DOCSLIB.ORG

NUS Black Students' Campaign Preventing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NUS Black Students' Campaign Preventing 2 Editor Acknowledgements Yusuf Hassan, FOSIS VP Student Affairs Shelly Asquith, NUS VP Welfare Piers Telemacque, NUS VP Society & Citizenship Ibrahim Abdille, NUS Black Students’ Campaign Abdullah Geelah, NUS Black Students’ Campaign Aadam Siciid-Muuse, NUS Black Malia Bouattia, Students’ Campaign Zarah Sultana, NUS Black NUS Black Students’ Students’ Campaign Shabina Raja, NUS National Officer Executive Council Assistant editors Hajera Begum, Samayya Afzal, NUS London Black Students’ NUS NEC, Society & Citizenship Officer Rep Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the contents of the handbook are accurate, changes may occur which dates some of the information, in addition to the possibility of human error. The contents may not necessarily reflect the policy of NUS or the NUS Black Students’ Campaign. No part of this publication may be reproduced without express permission of the editor. Please note: None of the information contained within should be taken as legal advice. www.nusconnect.org.uk/winning-for-students/black © Malia Bouattia 2015 NUS HQ, Macadam House, 275 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8QB [email protected] 2 “For too long, we have been a Those on our campuses suffering from the passively tolerant society, saying to sharpest forms of state repression will find our citizens: as long as you obey the their oppression further institutionalised. law, we will leave you alone. The already suffocating restrictions on … This Government will conclusively international students will be multiplied, turn the page on this failed approach” while for Muslim students there truly will be David Cameron, May 2015 no respite from the storm of Islamophobia that greets them in every other Since its introduction in 2006, the section of society. shadow of the PREVENT ‘counter-extremism’ strategy In the face of mounting and has grown wider and darker. widespread condemnation of the strategy – including a wave The government claims that of discontent from the student PREVENT is key to defending the movement – the government has UK public against terrorism by only pressed on and increased its monitoring for potential ‘radicalisation’. In backing for PREVENT, and this can only be reality, PREVENT has only consigned more taken as a sign of desperation. and more actions, thoughts and beliefs to It’s clear that now, the only option left is to the murky realm of ‘extremism’, legitimised build on this momentum to carry on the racist and Islamophobic profiling, and been fight and finally dismantle PREVENT. used to outlaw and suppress dissent against The issue facing us is not new: PREVENT has the government’s domestic and foreign haunted our communities for nearly a policy decisions. decade now. What we need now are new ways of voicing Colleges and universities, which should be this opposition, and new tactics of dissent. grounds for challenging the status quo and envisioning a better society, have found With this handbook we can equip you with themselves enveloped by the same climate an understanding of the history of PREVENT of censorship and suspicion that PREVENT and with the tools to challenge and has brought to every other sphere in which deconstruct the failed strategy. The national it is active. campaign against PREVENT will, however, only develop from campaigns at the local The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act level - inspiring cases of agitation by 2015 placed PREVENT on a statutory basis students, teachers and communities alike. for the first time, meaning that specified We hope to see many campuses resist - it’s institutions including nurseries, colleges and time to strike back against PREVENT, and universities must implement and integrate affirm that we are Students, not Suspects! the strategy as a legal requirement. In unity Malia Bouattia NUS Black Students’ Officer 3 Contents Page What has the response been to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act? Page 36 Timeline of Counter-terrorism in the CTS Act on campuses Page 41 UK Page 4 Further Education Page 41 Higher Education Page 43 Section: The PREVENT agenda What Is PREVENT? Page 7 Section: Preventing PREVENT The history of PREVENT Page 8 on our campuses PREVENT 2006 Page 9 What does the Prevent duty look like in PREVENT 2009 Page 10 practice? Page 45 PREVENT 2011 Page 11 How could speaker events be affected? Key terminology of PREVENT Page 13 Page 47 10 reasons to oppose PREVENT Page 14 Student Unions: What are your Channel Page 15 obligations? Page 48 What is Islamophobia? Page 17 Charity Commission Page 49 How is PREVENT Islamophobic? Page How can NUS support you? Page 50 18 Preventing PREVENT: the