Could you guys sign this parliament petition on free speech suppression in unis

There is no petition text. What are we signing for?

Assuming it is about free speech in universities, why do we need to sign a petition for action, when plans are already in place?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42481329

So happy the government is actually planning to do something about this. If the faculties are too spineless to ensure that speakers can address students who want to listen then clearly someone else has to do something.

We need to careful. Allowing students who hold extreme views to invite extremists in to reinforce their ideology is very different from allowing extreme views to be challenged through robust debate.

Does everyone have the right to go and hold a talk in a publicly funded school? What about at the AGM of a publicly funded bank? How about a publicly funded nursery? A publicly funded hospital? Student unions are allowed to invite or uninvite speakers as they please. You don't have a right to hold a talk on somebody else's property.

As to your second paragraph, the answer is political opportunism. The argument that because the Tories says there's a problem, there must be is a rather circular one. How many speakers have been banned by UK student unions this year? Can you list some examples?

It very rarely happens but again, why let facts get in the way?

In the instances that have concerned people, it has not been a case of someone demanding to speak at a university, having had no invite, and feeling they have the right to speak anywhere they please. The cases have been people who have been invited to events to speak and their invitations have been withdrawn due to the actions of other individuals who seek to censor them, usually because they simply disagree with their views.

If you've been invited to speak at a quasi-public body, an audience wishes to hear your views and your invitation is rescinded - I think such an act should be justified. If the invitation has been rescinded due to an attempt at censorship, then that is a restriction upon free speech in my view.



It's not just the Tories who are concerned. It's clear that the concern exists across the political spectrum.

I am not sure why you are trying to suggest that just because something is not frequent that it is not a problem that should be addressed. It has happened enough times to warrant concerns.

It's a total non-issue.

Apart from that student unions very rarely ban anyone from speaking. Yet people on here and in the media are claiming it happens on a weekly basis without any evidence whatsoever. Can anyone name five speakers banned in 2017 by student unions?

I presume that in order to get the required "evidence" you require, some form of survey would need to be conducted? It is therefore very fortuitous that someone has already done one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/14/90-percent-universities-restricting-free-speech-study-finds/

90% of universities have banned some form of free speech in the last year and speakers such as Germaine Greer, Eric Pickles and several UKIP MEPs were prevented from speaking. I was especially sad to see some Universities banning certain national papers and also preventing freedom of expression for fear of causing offence.

Such as what? It just seems to list university policies against racist and sexist speakers. You don't have a right to hate speech.

Clearly scale is an important issue. Very rarely do unions ban speakers from organisations not listed by the government as a terrorist linked or far right hate group.

Yet judging by the media and this place, you'd think it happened all the time.

Yes you have repeatedly said that many times now, I understand very well that you think scale is important. I have myself said several times now that I think this particular issue is important due to its nature (suppression of free speech) rather than having to have happen weekly, monthly, annually, whatever before I personally care about it. I don't think running over it again is of any real benefit - I understand your point but think it misses the issue, you presumably have read my point and ignored it in favour of repeating your own many times.

All these universities that have statements regarding racism, fascism, sexism etc. are making up a whole host of vague standards that are being applied outside the law to create a synthetic limited version of the real world. University is supposed to be a placed of intellectual discourse not a place of intellectual coddling - a place where these views can be said and then challenged. I mean, as an example I personally consider Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins to be proponents of hate speech, having (indirectly enough not to be prosecuted under the law) incited racial hatred. Most of the content of the Daily Mail is inciting hatred towards one group or another. A large proportion of it is also sexist. I think UKIP hold fascist views. I think all of the above could arguably be banned from speaking at events or in the case of the Daily Mail of being sold in shops on campus very legitimately under the rules of banning hateful things.

The problem is that the definition of what is hateful is in itself questionable, what seems clear to me may not seem clear to you and vice versa.

