So, the planned debate at Durham University Debating Society has been called off after fears of violence.

Durham Union Society (DUS) today announced it had to cancel plans for the debate, entitled This House believes in a Multicultural Britain in Durham City.

Political commentator Kulveer Ranger and Tory MP Edward Leigh would have proposed the motion, while BNP MEP Andrew Brons and Leeds BNP councillor Chris Beverley would have spoken in opposition.

As shown below the only threats of violence come from the left. Also as predicted this latest intimidation is very likely to backfire on the establishment. People are beginning to tire of the all embracing thugery of the left wing anti free speech movement. Hope not Hate, who orchestrated this campaign and others such as UAF and the NUS but surely live in fear of the backlash.

Below are the full texts of two letters. The first from two NUS representatives, Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy (NUS Black Students' Officer, NUS Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism Convenor) and Daf Adley (NUS LGBT Officer, NUS Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism Committee) to the Durham Union Society. The second is a response to that letter from Tom Fletcher (University of Durham) to the NUS president Wes Streeting.

The letter from the NUS is stunning in it’s arrogance, containing open threats, intimidation, lies and distortions . One can only wonder at the irony of their clear use of fascist tactics. Clearly they believe themselves to be so far above the law and immune from any form of legal control that they don’t even bother to hide it any more.

As I said the whole letter is published below, but this will give you a little idea:

Should you fail to listen to our advice you will have a colossal demonstration on your hands. The National Union of Students, Unite Against Fascism, and other anti-fascist organisations are already mobilising nationally and organising coach loads of students to demonstrate at your university on Friday evening. This will no doubt bring with it a lot of negative media attention and if any students are hurt in and around this event responsibility will lie with you.

The response from Durham, whilst hardly flattering to the BNP, shows that some people at least still have the capacity to understand the democratic process. Indeed the level of their contempt for the NUS probably surpasses that of their dislike of the BNP.

Mr Streeting, I was unaware that NUS representatives were mandated to threaten Universities on behalf of the Union. Is this common practice? Is it normal for your representatives effectively to intimidate Universities into complying with NUS' views? Were you aware of such threats and as such do these two representatives actually speak for yourself and the whole Union in what they say?

Thanks to misterfox for the heads up on this.

Continue to the letters:

Letter sent to the VC, DSU and DUS by the NUS:

Dear Vice Chancellor, Students' Union and Debating Society,

Re: National Party invited to speak at "Debate on Multiculturalism" called by Durham Debating Society

In relation to the event that is to take place next week, we are writing to remind you of your duties to those students that are most affected by the threat of the British National Party. You are bound under Race Relations legislation to promote equality of opportunity, eliminate racial discrimination, as well as fulfil the requirements of your race equality policy. We can confidently tell you that inviting members of the British National Party to address your students does not fulfil these requirements and therefore you may bring legal consequences upon yourselves.

Andrew Brons was a member of the National Socialist Movement, a group deliberately founded on Hitler's birthday and responsible for a number of arson attacks on synagogues in the 1960s. He was also the chairman of the National Front (1980-1984) and co-edited their journal. The same Andrew Brons you would like to speak has been seen shouting "Death to Jews", "White Power" and when approached by a Black police constable said "inferior beings like yourself probably do not understand the principle of free speech". The other speaker you have invited, Chris Beverley, is the BNP's main liaison with the Nazi-influenced National Democratic Party in Germany and attended the European National Front in 2007.

This proposed event also poses a health and safety risk to a many of your students. Where the BNP have been active in the past, racist attacks have always increased. When the University of Oxford Union decided to invite BNP leader Nick Griffin to a "debate", students were victims of physical and verbal abuse leading up to and on the day of the event itself. The situation you find yourself in is not unique, but other universities have decided to put the welfare and equal opportunities of their students first and cancel such events.

Their electoral success is irrelevant, particularly when you recognise the abhorrent views they hold and the violent and illegal actions they and members of their organisation have been involved in. We are advocates of free speech and agree that people should be allowed to say whatever they want regardless of whether we agree with it or not, but we also recognise that with this freedom comes responsibility, and if their speech is to the detriment of others' safety, that freedom is negated. We expect you would not allow someone to speak on the right to bear arms on campus or paedophiles whose main message is that sex with minors is acceptable as long as they consent. Yet you would allow a group that thinks that a number of your students do not even have the right to be in this country headline your event.

We were also wondering if you were aware that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has concluded that the membership criteria of the BNP is in breach of human rights legislation. Currently their membership only allows 'white indigenous' people to join. Is this the type of organisation that the University of Durham supports and welcomes? Given the make up of your student body we find it quite shocking that the invitation was even sent. It is even worse that your institution gladly accepts the fees of Jewish, Muslim, LGBT and Black students, many of them on international fees, and yet have given little thought to their right to live and study free from the threat of violent discrimination.

The debating society should cancel this event and offer apologies for the offence that it has caused. Whilst we respect that the students' union cannot dictate to the debating society, it does have the right to impose sanctions on those students that knowingly engage in infringing on the equal opportunities of others. Ultimately it appears that the power in this situation lies with the university and we hope that you will act in the best interests of your students and cancel the event.

Should you fail to listen to our advice you will have a colossal demonstration on your hands. The National Union of Students, Unite Against Fascism, and other anti-fascist organisations are already mobilising nationally and organising coach loads of students to demonstrate at your university on Friday evening. This will no doubt bring with it a lot of negative media attention and if any students are hurt in and around this event responsibility will lie with you.