counter- PREVENT: A Cold War against Muslims? campaign Page 51 Page 19 Gaining the support of the student PREVENT case studies Page 20 population Page 52 What has PREVENT actually achieved? Gaining the support of SUs Page 53 Page 22 Gaining the support of teachers Page Evaluating PREVENT Page 24 54 Challenging the PREVENT narrative Lobbying the institution Page 55 Page 25 Dealing with the Prevent duty as an Why does the government continue officer Page 55 with PREVENT? Page 26 Campaign planning Page 58 What’s in a word? The language of Charity Law and Trustee Boards Page PREVENT Page 27 61 What’s the threat from PREVENT? Page 28 Section: Resources Why are Universities and Colleges a Boycott PREVENT – model motion Page focus for PREVENT? Page 29 63 Where does the Charity Commission fit Model letter to your institution’s in? Page 31 Registrar/Chief Operating Officer – Page 65 Section: Counter-Terrorism Contacts Page 66 and Security Act Frequently Asked Questions Page 68 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act Recommended reading Page 69 2015 Page 33 4 Timeline of Counter- terrorism in the UK February 2001: Terrorism Act 2000 UK's first permanent, globally-focused counter-terrorism legislation (previous legislation mostly concerned with Northern Ireland situation) Introduces powers of proscription (government bans) of organisations Expands legal definition of Terrorism to actions which may include ‘religious or ideological motivations’ as well as political ones. September 2011: 9/11 Co-ordinated attacks by Al-Qaida operatives on the United States; December 2001: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act passenger planes hijacked and flown into 2001 landmarks including World Trade Centre, Wide-ranging expansion of counter-terrorism measures; Pentagon increases police powers, regulation of communications providers to retain data, indefinite detention of non- British terrorist suspects and more. Replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Early 2003: CONTEST launched First version of the UK government’s CONTEST (COuNter TErrorism STrategy) strategy released as a confidential government document (never March 2003: Invasion of Iraq publicly released) Invasion launched by coalition including US and UK military forces to depose Saddam Hussein. 21 days of combat operations give way to a protracted occupation by Western forces. March 2005: Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Allows 'Control Orders' to be imposed on individuals: can include house arrest, restrictions on movement and on whom they can meet and communicate with. ‘Derogating control orders’ permits Home Secretary to impose restrictions violating ECHR Human Rights Act. Replaced by Terrorism Prevention and Investigation July 2005: 7/7 London attacks Measures Act 2011 Four co-ordinated suicide bombing attacks on London public transport system, targeting the underground train system and a bus. First suicide bombing attack in UK. August 2005: Prime Minister’s 12-point plan Speech by Tony Blair outlines 12 new measures to counter terrorism, announcing that “the rules of the game are changing”. Points include new powers to shut down mosques, biometric immigration measures, August 2005: Unacceptable Behaviours list extending the duration of detention-without-trial Outlines non-criminal activities for which of terrorism suspects and new citizenship- Home Secretary can deport/exclude non- stripping powers. British citizens from UK. Includes writing or A number of the points fail to come to fruition or distributing material expressing views which are struck down as illegal in court. seek to “provoke others to serious criminal acts; or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.” March 2006: Terrorism Act 2006 Criminalises more activities relating to terrorism, including new ‘glorification crimes’ of praising terrorist March 2006: Identity Cards Act 2006 acts and indirectly encouraging them, as well as the Introduces National Identity Cards scheme linked to dissemination of texts that could be used in preparation National Identity Register, an extensive database of terrorist acts. Extends state powers to ban groups. including biometric data and residency information for registered individuals Repealed with Identity Documents Act 2010 5 July 2006: CONTEST 2006 launched/PREVENT introduced Update of CONTEST released, first semi-public version. Introduces PREVENT as part of the strategy, focusing solely on ‘Islamist terrorism’ and ‘building resilience to extremism’ within Muslim communities. November 2008: Counter-terrorism Act 2008 Greater police powers for data collection, February 2009: CONTEST 2 leaked permits use of secret ‘intercept evidence’ in Leaked version of updated CONTEST terrorism trials. Longer terrorism sentences. strategy and updated PREVENT, would Amends definition of ‘terrorism’ to include have drastically expanded definition of those acts with a racial cause (e.g. white ‘extremism’. New
