The principle of extremism expressed by a Scottish poet when he said, he either fears his fate too much or his deserts are small who dare not put it to the touch to win or lose it all. The principle expressed in my favorite passage from the Bible, Which runs, because thou art neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, therefore will I spit thee out of my mouth. As to the other leg of the propositions we're debating, justice, the only decent stand, the only decent The only thing that a man can stand for is in terms of the old cry, let there be justice till the heavens should fall. And I'm going to finish up by a quotation from a poem of my own. It is no longer just matters of polite argument among well-bred people, but the very substance and status of our life and death issues. Our most crucial concerns that have become shams and unveracities. That is the appalling task that confronts us. Not to find truth, that monstrous and shocking opposite of the foundations of society, scandalous in its gross unfamiliarity, only to be faced with girded loins and hearts of trebled brass vainly. We live in a world that has become intolerable. As the subject of passive reflection. What is our response to the inescapable reality? Are we, too, like these miserable little cliques that turn, because of theoretic inadequacy, from social causation, from the poetry of pugative action, and try to find form and significance in pure feeling itself, transplanted and reimagined, seeking the meaning of experience in the phenomena of experience, pure sensation?

Lord Stolman: Yes.

Hugh McDermott: Becoming an ultimate value in the neurotic and mystical attempt to give physicality an intellectual content, in the sensitizing of nerves already raw, meaningless emotion aroused automatically without satisfaction or education, as in melodrama. Man can find his own dignity only in action now. Most people live by a social discipline becoming intolerably artificial. A construction whose only merit is its security. They feel that. They feel the pettiness and emptiness of a social form repeated beyond the day of its absolute necessity. But they fear the possible chaos that always threatens those who break through a form. They are right to fear it, for every creation risks being a destruction only. Yet as long as there is strength for creation, creation must be risked.

Humphrey Barclay: I must confess, Mr. President, that I did not expect, when I was first invited to take part in this debate, to find 2 such gentlemen as our visiting opposing or proposing speakers to be in support of this motion. That 2 such people should support the gold water standard at a time when that particular currency has been particularly devalued since last November Is something which I find very perplexing and surprising indeed. And I must say to this House, Mr. President, that any motion that can unite an apostle of racial absolutism with an apostle of economic absolutism must, in my view, clearly be wrong.

Speaker 8: Thank you.

Humphrey Barclay: Particularly when they are joined together to defend a thesis propounded by a man who voted both against civil rights and anything remotely suggestive of socialism. This seems to me to take cynicism to a new level. I think it's a very cynical thing to do. Almost to the point of absurdity. The 2 visiting proposing speakers tonight have at least one thing in common. Neither is appearing under his own name. One has a pseudonym which has apparently been plundered From the Gaelic poets, and another has a pseudonym which has apparently, or may well have been, plagiarized from the works of Kafka. Their cooperation, I suggest to the House, is entirely temporary. It is somewhat similar to the friendship which grew up between Lord Holland and Mr. Selwyn. Lord Holland, you will remember, said on his deathbed to his servant, should Mr. Selwyn call, show him up. If I am still alive, I'll be pleased to see him, and if I'm dead, he'll be delighted to see me. Mr. McDermott writes He speaks in a dead language as though it were English, and in English as though it were a dead language. Mr. X enunciates policies that his countrymen understand only too well. He is North America's leading exponent Hear, hear! Liberty to him means racial segregation. Liberty to Mr. McDermott means the enlightened policies of Mr. Brezhnev. But I think I should make it plain to the House that I for one at least believe That neither Mr. Brezhnev nor his predecessor could conceivably have supported this notion. There's nothing particularly extremist about the concept of coexistence. Indeed, it is true, I think, to say that the international leaders of the party that Mr. McDermott Yes. Have grown daily more moderate, more traditionalist, more conservative.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Humphrey Barclay: Indeed, speaking as a conservative, perhaps I may say that even now their method of choosing a leader There's certain distinct resemblances.

Speaker 8: All right.

Humphrey Barclay: Indeed, an urbane correspondence. Between Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Khrushchev has recently come to my attention, and with your permission, sir, I will read out to you the letter which Mr. Brezhnev wrote to Mr. Khrushchev in accepting his resignation. My dear Nikita, I have, I have made the I have been thinking for some time of your wish to return to private life.

Speaker 8: No!

Humphrey Barclay: Some months ago you told me you desired to give way to a younger man. I feel that the time has come when we can no longer impose on yourself your sense of duty and self-sacrifice. I know that you will not be able to get about as much in the future as you have in the past. Indeed, I am advised that you may not be able to leave your house again.

Speaker 8: Boo!