For instance you wouldn't want somebody to talk about supporting ISIS but should you also stop people from coming and talking about fighting ISIS? http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-college-london-union-reverses-decision-to-ban-macer-gifford-from-speaking-about-fighting-a6735856.html
Is 'Blurred Lines' a banger or in fact propagating sexism?
http://studentsunionucl.org/policy/up1303/motion-to-ban-blurred-lines-from-playing-in-uclu-spaces-and-at-uclu-events
Is it the sweet lovely Christian Union we're letting into the freshers fair, or a ringing endorsement of homophobia?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/10/10/oxford-college-bans-harmful-christian-union-freshers-fair/
Are we clapping down on elitism or are we destroying hundreds of years of historical tradition and recognition of achievement?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-votes-to-ban-elite-gowns-at-debates-7vxrd959t
Should we stop listening to anybody who doesn't share the same point of view as we do?
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/no-platform-bristol-student-union-roger-scruton-nus-freedom-of-speech-philosopher-a7404646.html

Some of these went through, some overturned blah blah but the whole point is that what seems hateful to one person can seem like madness to another person.
Add to that the fact that student unions tend to be run by fairly fringe individuals who have less than average views and you end up in a situation where what sounds like a lovely idea that we ban all hateful things is completely unrealistic. I think half the meetings I ever attended at Uni were only quorate for about 5 minutes and then dissolved into crazy motions.

Then of course in the big horrible world outside University you can find these views in completely unchallenged settings in newspapers, on TV, on the internet and so on.

So despite claiming that it happens all the time, you are unable to provide examples of it happening in 2017?

Student Unions very rarely ban speakers. I know that doesn't fit in with the narrative you are trying to push but it's the truth.

The fact that there have been 'concerns' does not meant those concerns are well founded or based on fact.

So despite claiming that it happens all the time, you are unable to provide examples of it happening in 2017?

Student Unions very rarely ban speakers. I know that doesn't fit in with the narrative you are trying to push but it's the truth.

The fact that there have been 'concerns' does not meant those concerns are well founded or based on fact.

Universities are supposed to promote free speech AND prevent hate speech/racism/bigotry on campus.

This article highlights the problem: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nine-10-uk-universities-free-speech-restrict-rankings-joseph-rowntree-cardiff-ediburgh-newcastle-a7577381.html

Just because something may not be very frequent (i.e. a speaker being banned every week) does not mean that it is not something that should concern people/be addressed.



See above - are you suggesting that because something is not frequent people should ignore it or not address it?



They are based on reported fact.

The article doesn't give examples of specific speakers who've been banned. It does what a lot of people seem to do and goes on about how there is a problem without providing any evidence that what they are saying is based on fact.

You were claiming before that unions banned speakers all the time and now your saying that the frequency doesn't matter.

So the article is just making all of that up?



Quote me where I said student unions ban speakers "all the time". I know that it is probably not every week a speaker is banned, but that does not mean the concern, as well as the general culture surrounding free speech as discussed in that Independent article, is not sufficient to warrant some intervention, in my view.

Please provide specific examples of speakers banned this year.

Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't mind if only one speaker was banned this year. 21 had been banned at the time of that Independent article and overall there were 129 bans in some form. You also have to look at banning speakers framed against this general culture of censorship within universities and student unions; it's not all about speakers - other things have been banned too.

I still don't understand the suggestion that just because something is infrequent means it should not be addressed, particularly if it is an on-going risk.

No. You're making the point that speakers are being banned regularly and you are totally unable to provide examples of speakers banned in 2017.

You seem to be opposed to backing up your argument with actual evidence. Do you have evidence that 21 speakers were banned? Who are those speakers?

This rather proves my point nicely. People love to push this narrative that speakers are being banned regularly yet there is absolutely no evidence that speakers are being banned by unions. Now you're making the point and asking me to try and get the evidence to support your point because you can't find it.

Name 5 speakers banned by unions in 2017.