We would appreciate it if you could outline how you will now proceed with this issue and ensure that those students who are under threat from the BNP's racist and homophobic principles will be protected.

We await your prompt response.

Regards,

Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy

NUS Black Students' Officer

NUS Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism Convenor

 

Daf Adley

NUS LGBT Officer

NUS Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism Committee

Letter to Wes Streeting, NUS President RE: NUS Representatives' conduct over planned Multiculturalism Debate in Durham (05/02/2010)

Dear Mr Streeting,

I am writing to you to convey my utter disgust and contempt at the way in which your NUS Black Students and LGBT Representatives behaved and expressed their reservations about a planned debate within Durham University. I have attached a copy of the letter which they sent to our Vice Chancellor, Students' Union President and the President of the Union Society, in case you have not had the chance to peruse it.

This event was organised in order to encourage intellectual debate about multiculturalism in Britain. Whilst I understand both of your representatives clear hatred of the BNP --- it is a hatred which I too share --- it seems they rather missed the point of the event. Whether we like it or not, the BNP do now hold electoral seats both here and in Europe and their presence is very relevant to modern politics. Unless we wish to see a British version of France's 2002 Presidential Election where Le Front National were able to get through to the second round of the running, we cannot allow this attitude of "don't let them speak" to continue any longer. It is only through them spouting their ludicrous policies that people will come to see them for who they are. Of course you cannot eliminate them and it is my view that, unfortunately, fascism and prejudice will always exist in some communities. In these places, therefore, the BNP will continue to exist. However, the more they are allowed to speak and hang themselves, the more the wider population will vote against them. It is on this premise that they were invited to the debating society. They were not being "welcomed" to give a talk and there was no presupposed "validility" as far as any views they may have expressed were concerned. The point of the debate was to see whether they would be able to give their views any validility!

As well as missing the point, the way in which your two representatives expressed their reservations was massively inappropriate. For starters, the letter was riddled with inaccuracies. Allowing the BNP to come to Durham has nothing to do with Race Relations legislation, and as neither of your representatives are trained legal advisers, I am unclear as to what they thought gave them the authority to make such judgements. It also did not necessarily pose any health and safety risk. Testimonies from Oxford already affirm that it was the UAF protesters who caused the most damage and who verbally abused people. As somebody who also lives in Oxford, I can confidently assure you that the claims of increased verbal and physical abuse in the run up to the debate have been exaggerated. The only health and safety risk which I think would have existed was caused by the threat made by your representatives:

"Should you fail to listen to our advice you will have a colossal demonstration on your hands. The National Union of Students, Unite Against Fascism, and other anti-fascist organisations are already mobilising nationally and organising coach loads of students to demonstrate at your university on Friday evening. This will no doubt bring with it a lot of negative media attention and if any students are hurt in and around this event responsibility will lie with you."

Mr Streeting, I was unaware that NUS representatives were mandated to threaten Universities on behalf of the Union. Is this common practice? Is it normal for your representatives effectively to intimidate Universities into complying with NUS' views? Were you aware of such threats and as such do these two representatives actually speak for yourself and the whole Union in what they say?

As I understand it, the inverse is in fact the case. These people are supposed to be representing Durham students on a wider stage, not forcing the supposed views of the Union upon Durham. More to the point, which students did Mssrs Adley and Ribeiro think they were representing? Given the huge number of people who surged in support of the debate going ahead (within 3 days the group on Facebook reached 1,800 students, which is over 10% of our student body), many of those students being Jewish, Black, LGBT, Muslim etc..., it seems these representatives rather jumped the gun in presuming we all needed their protection from the BNP.

The NUS may have a no platform policy, but Durham University does not, and it is not the place of the NUS to try and force one upon us. If we had ever wanted one, we would have introduced one. Furthermore, it is not the place of the NUS to attempt to dictate to our Students' Union President whether or not she will try to enforce sanctions upon students who have organised an intellectual debate, supported by the University. Some of your affiliated institutions may require protection from BNP indoctrination, however, as students at one of the country's top Universities, I think I can confidently say that people who go to Durham do not require such protection. As a result, I fail to see how any part of these representatives' correspondence was appropriate.

As an LGBT Student myself, I am truly ashamed to have Daf Adley as my representative. It is this kind of impulsive, militant and aggressive stance on issues which actually achieves the inverse of the goals towards which minority groups strive. Forcing ideas on people and attempting to blackmail and threaten them into equality or any other kind of mindset achieves nothing, and actually gives the minority group concerned a worse name than before. If Mr Adley approaches his LGBT campaigning with the same sort of vitriol he approached this issue, I have very grave concerns about the effectiveness of the NUS LGBT Campaign.

As you will undoubtedly soon learn, as a result of this threatening correspondence, the debate has been cancelled. However, as you will also see, in response to the bullying tactics of your two representatives, there has now been a very large drive towards a second referendum on Durham University's disaffiliation from the NUS. I for one will now be throwing the full weight of my support behind such a move. Your representatives have shown me, and a great number of other students, that the NUS is an organisation which is only willing to represent you if you hold the same views as its representatives. I want nothing to do with a Union which does not support freedom of speech.

For your information, I will be publishing this letter on line. It does not constitute a formal grievance and therefore there is no reason why it should not be put into the public sphere.

Yours sincerely,

 

Tom Fletcher

St. Cuthbert's Society

University of Durham