Free speech is a right, but a platform is not

The OSFL debate is not about censorship, but about our right to express dissatisfaction about an event happening at our university.

The OSFL debate is not about censorship, but about our right to express dissatisfaction with an event happening at our university

Last week, students at Oxford University objected to a ‘debate’ hosted by a pro-life group entitled ‘This House Believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All.’

We’ve since been called Nazis and/or Stalinists, politically correct fascists, but most commonly, enemies of free speech.

This indicates a misunderstanding of what free speech actually entails. Some twitter users might be surprised to hear that actually, we understand that in a liberal society free speech is of course a fundamental right – but we also believe that this right can be dramatically misinterpreted.

If we accept the definition of freedom as the ability to perform an action without external constraint, then free speech is the ability to express opinions without government censorship. Free speech gives every individual the political right to speak without the state intervening.

We have a right to express our dissatisfaction about something happening in our university; Tim Stanley, Brendan O’Neill, and pro-life organizations have the right to express their dissatisfaction with the cancellation of their event.

It might be useful at this point to recap what actually happened, a narrative which has been drowned out by free-speech sensationalism. We organized a counter-event to voice our dissatisfaction with the framing of OSFL’s debate, and the exclusion of women’s voices from an issue about their bodies and choices.

We did not originally call for the event to be shut down by the college – we had intended to implement the no platform ourselves by popular protest. Ultimately, Christ Church decided to withdraw their platform and OSFL were forced to cancel the debate themselves when they could find no alternative venues to host their event.

No venue is obliged to host any debate, and the fact that no alternative venue was found does not constitute a violation of free speech.

We objected to the debate pre-supposing Britain’s ‘abortion culture’, a phrase that exposes the ‘objectivity’ of the debate to be pre-loaded with the anti-choice rhetoric of shame. It implies that abortion is a normalized and harmful social trend, creating associations with genuine social phenomena like ‘rape culture’.

This is a misleading implication which overwrites the experience of women, trans and non-binary people.

The right to be able to speak freely does not oblige anyone, especially not a private institution, to provide you with a platform – a means by which a person is able to talk, write, or otherwise communicate their opinions to an audience. Free speech is our right, but a platform is not.

One twitter user accused us of ‘intellectual cowardice’ for refusing to engage with the debate on OSFL’s terms, an attitude of entitlement which was incredibly common.

The right to say whatever you want, within the law, does not mean that any organisation must give you space to say it.

By choosing to host a speaker, an institution is always to some extent endorsing the terms of the debate, and vouching for the participants’ qualification to speak on a certain issue – O’ Neill and Stanley have little relevant lived experience to recommend them to speak about abortion other than their own opinions.

In Tim Stanley’s article, which has miraculously evaded the censorship of Oxford feminists to reach tens of thousands of readers, he refers to our ‘authoritarian’ mindset, our wish to ‘eradicate contrary ideas.’

This is a vast overstatement of the scope of our action: a small group of students do not have the right or the power to repress. Let’s consider the fact that Stanley was writing about his censorship in a national newspaper: he was denied a platform on one evening, at one specific place, in our university.

He is a powerful journalist with many platforms of his own. Criticism levelled at us has been characterized by the absence of any recognition of this balance of power.

Brendan O’Neill, among others, criticizes this generation of students for not being radical enough, for shrinking away from rather than challenging the establishment’s ‘orthodoxy’. The irony is that he is the establishment – and over the past week we have challenged his entitlement to speak for and over women.

To quote Tim Squirrell’s article on the OSFL controversy ‘We are challenging the claims of privileged men to have the right to speak wherever they want, whenever they want.’

I’m yet to read an objection to our opposition to OSFL’s debate that hasn’t been written by a cisgender white man. This generation of students and activists is standing up and saying that, for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of colour.

My generation is saying that we should understand how this act reinforces oppressive power structures and social hierarchies. And although this may be a repulsive idea to some, sometimes this involves rethinking our right to speak at all times, for all people, on any topic.

Niamh McIntyre and Anna Burn are students at Oxford University. Follow Niamh on Twitter

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

96 Responses to “Free speech is a right, but a platform is not”

  1. Esvg

    This is so perfect.