Humphrey Barclay: I'm sure, however, that you will be glad to know That we have set in motion the customary processes of consultation from which your successor will emerge. Well, I think that it is quite clear that our friends in the Kremlin, at least, are not in support of this motion. You can be perfectly certain that every individual person Yes. Will have his own particular qualified view as to what liberty is about. Extremism, in fact, inevitably involves a form of extreme behavior in return. And what you are seeing in South Africa, in Southern Rhodesia, in Ghana, what you saw before the war Yes. In Nazi Germany and in the fascist countries, what you have seen in the years between 1945 and now in Eastern Europe, you have seen what has happened when people have taken up the cause of extremism in what they think is in defense of liberty. And you have seen in all these countries Yes. What has happened to the unfortunate victims of this pernicious philosophy. And therefore I say extremism in this form is bound to be wrong. We have, we have seen it proved wrong in all these instances. The moderate society is a society to which we, we must work. Conciliation is the weapon that we must use, and we must not be fooled by demagogues, by tyrants, or by speechwriters— speechwriters for discreditable causes— into blinking, into allowing our eyes to be blinkered as to what The deep, true, and crucial nature of this moral problem is.

Malcolm X: Mr. Chairman, tonight is the first night that I've ever had an opportunity to be as near to You're a revolutionary! As I am. And the speaker who preceded me— first I want to thank you for the invitation to come here, uh, to the Oxford Union. The speaker who preceded me is one of the best excuses that I know to prove our point concerning the necessity sometimes Of extremism in defense of liberty, why it is no vice, and why moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. I don't say that about him personally, but that type is the—

Hugh McDermott: Boo!

Malcolm X: He's right. Um, X is not my real name. But if you study history, you'll find why no black man in the Western Hemisphere knows his real name. Some of his ancestors kidnapped our ancestors from Africa and took us into the Western Hemisphere and sold us there, and our names were stripped from us. And so today we don't know who we really are. I'm one of those who admit it, and so I just put X up there to keep from wearing his name. And as far as this apartheid charge that he attributed to me is concerned, evidently he has been misinformed. I don't believe in any form of apartheid. I don't believe in any form of segregation. I don't believe in any form of racialism. But at the same time, I don't endorse a person as being right just because his skin is white. And oftentimes when you find people like this— I mean that type— When a man whom they have been taught is below them has the nerve or firmness to question some of their philosophy or some of their conclusions, usually they put that label on us, a label that is only designed to project an image I'm a Muslim.

Hugh McDermott: I'm a Muslim.

Malcolm X: If there is something wrong with that, then I stand condemned. My religion is Islam. I believe in Allah. I believe in Muhammad as the apostle of Allah. I believe in brotherhood of all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody Who's not ready to practice brotherhood with our people. I don't believe in brotherhood— I just take time to make these few things clear because I find that one of the tricks of the West, and I imagine my good friend, or at least that type, is from the West. One of the tricks of the West is to use or create images. They create images of a person who doesn't go along with their views, and they make certain that this image is distasteful, and then anything that that person has to say from there on, from there on in, is rejected. And this is a policy that has been practiced pretty well, pretty much by the West. It perhaps would have been practiced by others had they been in power, but during recent centuries the West has been in power. They've created the images. And they've used these images quite skillfully and quite successfully. That's why today we need a little extremism in order to straighten a very nasty situation out, or a very extremely nasty situation out. I think the only way one can really determine whether or not extremism in defense of liberty is justified is not to approach it Yes. If we look upon it as an American or a European or an African or an Asian, but as a human being. If we look upon it as different types, immediately we begin to think in terms of extremism being good for one and bad for another, or bad for one and good for another. But if we look upon it, if we look upon ourselves as human beings, I doubt that anyone will deny that extremism In defense of liberty, the liberty of any human being is a vice. Anytime anyone is enslaved or in any way deprived of his liberty, that person is a human being. As far as I'm concerned, he is justified to resort to whatever methods necessary to bring about his liberty again.

Speaker 8: I'm a Muslim.

