Reposted from The Traditional Britain Group
The next ordinary meeting of the Traditional Britain Group will take place in central London on Friday, 11th March 2016. Our speaker will be Jacob Williams, founder of the Oxford magazine “No Offence”, a magazine banned by Oxford University Student Union for criticising abortion and defending the record of the British Empire. He is also involved with “Spiked” magazine.
Jacob’s address will will be on ‘Liberalism and Intolerance: The New Academic Censorshop.’ He will address the Traditional Britain Group on the growing tendency at British universities towards the intolerance and censorship of conservative viewpoints, arguing that the root cause is lack of exposure to conservative ideas, and suggest ways in which universities should be changed to address this problem.
Jacob Williams is concerned that “we have a generation who have grown up never having been exposed to ideas which contradict their ‘progressive’ and liberal assumptions” and who are therefore prepared to close down debate. He has been reported to police in the past by Politically Correct students opposed to his views.
The meeting will commence at 7.30 p.m. but members and their guests may arrive during the preceding hour. A full bar is available for drinks, and a collection to defray expenses will be taken.
The venue details will be sent to registered guests emails on the day of the meeting. It is located in the St James area, central London and is easily accessible via tube or bus services.
Some thoughts on this:
1. I agree with Williams that one of the reasons for liberal intolerance is a lack of exposure to alternative views. In most cases, it seems to be just simple ignorance.
2. I am outraged that a prestigious university – and Oxford, if you please – can hinder the free expression of views among its students by arbitrarily banning the distribution of a publication during a major event.
3. Does this ‘No Offence’ magazine promote or incite violence against specific individuals or groups? Does it contain defamatory material? I rather suspect neither, thus there is no legitimacy in the ‘ban’.
4. I accept that universities are private institutions and it is vital they retain autonomy from the state, but they can’t simply do as they please. They are indirectly funded by the state, via subsidised loans underwritten by the taxpayer. That could work both ways, and the intolerant liberal could argue that universities, being largely publicly-funded, should reflect the priorities of a multi-cultural society.
5. Universities have a legal duty to secure free speech on their property, under section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. On the other hand, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introduced what is known as the ‘Prevent duty’, which gives universities a proactive role in regulating speech, and I understand the government’s guidance is quite zealous in its interpretation of the statutory duty.