  2. ToryBoy

    There is absolutely nothing about the ‘right to free speech’ which entails protection only from the state. A right is merely something that imposes a duty on others; it does impose a duty on the state, but not only the state. It is entirely plausible that any group or individual can deny another’s right to free speech in a given situation- which you evidently did in this particular one.
    Secondly, a distinction between ‘free speech’ and a ‘platform’ is artificial and misleading at best and deliberately deceptive sophistry at worst. Denying someone a platform is inherently denying someone’s right to free speech. Free speech is continuous, not binary: if one took away all of a person’s platforms one would destroy their right to free speech. Successively denying their right to first a debate forum, then newspaper articles, then the Internet and finally interpersonal communication would indisputably deny their right to free speech.

    I have no doubt that you did what you did with the best intentions. It was a badly worded debate, and it is questionably illuminating that women were not involved. But what you did was fundamentally illberal and wrong.

  3. madasafish

    ’m yet to read an objection to our opposition to OSFL’s debate that hasn’t been written by a cisgender white man. This generation of students and activists is standing up and saying that, for too long, men have spoken over women, trans and non-binary people, just as white people have spoken over people of colour.

    Don’t understand this. Without looking up words.

    So written for a social elite.

  4. GhostofJimMorrison

    Trans and non-binary people…seriously who comes up with this absolute baloney! WTF is a non-binary person? Cisgender??? You do yourselves and your cause no favours by coming out with these here-today-gone-tomorrow terms. (By the way, I was once told at one of these compulsory ‘check your racism you bigoted white male’ seminars that the term ‘person of colour’ is offensive, outdated and should not be used)
    You also believe a private institution has the right to deny a person or group a platform. Quite right, too. But this isn’t just any private institution; it’s the university of Oxford for goodness sake!

  5. David Stringer

    The only technical terms are cisgender (not transgender) and non-binary (doesn’t fit into male or female categorisations).
    Both are terms that define something that breaks previous societal assumptions, and so are important even if they’re a little challenging. The general language of the article is perfectly easy to read.

  6. David Stringer

    It’s difficult to say which terms are genuinely ‘offensive’ – personally I’m of the opinion that how an individual of that group reacts is what’s important, so I dislike centralising definitions of what’s acceptable and what isn’t.
    The term ‘cis-gender’ comes from the fact that people who aren’t transgendered have historically not been defined in this way, so it’s a word invented to give a label to that experience.

  7. GhostofJimMorrison

    O’ Neill and Stanley have little relevant lived experience to recommend them to speak about abortion other than their own opinions.

    So because neither speak was born with a vagina they have neither the authority nor permission to discuss this subject? So the penis possessing John Stuart Mill had no right to publish ‘The Subjection of Woman? Just another dead white male in your eyes, I imagine.

    just as white people have spoken over people of colour.

    Oh the Masochism!

  8. David T

    I note that in the piece in the Independent, the author argued that:

    “As you can imagine, those of us with uteruses were incredibly angry that they were able to speak for and over us.”

    The reference to uteruses has gone from this article. Perhaps that’s because it didn’t sit particularly well with the “name check bingo” mention of “the experience of women, trans and non-binary people.”

    Transwomen and many non-binary people will not have uteruses, of course.

    Why mention trans and non-binary people at all in this context? Simple. This writer actually has no coherent argument. Just a series of slogans.

    I’m amazed she passed Prelims.

  9. David T

    I’m a supporter of abortion rights.

    I note that there is a demand for sex selection abortions, where the foetuses aborted are more likely to be female than male.

    I don’t regard foetuses as persons with equivalent moral rights. However, I’d have thought that somebody who worried about “the exclusion of women’s voices” and “bodies and choices” might stop and pause a tiny bit over practices which will result in a larger number of male babies being born and female babies not coming to term.

  10. sparky

    I wonder how you’d feel if you were staging a debate entitled ‘It is a woman’s right to choose abortion’ and two male students managed to get the debate cancelled.

  11. Esvg

    What is that question even getting at??

  12. Its Me .

    The law limits free speech . If it is not against the law , then all opinion should be free to be voiced . It is only through dialectic discussion that mad , bad and ugly ideas are confined to history . I am left bemused as to most of your objections , they lack coherency . However , as it wasnt your intention to get the discussion banned , I trust you will campaign for it to now go ahead.

  13. Scott

    “I’m yet to read an objection to our opposition to OSFL’s debate that hasn’t been written by a cisgender white man”. So, if I interpret you correctly, only people of a certain race and/or gender are worth listening to. Hmm, now where have I heard that argument before…?