Malcolm X: But most people usually think in terms of extremism as something that's relative, related to someone whom they know or something that they've heard of. I don't think they look upon extremism as it's by itself or all alone. They apply it to something. A good example, and I— and one of the reasons that this can't be too well understood today, many people who have been in positions of power in the past don't realize that the power Yes. Uh, centers of power are changing. Uh, when you're in a position of power for a long time, you get used to using your yardstick, and you take it for granted that because you forced your yardstick upon others, that everyone is still using the same yardstick, so that your definition of extremism usually applies to everyone. But nowadays, times are changing, and the center of power is changing. People in the past who weren't in a position to have a yardstick or use a yardstick of their own Are using their own yardstick now. You use one and they use another. In the past, when the oppressor had one stick and the oppressed used that same stick, today the oppressed are sort of shaking the shackles and getting yardsticks of their own. So when they say extremism, they don't mean what you do, and when you say extremism, you don't mean what they do. It's entirely 2 different meanings. And when this is understood, I think it will— you can Yes. Better understand why those who are using methods of extremism are being driven to them. A good example is the Congo. The— when the people who are in power want to use, again, create an image to justify something that's bad, they use the press. And they'll use the press to create a humanitarian image Yes. For a devil, or a devil image for a humanitarian. They'll take a person who's the victim of the crime and make it appear he's the criminal, and they'll take the criminal and make it appear that he's the victim of the crime. And the Congo situation is one of the best examples that I can cite right now to point this out. The Congo situation is a nasty example of how a country, because it is in power, Yes. Can take its press and make the world accept something that's absolutely criminal. They, they take American-trained— they take pilots that they say are American-trained, and this automatically lends respectability to them. And then they will call them anti-Cuban, anti-Castro Cubans, and that's supposed to add to their respectability and eliminate the fact that they're dropping bombs on villages where they have no defense whatsoever against such Yes. Planes, blowing to bits black women, Congolese women, Congolese children, Congolese babies. This is extremism, but it is never referred to as extremism because it is endorsed by the West, it's financed by America, it's made respectable by America. And that kind of extremism is never labeled as extremism because it's not extremism in defense of liberty. And if it is extremism in defense of liberty, As this pamphlet has just pointed out, it's extremism in defense of liberty for the wrong type of people. I'm not advocating that kind of extremism. That's cold-blooded murder. But it is— but the press is used to make that cold-blooded murder They make it appear as an act of humanitarianism. They take it one step farther and get a man named Tshombe, who is a murderer. They refer to him as the premier of the— or the prime minister of the Congo to lend respectability to him. He's actually the murderer of the rightful prime minister of the Congo. They never mention that this man— I'm not for extremism in defense of that kind of liberty or that kind of activity. They take this man who's a murderer, yet the world recognizes him as a murderer, but they make him the prime minister. He becomes a paid murderer, a paid killer who is propped up by American dollars. And to show the, the degree to which he is a paid killer, the first thing he does Yes. Is go to South Africa and hire more killers and bring them into the Congo. They give them the, the glorious name of mercenary, which means a hired killer, not someone, not someone that's killing for some kind of patriotism or some kind of ideal, but a man who is a paid killer, a hired killer. And one of the leaders of them is right from this country here. And he's glorified as a soldier of fortune when he's shooting down little black women and black babies and black children. I'm not for that kind of extremism. I'm for the kind of extremism that those who are, who are being destroyed by those bombs and destroyed by those hired killers are able to put forth to thwart it. They will risk their lives at any cost. They will sacrifice their lives at any cost against that kind of criminal activity. I'm for the kind of extremism that the freedom fighters in the Stanleyville regime are able to display against these hired killers who are actually using some of my tax dollars that I have to pay up in the United States to finance that operation over there. We're not for that kind of extremism. And again, I think you must point out that the real criminal there is the— or rather, one of the, one of the, one of those who are very much involved as accessories to the crime is the press. Not so much your press, but the American press, which has tricked your press into repeating what they have invented. But I was reading in one of the English papers this morning— I think it's the paper called The Express— and it gave a very clear account Of the type of criminal activity that has been carried on by the mercenaries that are being paid by United States tax dollars. And I— it showed where they were killing Congolese, whether they were from the central government or the Stanleyville government. Didn't make any difference to them. They just killed them. And they had it fixed where those who had been processed had to wear a white bandage around their head. And any Congolese that they saw without that white bandage, they killed them. And this is clearly pointed out in the English papers. If they had printed it last week, there would have been an outcry and no one would have allowed the Belgians and the United States and the others who are in cahoots with each other to carry on the criminal activity that's dead in the Congo, and, and which I doubt anybody in the world, not even here at Oxford, will accept. Not even my friend.

Lord Stolman: Yes.

Humphrey Barclay: I wonder what exactly, what sort of extremism you would consider the killing of missionaries to be?

Malcolm X: I'd call it the type of extremism that was involved when America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and killed 80,000 people, or over 80,000 people, both men, women, children, everything. It was an act of war. I'd call it the same kind of extremism that happened when England dropped bombs on German cities and Germans dropped bombs on English cities. It was an act of war. And the Congo situation is war. And when you call it war, then anybody that dies, they die a death that is justified. But those who are—

Speaker 8: War is a crime against man.