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nus Conference Report
    Council Agenda item 12 28th April 2008 Imperial College Union NUS CONFERENCE REPORT A note by the President Introduction Nine students of Imperial College gave up 3 days that they will never see again to represent the views of this Union at NUS Conference in Blackpool. The purpose of this report is to provide you with a brief overview of how we got on and to give you a flavour of the sort of things that go on at this bizarre meeting. Our delegation Eight delegates were elected by cross campus ballot along with the 2008/09 Sabbatical Officers to attend conference. I attended as ex-officio delegation leader as per the NUS and ICU constitutions. 2 of the delegates elected were unable to attend due to a change in circumstances. One of these was replaced by Jess Marley and this substitution was reported to the last Council. Another replacement had to be found around 18 hours before the registration deadline closed so after a lot of scrambling around Alex Grisman kindly agreed to join our delegation. This meant that we did not have any vacancies and thus our final delegation was • Stephen Brown • Ashley Brown • Kirsty Patterson • Alex Grisman • Jess Marley • Liz Hyde • Jen Morgan • Victoria Gibbs • Camilla Royle Conduct of delegates Eight delegates were flawless and they are to be congratulated on attending a meeting which ran on to 11pm at night. 1 delegate however disobeyed the Union Constitution and the democratically decided will of Union Council by voting against the NUS governance reforms on behalf of Student Respect, a hard left political grouping active within NUS and will now be subject to a disciplinary motion at the next meeting of Council.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of LIFESTYLE ACTIVISM from New Left to Occupy
    THE RISE OF LIFESTYLE ACTIVISM From New Left to Occupy NIKOS SOTIRAKOPOULOS The Rise of Lifestyle Activism Nikos Sotirakopoulos The Rise of Lifestyle Activism From New Left to Occupy Nikos Sotirakopoulos Loughborough University United Kingdom ISBN 978-1-137-55102-3 ISBN 978-1-137-55103-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-55103-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947743 © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2016 Th e author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identifi ed as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Th is work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and trans- mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Th e publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Left Antisemitism
    “David Hirsh is one of our bravest and most thoughtful scholar-activ- ists. In this excellent book of contemporary history and political argu- ment, he makes an unanswerable case for anti-anti-Semitism.” —Anthony Julius, Professor of Law and the Arts, UCL, and author of Trials of the Diaspora (OUP, 2010) “For more than a decade, David Hirsh has campaigned courageously against the all-too-prevalent demonisation of Israel as the one national- ism in the world that must not only be criticised but ruled altogether illegitimate. This intellectual disgrace arouses not only his indignation but his commitment to gather evidence and to reason about it with care. What he asks of his readers is an equal commitment to plumb how it has happened that, in a world full of criminality and massacre, it is obsessed with the fundamental wrongheadedness of one and only national movement: Zionism.” —Todd Gitlin, Professor of Journalism and Sociology, Columbia University, USA “David Hirsh writes as a sociologist, but much of the material in his fascinating book will be of great interest to people in other disciplines as well, including political philosophers. Having participated in quite a few of the events and debates which he recounts, Hirsh has done a commendable service by deftly highlighting an ugly vein of bigotry that disfigures some substantial portions of the political left in the UK and beyond.” —Matthew H. Kramer FBA, Professor of Legal & Political Philosophy, Cambridge University, UK “A fierce and brilliant rebuttal of one of the Left’s most pertinacious obsessions. What makes David Hirsh the perfect analyst of this disorder is his first-hand knowledge of the ideologies and dogmata that sustain it.” —Howard Jacobson, Novelist and Visiting Professor at New College of Humanities, London, UK “David Hirsh’s new book Contemporary Left Anti-Semitism is an impor- tant contribution to the literature on the longest hatred.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversion Tactics