  14. Ah,

    Then you interpret wrongly.

  15. Scott

    Then please clarify. Why should the race and/or gender of the people making the arguments matter? Shouldn’t the arguments stand on their own?

  16. Well

    It’s not a case of equating argumentative value with a particular minority or majority group, rather, suggesting that the objections’ exclusive writership being a group of several privilege – white, male, cis – is symptomatic of the original author’s whole point that those insisting on “absolute free speech” are the very privileged and vociferous. That is, the race/gender etc. of the voices of the argument matter because the whole argument is about how privileged normative voices are and how suppressed marginal voices are.

  17. Scott

    Well, I’m not sure how the author knows the racial/gender
    background of everyone who had a criticism of her shutting down the debate, since there were so many. It’s interesting how the “suppressed” voices in this instance were the ones doing the censoring – heaven forbid they ever find themselves in positions of real power. And one of the ‘privileged’ voices they managed to silence – Brendan O’Neill, the cis white male – was going to give quite an impassioned pro-choice defense (you can read it here – http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-i-am-pro-choice/16221#.VG_Ws9LwuWw)

    That’s the problem I guess with using race/gender as an
    excuse to stifle or ignore debate – you might rob yourself the chance of hearing something useful.

  18. ...

    I think the possibly positive individual force of the content of a speech by a privileged voice is displaced by the wider-reaching negative force of the action and exercising of that privilege; there is more value in questioning and disprivileging normative and entrenched structures of oppressor/oppressed than in what necessarily uninformed views of these male speakers might have had to say. Hence why the no-platforming of this skewed privilege was more important than the very time- and location-specific “freedom” of the voices of these already very free white, male, cis voices. I mean, both the speakers subsequently voiced themselves in national publications – you demonstrate that – precisely because of their privilege and vociferousness; so anything they had to say was said. The debate was not ‘stifled’ by race/gender etc as ‘excuses’, rather, the debate was protested against to say and do something very significant about those privileges.

  19. Scott

    So it seems my original interpretation was correct – white males should not be listened to: their voices are “displaced by the wider-reaching negative force of the action and exercising of that privilege”. Swap out ‘white’ or ‘male’ with any other race/gender and what would we call your view? Sexism, racism. You can dress it up as prettily as you like, but that’s what it boils down to.

    “Necessarily uninformed views”? Men are the ones almost exclusively involved in fighting wars – does that mean women shouldn’t get a say? Should we only ask the people whose loved ones have been murdered whether there should be a death penalty?

    The debate was not simply protested against – it was shut down. The debate was quite literally stifled. True, they had alternative methods to express themselves, but only because you lacked the means to shut those down. What if you had such means? If you lack the principle of allowing uncomfortable speech at a micro level, what happens when ‘marginalized’ groups get the power they hope for? Is it any wonder people are uncomfortable supporting such groups?

  20. Norfolk29

    I had hoped this area of human disagreement had been resolved. As a Catholic at the time (1967?) I had expressed the rights of people who wished to practice abortion as something that the Catholic Church had no right to object to and was considered a bad Catholic. I also approved of Divorce and Birth Control and soon found myself abandoning the Catholic Church. Religious denomination was not mentioned in the article but I cannot see any reason for disapproving of abortion except on religious grounds. At one time the State considered it owned our bodies and our lives and prosecuted anyone who attempted suicide. Those days are over, as are the days when anyone, especially a man, ought to tell any woman how to treat her body.

  21. Smell the BS

    Engaging with the bogus terminology that these pseudo-intellectual hobbyists employ (cissexist, non-binary, rape culture, patriarchy, and so on) is like agreeing to play a game of chess with modified rules where your opponent is allowed to make up the rules as they go along, while you are not. I.e. it will lead you nowhere. The ideas and terminology they throw around all come from a very narrow, very select clique of parasites, all of whom hate the West and have been working since the end of WWII to poison the intellectual well of Western thought. Better to conserve energies to take on more intellectually honest adversaries and leave this travelling circus to its own devices.

  22. Smell the BS

    Engaging with the bogus terminology that these pseudo-intellectual hobbyists employ (cissexist, non-binary, rape culture, patriarchy, and so on) is like agreeing to play a game of chess with modified rules where your opponent is allowed to make up the rules as they go along, while you are not. I.e. it will lead you nowhere. The ideas and terminology they throw around all come from a very narrow, very select clique of parasites, all of whom hate the West and have been working since the end of WWII to poison the well of Western thought. Better to conserve energies to take on more intellectually honest adversaries and leave this travelling circus to its own devices.