Malcolm X: But those who are in the Stanleyville regime, sir, The paratroopers are defending their country. Those who are coming in are invading their country. And some of the refugees that were questioned on television in this city a couple of days ago pointed out that had they not— had the paratroopers not come in, they doubted that they would have been molested. They weren't being molested until the paratroopers came in. I don't encourage any action. I don't condone the act of murder, nor do I glorify anybody's death, but I do think that when the white public uses its press to magnify the fact that there are the lives of white hostages at stake— they don't say hostages, every paper says white hostages— they give me the impression that they attach more importance to a white hostage and a white death than they do the death of a human being Despite the color of his skin. I, I feel forced to make that point clear, that I'm not for any indiscriminate killing, but— and nor does the death of so many people go by me without I'm sorry. Creating some kind of emotion. But I think that white people are making the mistake, and if they read their own newspapers, they will have to agree that they in clear-cut language make a distinction between the type of dying according to the color of the skin. And when you begin to think in terms of death being death, no matter what type of human being it is, then we will all probably be able to sit down as human beings and get rid of this Yes. But as long as the situation exists as it is, we're going to need some extremism, and I think some of you will need some moderation too. So why would such an act in the Congo, which is so clearly criminal, be condoned? It's condoned primarily because it has been glorified by the press and has been made to look beautiful. And therefore the world automatically sanctions it. And this is the role that the press plays. If you study back in history different wars, always the press, whenever a country that's in power wants to step in unjustly and invade someone else's property, they use the press to make it appear that the area that they're about to invade is filled with savages or filled with people who have gone berserk, or they are raping white women, molesting nuns, They use the same old tactic year in and year out. Now there was a time when the dark world, people with dark skin, would believe anything that they saw in the papers that originated in Europe. But today, no matter what is put in the paper, they stop and look at it 2 or 3 times and try and figure out what is the motive of the writer. And usually they can determine what the motive of the writer is. They use the print— the powers that be use the print to give the devil an angelic image.

Speaker 8: Yeah.

Malcolm X: And give the image of the devil to the one who's really angelic. They make oppression and exploitation and war actually look like an act of humanitarianism. This is not the kind of extremism that I support or that I go along with. One of the reasons that I think it's necessary for me to clarify my own point personally I was in a conversation with a student here on the campus yesterday, and she, after we were in a— I think we had coffee or something, dinner. There were several of us. I have to add that in for those minds of yours that run astray. And she asked me, she told me that, well, I'm surprised That you're not what I expected.

Hugh McDermott: I said, what did you mean?

Malcolm X: What do you mean? She said, well, I was looking for your horns. And so I told her, I have them, but I keep them hidden, uh, unless, uh, someone draws them out. That's my friend, or that type.

Hugh McDermott: It takes certain types I used to draw them out.

Malcolm X: And this is actually true. Usually, if a person is looked upon as an extremist, anything that person does in your eyesight is extreme. On the other hand, if a person is looked upon as conservative, just about anything they do is conservative. And this comes again through the manipulating of images. What they want you to think that a certain area or a certain person or a certain group is extremist, and what they— or rather is Involved in actions of extremism, the first thing they do is project that person in the image of an extremist. And then anything that he does from then on is, uh, is extreme. You know, it doesn't make any difference whether it's right or wrong. As far as you're concerned, if the image is wrong, whatever they do is wrong. And this has been done, uh, by the Western press and also by the American press, and it has been picked up by the English press and the European press. Whenever any black man in America shows signs of an uncompromising attitude against the injustices that he experiences daily and shows no tendency whatsoever to, to, uh, deal or compromise with it, then the, uh, American press begins to project that person as a radical, an extremist, somebody who's irresponsible, or as a rabble-rouser, or someone who doesn't use, uh, who doesn't rationalize in dealing with the problem. I wonder Uh, it depends on which angle— No, let the gentleman bring out his point. Uh, it depends on, uh, which angle you look at it, sir. I'm not— I never try and hide what I am.

Humphrey Barclay: Uh, if, uh—

Malcolm X: I'm referring to— You're referring to the treat— my treatment of the previous speaker?

Hugh McDermott: You make my point.

Malcolm X: That as long as a white man does it, it's all right. A black man is supposed to have no feelings.

Speaker 8: Oh.

Malcolm X: But when a black man strikes back, he's an extremist. He's supposed to sit passively and have no feelings, be nonviolent, and love his enemy no matter what kind of attack, be it verbal or otherwise. He's supposed to take it.

Humphrey Barclay: But if he stands up and in every way If he tries to defend himself, then he's an extremist.

Malcolm X: No, I think that the speaker who preceded me is getting exactly what he asked for. The main reason for believing in extremism Intelligently directed extremism, extremism in defense of liberty, extremism in quest of justice is because I firmly believe in my heart that the day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights when his own freedom is being jeopardized to use any means necessary Yes. To bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself. I live in America where there are only 22 million blacks against probably 160 million whites. One of the reasons that I'm in no way reluctant or hesitant to do whatever is necessary to see that black people do something to protect themselves, I honestly believe that the day that they do, many whites will have more respect for them, and that there will be more whites on their side than are now on their side.

Humphrey Barclay: Yes.

