Universities mustn’t be places in which free speech is stifled

No Holy, it's still going on.

No-platforming isn't about 'anti-extremism' it's about shutting down opposing views. The hate preachers are not being no-platformed. Feminists are, and speakers who are critical of islamism.

Public disorder laws apply, of course, to counter protesters too. And venues can set their own rules about behaviour, such as deliberately trying to stop a booked speaking being heard on stage. This isn't new stuff, this is how things used to be before universities (or, more usually, their student unions) started booking radicalisers as speakers and stopped rad fems having a voice.

Hmmm, promoting men and silencing women.... Familiar?

PencilsinSpace I think a lot of the 'anti-extremism' policies came into play after this report, although I could be wrong as I'm not involved in this area of students' unions.

Not to labour the point pisacake but there have been elected MPs in the British House of Commons since 1982/83. You may not approve of them but they are as legitimate a party as the DUP.

I definitely think there should be free speech - but how will those who disagree be prevented from doing everything in their power to stop it?

Maybe that's hard to stop - but speech and protest is more valid than suppression of speech. It shows each side in truer colours, at least.

"I definitely think there should be free speech - but how will those who disagree be prevented from doing everything in their power to stop it?
I mean, at what point would they stopped from protesting so loudly that the speaker cannot be heard or from disrupting proceedings so the talk cannot take place?"

Presumably at the point just before the speaker is drowned out or the meeting is stopped?

One of the American universities wrote an excellent letter to students about this. I'll see if I can find it.

I definitely think there should be free speech - but how will those who disagree be prevented from doing everything in their power to stop it?
I mean, at what point would they stopped from protesting so loudly that the speaker cannot be heard or from disrupting proceedings so the talk cannot take place?

We do have laws in place to stop people saying exactly what they want. But if it is not illegal, of course speakers at universities should be allowed to say it.

Senior figures in Sinn Fein were involved with terrorism. There are lots of 'legitimate political parties' in different countries which we wouldn't permit into the UK.

Ummmm Sinn Fein is already "permitted" as a legitimate political party in the UK. Northern Ireland is in the UK which is kinda the whole reason SF exists.

But anyway. A democracy requires free speech. We already have laws to distinguish free speech from hate speech, so if students disagree with a speaker's views they should either speak up or go home, not demand the speaker is barred from campus.

HolyShmoly - Having the EDL or Islamic hate preachers hold events on site, that often are aimed towards externals, not students, would make me uncomfortable

Well then you should be uncomfortable right now because that's already happening, at least as far as the Islamists are concerned.

'No platforming' is highly selective, in line with the weird identity politics of the neo-liberal left.

But free speech means free speech for everyone, not just those who agree with you.....

No 'but' about it. Free speech should lead to debate, not an echo chamber.

Comment piece from The Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snowflake-students-must-learn-how-to-argue-gnzm83stb?shareToken=c029de320bd2d16ce70cf3b80b9377ae

Spot on,

But free speech means free speech for everyone, not just those who agree with you.....

Julie bindel was no- platformed ?
For what?

She is eminently sensible.

Students who are no sensitive really shouldn't be at university at all.

"Sinn Fein are not the IRA pisacake, they're a legitimate political party. "

Well that's all a matter of opinion really isn't it. Senior figures in Sinn Fein were involved with terrorism. There are lots of 'legitimate political parties' in different countries which we wouldn't permit into the UK.

I was shocked to learn the NUS singled out Julie Bindel to no platform. Julie Bindel - how very dare they! I am far from agreeing with her on everything but she a tireless campaigner for women and a definite force for good in the world. I am so annoyed that young people are not prepared to listen and learn from seasoned campaigners like Bindel and Greer. What are they scared of - that they may learn something?

Hmm, in theory it's very good. In practice, SU's (which are separate from Uni's but will probably be expected to follow the same guidelines) tend to have anti-extremist policies for a reason.

Having the EDL or Islamic hate preachers hold events on site, that often are aimed towards externals, not students, would make me uncomfortable and could create massive backlash for the elected or employed officials that signed off on them.

Sinn Fein are not the IRA pisacake, they're a legitimate political party. But your reaction is a fairly good example of how context is key.

Surely you are not comparing people who happen to have an opinion that differs from student orthodoxy with murderous terrorists?

I can remember the Conservatives being quite passionate about no-platforming Sinn Fein and others back in the 1980s.

This is brilliant news. I hope he follows through with this and wasn't just sounding off.

There are a few comments under the article worrying that Islamic hate preachers will be allowed platforms. Some people don't seem to realise that they already are, while people like Maryam Namazie are no platformed for speaking against them.

Excellent

Good. Very good (Can't we have the more sensible Johnson as Foreign Sec?)

I suppose it would be too much to hope that the term 'safe space' reverts to what it should be (e.g. a women's refuge or rape crisis centre should be a 'safe space' for women) ?

That's really good news - I think universities are about trying to challenge your world view, both to help you grow and reinforce what you believe. If you never have to engage with ideologies you disagree with, you can never be sure exactly where you draw the line or really think through your position beyond "just because" which is pretty much faith based reasoning.

That is good news