    Diversion Tactics U N D E R S T A N D I N G M A L A D A P T I V E B E H A V I O R S I N R E L A T I O N S H I P S Toxic people often engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Abusive people may employ these tactics to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions. Here are 20 diversionary tactics toxic people use to silence and degrade you. 1 Diversion Tactics G A S L I G H T I N G Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment. When someone gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sound of Silence ​By Maury Brown
    The Sound of Silence by Maury Brown ​ Number of players: Minimum: 2, Maximum: 12 ​ 2 players: storyteller and silencer are opposite each other. 3 players: storyteller is the point of a triangle and silencers are at 10 and 2 o’clock facing each other. 4-6 players (optimal): storyteller at center, silencers circle around them; storyteller turns to face each as they speak. 7+ players: two storytellers, in groups of 2-6 configured as above. Background: This is a game about communication and trying to be heard. Players will play the roles of people trying to tell their stories,​ and of people responding in various ways that oppress or silence the storyteller, sometimes in well-meaning ways. It’s an exploration of privilege, agonistic rhetoric, and the Enlightenment separation of emotion from reason. It codifies emotional abuse into a set of mechanics that are used strategically against the storyteller. Many of you will play the roles of authority figures and abusers who use manipulative and domineering tactics to control conversations and silence dissent. They do so for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, a position they vigorously defend as best for society (if not themselves). The result is to keep those who are oppressed or marginalized in their place. This may feel very uncomfortable and difficult. We will debrief following the game to discuss how it felt to be both silenced and the silencer. Setup: the game is played in rounds, where the role of the storyteller(s) switches until each player has been both a storyteller and​ a silencer.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf.Ashx (Accessed 1 August 2016); Raffaello
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2017.1373427 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Parker, D., Pearce, J. M., Lindekilde, L., & Rogers, M. B. (2017). Challenges for effective counterterrorism communication: Practitioner insights and policy implications for preventing radicalisation, disrupting attack planning and mitigating terrorist attacks. STUDIES IN CONFLICT AND TERRORISM, 42, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1373427 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Thinking Liberal Free Speech Theory
    THE SHAPE OF FREE SPEECH: RE-THINKING LIBERAL FREE SPEECH THEORY Anshuman A. Mondal, School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7RT, United Kingdom Email: [email protected]; Tel: +44 (0)1603 597655 Abstract: Noting the apparent inconsistency in attitudes towards free speech with respect to antisemitism and Islamophobia in western liberal democracies, this essay works through the problem of inconsistency within liberal free speech theory, arguing that this symptomatically reveals an aporia that exposes the inability of liberal free speech theory to account for the ways in which free speech actually operates in liberal social orders. Liberal free speech theory conceptualizes liberty as smooth, continuous, homogeneous, indivisible, and extendable without interruption until it reaches the outer limits. This makes it difficult for liberal free speech theory to account for restrictions that lie within those outer limits, and therefore for the ways in which restraints, restrictions and closures are always-already at work within the lived experience of liberty, for it is these – and the inconsistencies they give rise to – that give freedom its particular texture and timbre in any given social and cultural context. The essay concludes with an alternative ‘liquid’ theory of free speech, which accounts for the ‘shaping’ of liberty by social forces, culture and institutional practices. Keywords: free speech; freedom of expression; liberalism; John Stuart Mill; antisemitism; Islamophobia; liberty; liquidity
    [Show full text]
  • SCHOOL BOARD BUSINESS MEETING Sept. 14, 2020 at 6:30 P.M
