Why Indeed?

Alan Rushbridger is either thick or disingenuous.

The truth is that university chiefs around the world are currently terrified. They have witnessed the decapitation of Universities of Pennsylvania and Harvard and decided they don’t want to be next for the guillotine. And they are not only out to save their own skins. They have seen big-buck mega-donors threatening to indulge in their own form of divestment: stop the protests or we stop the cash.

It seems such a short time ago that the government was so worried about free speech on university campuses that they pushed through a new law guaranteeing it. And appointed a free speech tzar, Prof Arif Ahmed, to enforce it.

You’ll remember the general tone of much of the debate at the time. We had bred a generation of snowflake students who were constantly whining about the right not to be offended or triggered by hurtful remarks. They should get over their demands for “safe spaces” and, in common parlance, grow some.

Encampments that are actively harassing Jewish students and preventing the day to day running of the campus are not expressions of free speech. They are harassment and intimidation. Neither of which is a free speech activity. So that is why, Mr Rushbridger, free speech advocates are not defending them. It is because we have no time for antisemitic scumbags and their enablers who use the universities as a breeding ground for their poison, because we don’t like seeing the western world repeating scenes from 1930s Germany. That’s why. Even a half wit like Rushbridger should be able to work that one out, but apparently not.

Where is Prof Ahmed now? He is reported as saying that he would not pronounce on whether terms such as “global intifada” or slogans such as “from the river to the sea” are protected by the new legislation.

These are calls for genocide of the Jews. This is not free speech, it is a call for violence. Again, simple enough to comprehend. The encampments need to be shut down, the students taking part need to be expelled and if necessary criminal charges brought against the agitators, because actively campaigning on behalf of a terrorist organisation is a criminal offence.

Rushbridger is either thick or disingenuous, or maybe a bit of both.


  1. I’m pretty sure that he knows the difference between saying things that he disagrees with and incitement to murder coupled with direct intimidation of a minority. It’s the same deception as those who were pretending that the covid jab was the same as a regular vaccine and then equating anyone who had doubts with the anti-vaxers. Certain people, especially those on the left, can’t be straight and up front about anything. Their whole worldviews are built on fallacies and misconceptions and they are pretty much wrong about everything, so that isn’t really surprising.

Comments are closed.