Malcolm X: With these little wishy-washy love thy enemy pearls that they've been using up to now. And if I'm wrong, then you are racialists. As I said earlier, in my conclusion, I'm a Muslim. I believe in the religion of Islam. I believe in Allah. I believe in Muhammad. I believe in all of the prophets. I believe in fasting, prayer, charity, and that which is incumbent upon a Muslim to fulfill in order to be a Muslim. In April, I was fortunate to make the Hajj to Mecca and went back again in September to try and carry out my religious functions.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Malcolm X: And, and, and, uh, requirements. But at the same time that I believe in that religion, I have to point out I'm also an American Negro, and I live in a society whose, whose social system is based upon the castration of the black man, whose political system is based on castration of the black man, and whose economy is based upon the castration of the black man. A society which in 1964 Yes. Has more subtle, deceptive, deceitful methods to make the rest of the world think that it's cleaning up its house, while at the same time the thing— same things are happening to us in 1964 that happened in 1954, 1924, and in 1984. They came up with what they call a civil rights bill in 1964, supposedly to solve our problem, and after the bill was signed, uh, 3 civil rights workers were murdered in cold blood. And the FBI, our head Hoover, admits that they know who did it. They've known ever since it happened, and they've done nothing about it. Civil rights bill down the drain. No matter how many bills pass, black people in that country where I'm from, still our lives are not worth 2 cents. And the government has shown its inability, or either its unwillingness, to do whatever is necessary to protect life and property where the black American is concerned. Thank you. So my contention is that whenever a people come to the conclusion that the government which they have supported proves itself unwilling and/or proves itself unable to protect our lives and protect our property because we have the wrong color skin, we are not human beings unless we ourselves band together and do whatever, however, whenever is necessary to see that our lives and our property is protected. And I doubt that any person in here would refuse to do the same thing were he in the same position, or I should say, were he in the same condition. Just one step farther to see, am I justified in this Yes. And I say, I'm not speaking— I'm speaking as a black man from America, which is a racist society. No matter how much you hear it talk about democracy, it's as racist as South Africa, or as racist as Portugal, or as racist as any other racialist society on this earth. The only difference between it and South Africa— South Africa preaches separation and practices separation. America preaches integration and practices segregation.

Hugh McDermott: This is the only difference.

Malcolm X: They don't practice what they preach, whereas South Africa preaches and practices the same thing. I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil. The, the system of government that America has consists of Yes. There are 16 senatorial committees that govern the country and 20 congressional committees. 10 of the 16 senatorial committees are in the hands of Southern racialist senators who are racialists. 13 of the 20— this was before the last election. I think it's even more so now. 10 of the 16 committees senatorial committees are in the hands of senators who are southern racialists. 13 of the 20 congressional committees were in the hands of southern congressmen who are racialists, which means out of the 36 committees that govern the foreign and domestic direction of that government, 23 are in the hands of southern racialists, men who in no way believe in the equality of man, and men who do anything within their power to see that the black man Yes. Never gets to the same seat or to the same level that they are on. The reason that these men from that area have that type of power is because America has a seniority system. And these who have that seniority have been there longer than anyone else because the black people in the areas where they live can't vote. And it is only because the black man is deprived of his vote that puts these men in positions of power that give them such influence in the government beyond their actual intellectual or political ability, or even beyond The number of people from the areas that they represent. So we can see in that country that no matter what the federal government professes to be doing, the power of the federal government lies in these committees. And anytime a black man or any kind of legislation is proposed to benefit the black man or give the black man his just due, we find that it's locked up in these committees right here. And when they let something through the committee, usually it is so chopped up and fixed up That's right. That by the time it becomes law, it's a law that can't be enforced. Well, another example is the Supreme Court's desegregation decision that was handed down in 1954. This is a law. And this law, they have not been able to implement this law in New York City, or in Boston, or in Cleveland, or Chicago, or the northern cities. And my contention is that anytime you have a country, supposedly a democracy, supposedly the land of the free and the home of the brave, That's right. And it can't enforce laws, even in the northernmost cosmopolitan and progressive part of it, that will benefit a black man. If those laws can't be enforced, or this law can't be enforced, how much harder do you think we will get when they pass some civil rights legislation which only involves more laws? If they can't enforce this law, they'll never enforce those laws. So my contention is that we are faced with a racialistic society. A society in which they are deceitful, deceptive, and the only way we can bring about a change is to talk the kind of language— speak the language that they understand. The racialist never understands a peaceful language. The racialist never understands the nonviolent language. The racialist, we have— he's spoken his language to us for 400 years. We have been the victim of his brutality. We are the ones who face his dogs that tear the flesh from our limbs. That's Only right. because we want to enforce the Supreme Court decision. We are the ones who have our skulls crushed, not by the Ku Klux Klan, but by policemen, only because we want to enforce what they call the Supreme Court decision. We are the ones upon whom water hoses are turned with pressure so hard that it rips the clothes from our backs— not men, but the clothes from the backs of women and children. You've seen it yourself. Only because we want to enforce what they call the law. Well, anytime you live in a society supposedly based upon law, And it doesn't enforce its own law because the color of a man's skin happens to be wrong, then I say those people are justified to resort to any means necessary to bring about justice where the government can't give them justice.