  23. ...

    So that response is quite reductive in many senses: it reduces the points I’ve made back into your own configuration of ‘white males should not be listened to’, that’s clearly a reductive simplification of the nuance I’m positing and is symptomatic of why your initial interpretation was accordingly reductive; it reduces the nuance of the specific situation being discussed to an ill-fitted analogy of ‘only men fight wars’ (I’m not trying to reduce you here, I’m just trying to paraphrase for brevity) – analogies rarely work in that an analogy expunges all the specificities of the original (and, here, it is the specificities that are really central), and instead posit an apparently similar argument that can be more readily broken down, it’s called strawmanning, and it has no place in such a highly wrought point as is being discussed here; and it reduces the very specific situation of the protest, JCR motion and Christ Church college procedure into ‘it was shut down’ and ‘literally stifled’ – so many “free speech woo” responses emerge from a point of generalisation that seems to forget the whole nexus of reasons and parties and things that were the involved in the happening/non-happening of the debate. It’s the very misplaced and unhelpful reduction that this article and many of the original article’s defendants keep trying to stress as problematic. Also, your closing hypothetical sort of undercuts itself: the whole point is they these speakers DID have alternative means and the marginalised DO NOT. That is because of those normative, latent, self-perpetuating oppressions that I say there is great value in trying to expose, question and subvert. Asking ‘what happens’ if the marginalised were not marginalised is very pertinent; we don’t know, because they are entrenchantly oppressed in the self-perpetuation of what I’m arguing against.

  24. Scott

    You say the marginalised do not have an alternative means to express themselves – are we not responding to an article publicized to give voice to those marginalised groups? And unless I’m mistaken about the law, abortions are legal & easily accessible, and being pro-choice is the prevailing view. Which begs the question: who is the marginalised group? Who is privileged and who is not? It seems those classifications could change dramatically depending on what is being discussed and who is discussing it – as you say, it is nuanced, and there could be a nexus of parties and reasons and things involved. Which means that if important decisions (like who gets to hold a debate, who has a right to talk about this or that issue) are
    based on very complicated, difficult-to-define terms, then those with the power to make those decisions are extremely likely to abuse those terms & that nuance to advance their own agendas. It’s the classic excuse of the tyrant – this newspaper must be shut down, these protestors arrested, in order to guarantee the safety of the people. If you have a clear guide, not based on nuance – say, allowing everyone to speak regardless of how unpopular their opinion – then it’s a lot
    easier to avoid, you know, tyranny.

    There has been a dramatic swing in the gay-rights movement in the United States. The goals of this marginalized group have become increasingly mainstream in the past ten years, and not because
    anti-gay voices were shouted down but because they were given free reign to voice their bigoted opinions. People had the chance to listen to their views, digest them, and decide they were crazy. If, however, the religious right had been forced to keep quiet, the debate would never have happened, minds would not have opened, things would have become much more bitter. Encouraging debate among all groups, promoting it at every opportunity, is essential for exactly
    this reason.

  25. Esvg

    You keep co opting points to align with your argument. Yes privilege is nuanced but only in that it intersectional; i.e. placing someone on a a “privileged scale” is problematic because is works on umpteen axes and the lines of privilege intersect in one heterogeneous person. Nevertheless, where privilege exist on a particular axis is rarely indeterminable, and, to return, as I urge, to the specificities of this argument, these two men are the embodiment of privilege. Hence, who “gets to discuss” – to use your (perhaps slightly reductionist) diction – based on their degree of marginality and privilege does ebb, complexly, ‘depending on what’s being discussed’, but here the loci of privilege and the reason why that privilege being the upheld voice is problematic are both fairly pre-evident. And the use of tyranny – and the constant discourse of the authoritarian and fascist levelled at the author and her agreers – is a real problem: the woman who wrote this is not a government or a power of enormous tyrannical weight, she is a student, and evidently to some extent privileged and to some extent not. Of course micro-aggression and grass-rootism is significant, but to align the no-platforming of this debate with tyranny is, well, simultaneously reductivist and over-the-top. In fact, you use the example of tyrants shutting down papers; I’m pretty sure that’s not akin to the authors endeavours. I can’t profess much knowledge of the content of your last paragraph, though, again, it seems to move away from the point of the article(s) in trying to find an example to argue against it. The lexis of your polemical closing sentence, with its ‘all’ and ‘every’ and ‘essential’ emerges from the absolute free speech standpoint, and you return to the tired and abstract ‘debate opens minds’ argument. Sometimes it might, which is why almost always allowing platform for free speech is sensible, but the value of this abstract possibility of mind-opening is displaced by the pernicious effects it may have; when free speech is platformed so as that the oppressed can speak out against the oppressors it’s very useful, when “free speech” is used in its abstract absoluteness to give further voice to the voicifereous and further silence the silent very bad things happen. That’s why UK law allows the curtailment of free speech ‘in the interests of’ ‘public safety’, ‘the protection of health or morals’, ‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’.