    DRAFT SCHOOL BOARD BUSINESS MEETING Sept. 14, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING ROOM PRESENT: Ann C. Coker, Bermuda District; Ryan M. Harter, Matoaca District; Kathryn S. ​ Haines, Midlothian District; Dorothy L. Heffron, Vice Chair, Clover Hill District; Debbie G. Bailey, Chair, Dale District; Mervin B. Daugherty, Ed.D., Superintendent; Dr. Thomas Taylor, Deputy Superintendent; Dr. Sharon Pope, Chief Academic Officer; Dr. Lisa High, Chief of Schools; Bob Meister, Chief Financial Officer; Josh Davis, Chief Operations Officer; Wendell Roberts, School Board Attorney; Stephanie Frick, Assistant School Board Attorney; Tim Bullis, Executive Director of Communications and Community Engagement; Dr. Kimberly Hough, Executive Director of Human Resources and Talent Management; Dr. Joseph Tylus, Executive Director of Constituent Services; Brian Jones, Executive Director of Technology; Shawn Smith, Director of Government, Policy, and Media Relations; Dr. Morgan Debusk-Lane, Coordinator of Research and Evaluation; Nick Oyler, Coordinator of Student Health Services; and, Robert McDaniel, School Board Clerk. A. MEETING OPENING Mrs. Bailey called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. ​ Mr. Harter provided the invocation. ​ Mrs. Haines led the pledge of allegiance. ​ B. CONSENT AGENDA ● Agenda Adoption ● Approval of the Minutes ○ Aug. 11, 2020 Board Retreat ○ Aug. 11, 2020 Business Meeting ○ Aug. 25, 2020 Work Session ● Memo #101-20: Revisions to School Board Governance Handbook ● Memo #102-20: FY2021 - Acceptance of New Grants ● Memo #103-20: FY2021 Grant - Claude Moore Scholars ● Memo #104-20: Recommended Personnel Actions ● Memo #105-20: Appointment of Members to Advisory Committees ● Memo #106-20: Approval of Revisions to the Audit and Finance Committee Bylaws ● Memo #107-20: Approval of Revisions to the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee Bylaws ● Memo #108-20: Approval of Additional Budget Appropriation for Human Resources in FY2021 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Unconscious Bias
    Avoiding unconscious bias Avoiding unconscious bias A guide for surgeons 2 Avoiding unconscious bias 3 The Royal College of Surgeons of England Contents Introduction 2 Equality and diversity 2 Bias 3 Addressing individual bias 3 Addressing bias in organisations 3 Advice for those recruiting to committees or posts, to improve diversity 4 Advice for those organising, chairing or administrating meetings 4 Bullying 5 Who is most at risk of being accused of bullying? 5 Advice on avoiding bullying behaviour 5 What can be changed to reduce bullying? 6 What to do if you are accused of bullying or if a unit needs more help 6 Behaviour 7 What is acceptable behaviour? 7 Unacceptable behaviours 8 Behaviour in surgical environments 9 Advice for mentors, line managers, supervisors, appraisers 9 Definitions 11 Inequalities at work 12 Literature on diversity 12 References 13 Appendix 1 15 Avoiding unconscious bias Introduction The College aims to support all surgeons throughout their careers in achieving the highest standards of surgery and in all their professional interactions. Surgeons continuously aim to improve our clinical practice and professional behaviours. Organisations that are more diverse are better able to withstand change and we will support our members and fellows in embracing diversity. All surgeons are role models for students and trainees and are ambassadors for the profession. Their behaviour must therefore be welcoming, supportive and inclusive. Everyone has biases – some of which we are aware of, others we are not. Doctors, probably more than most, are conditioned to make assumptions or spot diagnoses and are uniquely exposed to a full spectrum of individuals at their most vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report Here
    ISLAMIC HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 2017 - 2018 ANNUAL REPORT IHRC Annual Report 2016-2017 - Page 2 “And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (and of) those who say: ‘O Lord! Cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper’.” Holy Qur’an: Chapter 4, Verse 75 The Islamic Human Rights Commission is an NGO with Special Consultative Status at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Contents: 6 Chairman’s foreword 8 Campaigns 17 Events 24 IHRC at the United Nations 26 IHRC at the EU 28 Publications and Research 30 Gallery and Bookhop 37 Legal and Advocacy 39 Social Media and Video 40 IHRC in the Media Chairman’s foreword he last year has been another challenging year for those of us who stand against all forms of injustice and racism and want to work towards Tcreating a better and more just society for all. It is also almost a year since Darren Osborne came to London filled with hatred and the intention to kill as many Muslims as possible. He first targeted Al Quds Day and when he failed he drove his killing machine to Seven Sisters and attacked other innocent Muslims. We know now that this kind of hatred does not happen in a vacuum. This is a case of hatred being promoted through associating a peaceful demonstration (Al Quds Day was identified as such by JUDGE ASK M.C who presided over the Osborne trial) with terrorism as was done by Zionists, Pro-Israelis and Tommy Robinson.