Speaker 8: I'm a Democrat.

Malcolm X: I don't believe in any form of unjustified extremism, but I believe that when a man is exercising extremism, a human being is exercising extremism in defense of his rights, of liberty for human beings, it's no vice. And when one is moderate in the pursuit of justice for human beings, I say he's a sinner. And I might add in my conclusion, in fact, America is one of the best examples when you read its history about extremism. Oh, Patrick Henry said, liberty or death. That's extreme.

Speaker 8: That's right. Very original.

Malcolm X: I read once passingly about a man named Shakespeare. I only read about him passingly, but I remember one thing he wrote that kind of moved me. He put it in the mouth of Hamlet, I think it was, who said, to be or not to be. He was in doubt about something. Whether it was nobler in the mind of man to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, moderation, or to take up arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing end them. And I go for that. If you take up arms, you'll end it. But if you sit around and wait for the one who's, who's in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you'll be waiting a long time. And in my opinion, Yes. The young generation of whites, blacks, browns, whatever else there is, you're living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there's got to be a change. People in power have misused it, and now there has to be a change, and a better world has to be built. And the only way it's going to be built with it— with it— is with extreme methods. And I, for one, will join in with anyone. Don't care what color you are, as long as you want to change this miserable condition That exists on this earth. Thank you.

Lord Stolman: Mr. President, I was very glad that you were able, able to explain to the House that I was a last-minute substitute, quite literally. I'm rather sad to find that I wasn't actually I'm not actually first reserve, but actually the fourth reserve. And I haven't really been fortified by the last-minute helpful whisper of comfort that was given to me: don't worry, they're not expecting very much. And Mr. President, sir, After listening to the whole of your speech and the first 5 minutes of the speech of Mr. Christie-Davis, I came to the conclusion that it was a convention of both the Oxford Union and the Cambridge Union not to refer to the subject under discussion. It's true that, uh, Mr. Christie-Davis then redeemed himself as far as Cambridge was concerned. Yes. But, um, you will appreciate, honorable members will certainly appreciate, that in 20 years of more or less rough-and-tumble political life, I have been at different times insulted by experts. But, um, I must confess that I was terribly shaken when I heard Mr. Christy Davis, as I thought, say that he would be sharing this This side of the House with 2 prominent conservatives. And the fact that he has corrected that misapprehension hasn't left me altogether completely calm. But the fact is, I am a socialist, and— I am very glad I'm delighted to be sharing this side of the house not only with Mr. Christy Davis, another member of the Labour Party, but with Mr. Humphrey Barclay, who has been referred to as a left-wing Tory. And the great thing that Humphrey Barclay and I share is a belief in and a love of democracy and all that it stands for. And there is no kind of, no kind of connection between the moderation, the freedom, the liberty, the justice, and the basis for that liberty and justice which Humphrey Bogart and I share, than the very sad speech to which we just listened from sad but brilliant Thank you. But sad nevertheless, from Brother Malcolm. Um, I would ask honorable members, in making up their minds about this motion, not to be in any way misled by the personalities of the speakers, because the 3, uh, the 3 supporters of the motion They have the most charming personalities, a beautiful presentation. In fact, they're the most moderate lot of extremists I've ever seen. But indeed, perhaps you might be forgiven for thinking that the utterances of my colleagues were not at all moderate, were Quite extreme. And myself, as I stand here, again having in mind the speech to which we've just listened, I am reminded of the words of Lord Clive on an occasion speaking in the House of Lords when his feelings were similarly aroused, and he said, by God, at this moment I stand astonished at my moderation. And that is That's very much how I, I feel. Well, now, Mr. President, you said that many fools have said wise things, and apart from that unexceptionable observation, you seem to concentrate the whole of your attack, as it were, in the belief that extremism is only exemplified in war. You said that no nation was ever subjugated in a gentlemanly fashion, but you forgot, Mr. President, that these subjugators themselves always described themselves as defenders of liberty. And at all times in, in the speech to which we just listened, uh, from their brother, uh, Malcolm. Malcolm. We came against the same thing. He said he doesn't believe in brotherhood with anyone who is not prepared to practice brotherhood with our people, and neither do I, neither does Humphrey Barclay, and neither do most of us in, in this hall. He said that what is going on in the Congo is extremism.

Humphrey Barclay: Extremism.