  26. Leon Wolfeson

    If someone is constantly breaking the law, why not?
    Free Speech in the UK is not the right to say whatever you want, it is “no prior restraint”.

    Moreover, you are inventing a right of access which does not exist. It would make i.e. the Telegraph’s paywall illegal.

  27. Guest

    It’s a private institution. You’re trying to draw lines which don’t exist because YOU are offended.

    And no surprise about the rant there, the author made a mistake by giving you the ammunition to show your bigotry.

  28. Leon Wolfeson

    Evidently he feels offended that the debate was cancelled based on who GOT it cancelled. Subjective merits.

  29. Guest

    Yea, it’s called the “British”.

  30. Guest

    Yea, you talk to only your kind! Why are you posting here again?

  31. Scott

    Well, I think we’re at an impasse. I certainly recognize that groups have been and continue to be marginalized, but I strongly disagree with any solution to this problem that prioritizes the expression of one group/class/race/gender over another, which this talk of privilege seems to dance around. I believe solutions to these issues must bubble up from the bottom – which requires vigorous debate – rather than being dictated by whatever group determines who does or does not have the “loci of privilege”.

    And yes, the talk of tyranny is an exaggeration, but with a point – authoritarian ideas, like racist or sexist ideas, must be called out wherever they’re encountered, whether they affect 2 people or 2 million.

  32. Just Visiting

    I know Oxbridge students may speak a more complex sentence pattern than most of us: but there is still the wise principle: that you should take your readership into account when framing your argument – not just use ‘your own style’.

    Niamh and Anna are not even typical oxbridge students: but ones that are (a) highly politically minded (b) think it’s OK to be active in deciding what other people may debate or not.

    Listen to the some of the weirdness: (forgive me Fisking here)

    > free speech is the ability to express opinions without government censorship

    No, that is far too narrow. I’m sure Niamh and Anna would have something to say on whether British private-sector newspapers are exercising free speech, in all they say that is not government censored.

    > We did not originally call for the event to be shut down by the college – we had intended to implement the no platform ourselves by popular protest.

    There’s a classic use of complex language when simpler would do. These words:

    > intended to implement the no platform ourselves

    Must mean something like : “We did aim to prevent the event happening. We intended to prevent the college hosting the event (no matter what their wishes) by means of large numbers of people protesting making it physically impossible to go ahead”.

    Some might have a view that such large ‘popular protests’ may sometimes have the effect of a lawless mob: certainly if a college is forced to not hold a legal event: that is some distance from a liberal, democratic approach debate.

    Next revealing statement:

    > We objected to the debate pre-supposing Britain’s ‘abortion culture’, a phrase that exposes the … It implies that abortion is…

    But in reality, many debates have rather tabloid titles: to generate some interest and attention; and they often have titles that contain short-hand, like these from the Oxford Union: “This House Believes That the State Should Promote British Values”, or “This House Believes That We Are All Feminists Now”; or “Socialism Debate | Does it work?”

    Another silly point:
    > By choosing to host a speaker, an institution is always to some extent endorsing the terms of the debate, and vouching for the participants’ qualification to speak on a certain issue.

    Not true.
    Did the Oxford Union endorse Russell Brand when he spoke there?”
    Or Laurence Kotlikoff – (Third party US presidential candidate in 2012 election)?
    Or Tessa Jowell ?

    And lastly, a sentence that looks intended to deceive:

    > This is a vast overstatement of the scope of our action: a small group of students do not have the right or the power to repress.

    Adding on ‘the power’ sounds like they are suggesting: no matter what a ‘small group’ does, it can’t be considered repression.