    [Show full text]
  • National Union of Students - Union of Students Ireland Has So Far Held No Policy in Support of the Growing Movement to Support Palestinian & Israeli Human Rights
    Minutes 2017 Key information Purpose of this document Following a priority ballot that was sent to all registered delegates, this document contains the full order of motions submitted by Constituent Members. The Priority Ballot was filled out by 328 delegates to National Conference. The Zones have been ordered in the following way: New Membership Priority Zone Education Zone Union Development Zone Welfare Zone Society and Citizenship Zone Annual General Meeting Contents Key information ............................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose of this document ........................................................................................................... 2 100 Priority Zone........................................................................................................................ 6 Motion 101 | Liberate Education .................................................................................................. 6 Emergency Motion 1 | General Election ......................................................................................... 6 Emergency Motion 2 | Survivors of Sexual Assault ......................................................................... 6 200 Education Zone .................................................................................................................... 7 Motion 201 | Putting Learners at the heart of the Post 16 Skills Plan ................................................ 7 Amendment 201a
    [Show full text]
  • “No Platform Policies Damage Free Speech”
    MOTION: MAY 2017 NO PLATFORM “NO PLATFORM ANWAR POLICIES DAMAGE ODURO-KWARTENG FREE SPEECH” DEBATING MATTERS DEBATOPITING MATTERCS GUIDETOPICS GUIDEwww.debatingmatters.comS ABOUT DEBATING MATTERS SUPPORTED BY Debating Matters because ideas PRIMARY FUNDER HEADLINE PRIZE SPONSOR matter. This is the premise of the Institute of Ideas Debating Matters Competition for sixth form students which emphasises substance, not just style, and the importance of taking ideas seriously. Debating Matters REGIONAL SPONSORS presents schools with an innovative and engaging approach to debating, where the real-world debates and a challenging format, including panel judges who engage with the students, CHAMPIONS QUALIFYING ROUND SPONSOR TOPIC GUIDE SPONSOR ALUMNI CHAMPION appeal to students from a wide range of backgrounds, including schools with a long tradition of debating and those with none. VENUE PARTNERS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 of 6 NOTES This spring, students at the University of Oxford called for Introduction 1 Radio 4 presenter Jenni Murray to be refused permission to speak at the Oxford Literary festival [Ref: The Times], because Key terms 1 of comments she made regarding the transgender community [Ref: Telegraph]. Although Murray still spoke at the festival, The no platform debate in context 2 this was the latest incident in which attempts have been made Essential reading 4 to prevent controversial speakers from having a platform on university campuses. Conservative commentators such as Milo Audio/Visual 4 Yiannapoulos [Ref: Guardian] and Ann Coulter [Ref: New York Times], as well as civil rights campaigner Peter Tatchell [Ref: Backgrounders 5 Guardian], and feminist Germaine Greer [Ref: BBC News], have Organisations 6 all had speaking invitations rescinded in the UK and America, because of the offensive views they are said to hold.
    [Show full text]