Lord Stolman: Um, and I am not prepared to dispute that that is the case, but I don't accept the definition that extremism is all on one side. I don't accept that missionaries out there, white or black— and the same Daily Express that was alleged only to be reporting the white missionaries also reported That some black priests were killed out there too. Brother Malcolm overlooked that fact, and I, I regret it equally. But the great point is about the Congo and about the mission of those missionaries is that whoever is waging a war, they were not. And they were, they were murdered, and we should condemn that. Whoever was murdered, whatever the color of their skin. I am not generally known as one who is very sensitive to the feelings of the press, but I do firmly believe, and history will prove this, That the— that the— a great many of the liberties that we enjoy have come about because of the constant endeavors, the constant exposures in the press. And as far as the American press, I hold still less brief of that. But every complaint that Brother Malcolm arranged against the American press, against the American way of life, against the vicious humbugs to whom he referred, was in fact a complaint against extremism which had turned into vice. The only thing was the extremism wasn't on his side.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Lord Stolman: Now, you, uh, Mr. President, uh, said that, uh, if people are free, they have a right to defend that freedom. Of course they have. If they're intelligent too, they will choose their weapons. And you said you cannot be moderate in defense of your life.

Hugh McDermott: Of course you can't.

Speaker 8: Yes.

Lord Stolman: Can I quote to you what is— what was said by Macaulay out of Lord Nugent's Memorial of Hampden? He said, Hampden, John Hampden, he knew that the essence of war is violence and that moderation in war is imbecility. And, uh, Chris Lee Davis made precisely that same point but in different words. But in our history books Of course, John Hampson is a great man who stands as a model of moderation. The fact that he thought imbecility, uh, that moderation in war was imbecility doesn't alter that fact at all, because war was forced on him. And of course, when you're in a battle, any kind of a fight, of course Yes. You have to try and win with every means at your power, although even in the worst of wars some things have not been done. But this point of concentrating all the time on war as if this was the only form of excess, as if it was the only way, and that was implicit in everything that Brother Malcolm said.

Hugh McDermott: That's right. That the only solution to these problems is war.

Lord Stolman: But as I shall show, excess on that side will not bring liberty. It will only bring excess on the other side, which wipes out the liberty which is alleged has been won. In fact, this motion that we are considering— This motion that we are considering, and which has been much belabored by my colleague Humphrey Park— in more modest words, I regard it as a rhetorical antithesis— sounds awfully stuffy, doesn't it— worthy of the kindly but wrong-hearted man who used it as a decisive weapon in his own political career. Thank you.

Hugh McDermott: Yeah.

Lord Stolman: As I see it, this is a choice that we have to make tonight. It's a choice between moderation, which I regard as the golden mean of justice, and the Goldwater mean, which is the means of injustice and defeat. Justice, in fact, is often moderation because it's a compromise between extremists on opposing sides. I'm sorry. So on this matter of a definition of extremism and moderation, purely on the matter of definition, would you regard the bloodshed in South Africa Good. I regard it as a rhetorical antithesis— sounds awfully stuffy, doesn't it— worthy of the kindly but wrong-hearted man who used it as a decisive weapon in his own political destruction.

Humphrey Barclay: As I see it, this is Yes.

Lord Stolman: A choice that we have to make tonight. It's a choice between moderation, which I regard as the— regard as the golden mean of justice, and the Goldwater mean, which is the means of injustice and defeat. Justice, in fact, is often moderation because it's a compromise between extremists on opposing sides. I'm sorry. So on this matter of a definition of extremism and moderation, your young master of definition, would you regard the lot of violence in South Africa as extremism? If you regard it as moderation, precisely how would you justify calling it moderation?

Humphrey Barclay: It's a matter of definition of extremism which seems to be—

Lord Stolman: I would regard what is going on now in South Africa Extremism. Extremism, to which I am utterly opposed. I, I regard, uh, the Boer War which was fought by this country as extremism against the South Africans, to which, if I had been alive, I hope I should also have been opposed, as many Englishmen were in that day. I regard what followed the Boer War as the reverse of extremism, as sensible moderation. And I'm very sorry indeed that that doesn't continue in South Africa now. But let me give you a concrete example which may make my point to Brother Malcolm. I suppose everybody in this room loathes and detests the idea of the Ku Klux Klan, who are extremists on opposing sides Extremists in defense of white liberty to enslave the blacks. They are extremists in defense of their liberty, and their liberty is to defend themselves against the blacks. Their methods are vicious, obscene, and deplorable. But what is going to happen to the black Muslims, of which until Cassius Clay joined them Brother Malcolm was a member. I imagine Cassius joining them, it was a form of extremism which Brother Malcolm didn't agree with. But, um, would it not mean that the, uh, there would be perhaps a Black Ku Klux Klan of extremists who, in alleged defense of their liberty, would repeat in reverse The vicious extremes of white oppressors. Mr. President, extremism is not synonymous with courage or passion or truth or honor. It often rubs shoulders—

Malcolm X: Yes, indeed. Black people first. The people who are living in the South are the victims of the Ku Klux Klan. They're the victims of brutality that's been inflicted upon them unjustly by the Ku Klux Klan. Any form of defense, any kind of unit that they form to defend themselves, you couldn't classify it as a black Ku Klux Klan.

