President’s dithering over BNP a sign of weakness

The President of the Durham Union Society’s decision to stop a member of the BNP speaking in a debate has tarnished the Union’s image as an advocate of free speech and made him appear weak, according to a highly placed source within the Union.

Luke Wells, of St John’s College, who is President for the forthcoming term invited Richard Barnbrook, the BNP candidate for the London Mayoral election, to speak in the term’s first debate, “This House would ban extremist political parties”, only to later withdraw the invitation.

The source, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Palatinate that Mr Wells was initially “very much in favour of inviting him” and had approved the decision to extend an invitation to Mr Barnbrook.

Speaking to Palatinate last week Mr Wells explained that when the suggestion had first been made he had personal misgivings about it but was willing to be swayed either way in consultation”. In an email sent to General Committee over the Easter vacation, Mr Wells consulted its members for their opinions. The source, who is a senior member of the Union, explained that “although most were in favour of him speaking, the minority that disapproved were more vocal” in their opposition.

Wells spoke with the University Registrar and DSU who, whilst they did not support the BNP member coming to Durham, neither was against him taking part in a structured and well-argued debate.

Flo Herbert, DSU President, says: “My concern with the debate was that there were no strong speakers standing against the BNP candidate…I do not personally support anything that the BNP stand for, but I understand that having a debate in public, knocking down their arguments and exposing their assumptions is not in itself a bad thing”.

Recognising that some students would feel very uncomfortable with him speaking at the Union, Ms Herbert says that she stressed that this event could only work “with a good field of speakers and within clear boundaries”.

Mr Wells said that several speakers who had been invited to speak for the proposition declined their invitation, refusing to share a platform with Mr Barnbrook. Fearing that since he could not confirm speakers for the proposition who would be able to match the opposition speech he expected Mr Barnbrook to deliver, he therefore could not guarantee a balanced debate. He also said that since Mr Barnbrook would not have accepted that the BNP is an extremist political party he probably would not have aided the content of the debate.

After reading some of Mr Barnbrook’s speeches and quotes from BNP leader Nick Griffin which suggested he did not see the point to debates and reasoned discussion, Mr Wells concluded that “they were coming for publicity reasons, not to debate”, and so withdrew the invitation from the BNP.

The Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Chris Higgins, told Palatinate: “The Durham Union Society is a long-established, independent debating group which traditionally has a policy of promoting free speech. While not condoning any extremist views Durham University embraces freedom of expression and welcomes open and challenging debate on controversial issues.

“In the light of this, and, after considering the safety and security issues surrounding this proposed event, the University did not consider that there were any reasons for not allowing the debate to go ahead. The decision not to invite this particular speaker was made by DUS.

“Durham has been diverse university for many years, and we follow national guidelines on promoting good campus relations and on ensuring staff and students can live, study and work in a respectful and tolerant environment.”

The affair will inevitably rekindle events in Oxford last year when Luke Tryl (who actually spoke at the debate last Friday) caused controversy by inviting Holocaust denier David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin to a Union forum on the topic of free speech.

Asked if Wells’ action will be seen as stifling free speech the senior DUS member who first informed Palatinate of this affair said, “the Union Society has prided itself as having been a fierce advocate of free speech, but I am not sure we can say that anymore.” “There will always be one stronger side, that’s the nature of debating”. He criticised Wells for appearing to dither over the issue, and said that it has “shown him to be weak”. “If you choose a debate of this nature you should expect to provoke disagreement”.

He suggests that the solution if you a “scared of causing controversy” to “choose less contentious debates”. He also considered it to be ‘a dangerous precedent to set’, with future presidents inevitably thinking of this episode if they ever consider making a controversial invitation.

Wells admits that he has opened himself up to “criticism of censorship” and said that he should have carried out this consultation before sending the invitation, and if he had done so would not have invited Richard Barnbrook to speak at the Union. However, he denies that it sets a precedent for future presidents, something for which he had received the support of several members of the Union. President-elect, Will Day, told Palatinate: “I can assure toy that I will invite controversial speakers as and when they are relevant and appropriate to debate topics.”

Oliver Hyams echoed this saying: “With respect to setting a precedent, I feel that this is a misguided accusation. Each President has the ultimate decision of who should attend the Union and may or may not choose to take into account the views of Standing Committee and General Committee in doing so.” The Sponsorship Secretary continued, “There is no demonstrable causal link between Luke’s decision and that of any future President, since they do not have to take into account the views of those around them.”

Calum Jones, Tournament Secretary, said: “I am confident that Luke’s actions have the full support of the Union Society’s Standing Committee, and that your source’s misplaced criticism of Luke’s presidency is one not reflected by the Union’s senior figures.” However, some may question his explanation that “withdrawing the invitation prevented a backlash more significant than the one individual’s comments”, and think that the decision was taken to avoid unwanted publicity and vocal opposition of the sort that the Oxford Union experienced last year.

Palatinate contacted Mr Barnbrook and left a message on his answer phone, but was unable to get a comment before going to press. Any responses from him will be published online when and if they are given.