    Hence they can paint themselves as the good guys here, that their use of bullying must not be considered anti-free-speech at all.

    Humm.

    PS: Niamh’s tweet rather gives away her bias:
    > oh my god as well as Transgender Day of Rememberance apparently its also #InternationalMensDay . i despair

    Yes, she does think half the human race have no right to be thought about for one day a year.

  33. Just Visiting

    > I had hoped this area of human disagreement had been resolved.

    There are still laws in countries like the UK about abortion: how late it may occur.
    That it should not be done based on the gender of the child (or is that last not actually in law: just a ‘British value’ we Brits would support?

  34. Just Visiting

    agreed. “First they came for the Jews” etc

  35. Just Visiting

    your statement makes little sense: a ‘social elite’ in the UK can clearly not be so widely defined as the ‘British’.

    Perhaps you can explain your view a little more.

  36. Just Visiting

    Niamh’s twitter shows her retweeting this:

    > they could have had the debate in the street somewhere. They were denied a platform, not physically gagged.

    But in reality: why would Niamh want to prevent one platform and allow another? If another college had agreed to hold the debate, would she really have not gone after that college too to close it?

    Clearly if you want to silence a debate, you want to silence a debate and it is rather untruthful to claim it is just about one single platform.

  37. Leon Wolfeson

    Your argument is that if you allow one debate you must allow them all.

    Which is ridiculous. It’s always something subject to moral values, for any particular location. You are objecting because this time it’s a debate you wanted to happen, no more.

  38. GhostofJimMorrison

    Well I’ll be a son of a gun! I actually agree with everything you’ve just said here Wolfey!

  39. GhostofJimMorrison

    Or perhaps it wasn’t actually you, Wolfman!! I should’ve known!

  40. Mary Lee

    This is complete bulls***. Let’s imagine the tables were turned, shall we? ….And turn they will, you can be sure of it.

    Love,
    An educated secular pro-life woman

  41. Mary Lee

    Abortion advocates have nothing *but* slogans, and excuses. They have not one compelling, indisputable argument….not one. They must rely on slogans and excuses. Also strawmen, ad hominem attacks, euphemisms, and tantrums.

  42. Mary Lee

    If abortion only involved a woman’s body, nobody would give a damn.

  43. Sparky

    That’s not Wolfey. The vocabulary and sentence construction are totally wrong.

  44. SarahAB

    http://hurryupharry.org/2014/11/18/abortion-debate-cancelled-forl/

    I objected, and I’m female (though cisgender and white).

  45. Smell the BS

    My ‘own kind’ is the vast majority of right-thinking people. And I wasn’t aware this was a members only club.

  46. Norfolk29

    I know there are places in the world where a person exists from the point of conception and that all the miscarriages and failures of foetuses aborted by nature are the fault of god, may his son forgive him. The rest of us accept a woman’s right to decide on what to do in sometimes very difficult circumstances. It is not the right of anyone else to decide for her, and that includes you and me and everyone else.

  47. Mary Lee

    Most abortions–the majority–are not committed in “very difficult circumstances,” but rather on healthy babies. Policy should never be based on hard cases–indeed, in other issues, it is not. Yes, it is up to us to prevent the killing of innocent human beings. Logic and science (not religion) tell us that our unborn sons and daughters are persons, and cannot be anything else. To claim otherwise is a ruse to dehumanize these little human beings with their own bodies. There is no such thing as the right to kill your own child. It does not exist.

    And if there are so many “very difficult circumstances” (quite a broad statement, meaning nothing, really, just another excuse), why are abortion advocates not doing anything to improve circumstances, instead of insisting abortion is always the best and only “choice”…..? Why pit mother against unborn child? What good can ever come from that? There is a difference between equality and supremacy. Abortion advocates don’t understand the difference, not between these, nor the difference between true liberty and mere license.

  48. damon

    It sounds like the writers of this piece think that they should have a veto on what is publicly discussed at the university. And that if you don’t go along with their ”women, trans and non-binary people” ideas, then you can’t expect to be allowed to speak out in public.
    They didn’t like the term ”abortion culture” – which is fair enough.
    But I suspect they wouldn’t have allowed a discussion about ”rape culture” either, if the debate was going to be about whether such a thing existed or not.

  49. Guest

    You’re funny. In a bad way.

    I don’t hate the West like you.

  50. Guest

    It’s written in English. For the British.

    Madrasafish is from a different system.

Leave a Reply