Lord Stolman: Yeah, I certainly think that the I could not. But I do maintain that extremes to wipe out or defeat another form of extremism will not provide a solution, will not provide true liberty and freedom.

Speaker 8: I'm glad you said that.

Lord Stolman: No, no, no. Mr. President, extremism often rubs shoulders with oppression and anarchy. And I say again that moderation is not synonymous with cowardice, as indeed it seemed to me that Huey Madhyam had tried to claim. It's not synonymous with cowardice or half-heartedness. It often covers the stubborn, unyielding stuff of which martyrs are made. I'm descended from Huguenots, who came to this country in the 17th century, 300 years ago, as the victims of religious persecution. I was born in the East End of London, the descendants of some 20 generations, and to comfort Christy Davis, all born in wedlock. And therefore, not any kind of the description that he just, just, just mentioned. But I was born in the East End among people of many nationalities, and all my life I've regarded extremism which breeds discrimination on grounds of color, race, or creed as an absurdity. But the vice born of extremism in the pursuit of liberty for the few at the expense of the many. And that is the point that we really have got to think of. What do we mean by freedom and liberty, and for whom do we mean it? I mean it for the great majority. I am not and could not be I'm very uncomfortable with Brother Malcolm, and I only regret that apparently he is uncomfortable with me.

Malcolm X: You misunderstand. Your statements are probably stemmed from guilt complex.

Lord Stolman: Now, I'm quite serious about this, really quite serious about it, um, and, and many of you are probably I would be like, like that. And, uh, we are said, because we don't feel any color consciousness— and it isn't that I see rarely people, I've employed colored people for many, many years, many years, with them always. So it isn't just one friend. I do not feel uncomfortable. I, I regret that, uh, Brother Malcolm Malcolm does. And I think this is important. I, I think that, um, there is perhaps a bias on, on the wrong side, and we are thinking about things that, um, just don't exist. Mr. President, yesterday in the House of Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I moved the second reading of a bill to renew the Aliens Order and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Speaker 8: Good.

Lord Stolman: Well, my speech, apart from the presentation of the facts, accurate presentation of the facts, was an honest expression of my own liberal opinion on this matter, including an expression of opinion that I hope the day would soon come when, as far as aliens are concerned, we would return to the open door of the 19th century. That is the objective that I have in my heart. But it was— Before this evening concludes, I would like to ask that in case In situations when reconciliation is not possible and there is a use of force to deny liberty and justice, the counter-use of force in order to bring back to the original the objective of liberty and justice, do you consider them an extremist or a less extremist attitude? No, I am not a pacifist, and if anybody punches me on the nose, I would punch them back. I've done my best to act to the best of my ability, and, uh, and I would expect to do the same. I, I did, like everyone else, do his share when, when the time came. But there is a— again, you're posing the one thing. It's the only argument the believers and extremists have got. Christy Davis exposed this completely, uh, in his, his You speak, you come back to the belief that war is the only form of extremism. Of course it isn't. There is extremism in, in so many other things. But the speech I made was an honest expression of liberal opinion, which many people would regard as extreme. Now, I expected disagreement, but there was none. One conservative peer with great colonial experience Welcome. Yes, well, I'm quoting him as an extremist, and they're the other way. He quoted— he welcomed my speech as a, a moderate non-party approach, and he hoped it would be heralded on— by— as a bipartisan policy, um, on this very difficult problem. Now, Mr. President, I did not hedge, nor do I hedge on my views. There is no virtue, I know, in stating the honest truth, but moderation in expression can achieve justice and freedom when excess would destroy them. I have sought all my life, or most of my adult life, to serve minorities and underdogs in such organizations, the Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, in the Prison Reform Council. And always, if we are to achieve, we must first seek the truth, and we must then seek support for that truth by deploying it in a manner which will convince men of goodwill. At present, society condones the flogging of men in prison, the ultimate degradation At present, we condone— society condones the hanging of murderers, an act which, in my view, pollutes the whole of society.

Speaker 8: Amen.

Lord Stolman: And now, Mr. President, the Gallup polls say that over 60% of the members of the British public still support both those awful things. They are extremists. We shall be told that we— the only way we can convince them, the only way we can wipe those things out, is by using the same method. But I say to you tonight, and you'll know whether what I say is true within a Yes. Very few weeks. And I believe Humphrey Berkeley would agree with me that this time the minority who are against these things will succeed, and they will not exceed through extremes. They will exceed through moderation, through putting the fact and putting the faith, and this time winning the day, and the abolitionists will prevail. And I say to you, and this is my last word against the motion, if we are to win peace in the world and justice for the oppressed, and justice for the oppressor too, we shall do it by truth, by courage, by determination, and by moderation, because extremism destroys liberty, because it breeds other extremism.