The Prime Minister has intervened in the row over Kathleen Stock’s speaking engagement at the Oxford Union later today, saying the “vocal few” must not be allowed to stifle debate. The Telegraph has more.
Rishi Sunak has said that Prof Kathleen Stock has a right to be heard as he urged students to engage with the feminist academic’s views even if they disagree with her.
Prof Stock, who believes trans women are not women, is set to take part in an event at the Oxford Union on Tuesday evening, but her invitation sparked a backlash from trans activists.
In a rare intervention into a campus free speech row, the Prime Minister told the Telegraph that the vocal few must not be allowed to shut down debate and that universities must support, not stifle, contentious discussion.
He said: “A free society requires free debate. We should all be encouraged to engage respectfully with the ideas of others.
“University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled. We mustn’t allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion. Kathleen Stock’s invitation to the Oxford Union should stand.
“Agree or disagree with her, Professor Stock is an important figure in this argument. Students should be allowed to hear and debate her views.”
He added: “A tolerant society is one which allows us to understand those we disagree with, and nowhere is that more important than within our great universities.”
The row which has engulfed Oxford University has become emblematic of the wider debate over freedom of speech in society
In the coming days, the Prime Minister is set to unveil Prof Arif Ahmed of Cambridge University as the director of freedom of speech and academic freedom, charged with cracking down on the no-platforming of academics.
It is understood security measures will be in place for Prof Stock’s appearance, as protests have been planned.
The Union is a private members’ club that University of Oxford students and others pay to join. It is independent of the university and the student union. It said its attendees will have an “opportunity to respectfully engage and challenge” Prof Stock’s views at the event, as well as being able to ask questions anonymously.
More than 40 academics, including Prof Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, and Prof Nigel Biggar, the theologian, wrote a letter to the Telegraph earlier this month in which they supported Prof Stock’s appearance.
Oxford University later intervened to protect free speech. The university’s student union had said it would ban the Oxford Union from its freshers’ fair, accusing the historic debating society of having a “toxic culture of bullying and harassment”.
However, the student union reversed its position after the university reminded its trustees of its free speech policy.
Worth reading in full.
I’ll be at the Oxford Union later to show solidarity with Kathleen Stock.
Stop Press: Watch the former philosophy professor rebut the accusation that her belief that sex is binary and immutable makes her an “extremist” because it “upsets people”. Eloquent and persuasive.
Stop Press 2: Brendan O’Neill, writing in the Mail, says the push back against attempts to cancel Kathleen Stock is the beginning of a pro-free speech counter-revolution on Britain’s campuses. Let’s hope so!
Stop Press 3: Kathleen Stock’s talk at the Union went ahead, but it was disrupted by trans rights activists, one of whom glued her hand to the floor in front of Professor Stock and had to be removed by police before the talk could continue. The Mail has more.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
But he robbed us all to pay Big Pharma for millions of unnecessary, untested injections. Some Chancellor.
But now he’s brushing up his free speech credentials. Bit late, Rishi.
I find it very hard to view this jumped up, corrupt twerp in a positive light. Just like the rest of them. A plague on all their houses.
The vocal few can’t. But the government, the bureaucracy and security apparatus, they can.
Anyone who buys this feeble window dressing is a fool.
Believe in free speech, Rishi? Why is your government passing censorship bills then?
Twat.
I’d recommend watching the full 13min interview/discussion below. Ed Balls is behaving like a right annoying d!ck and can’t even have the courtesy of allowing Kathleen to finish her sentence in most cases, but she’s assertive and perseveres in getting her point across.
I shall look forward to Toby doing an article about the Oxford talk afterwards. Also there is the documentary, Gender Wars, in which Prof Stock features, tonight on Channel Four, so I hope somebody uploads it online so I can watch it. I can only get BBC over here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auP1nbrZ4Mo&ab_channel=TomWHuxley
She’s good.
I was a bit frustrated by her answer to the question about there being two extreme positions.
I wish she had drawn a distinction between the opinions and the way those opinions are conveyed.
Those that oppose her are extremist more than anything because of they way they want to shut up those that disagree with them. They have strange opinions, but their radicalism is in wanting to shut everyone up and impose their ideas without letting others speak.
In contrast she’s not trying to shut anyone up. She’s only trying to have her own say. And there is nothing radical or extremist about that.
I wish she had made that point.
Fishy is so keen on supporting free speech that he allows that ridiculous Spring girl at the BBC to launch ‘verity’ or whatever it is called; so keen on free speech that the BBC is allowed to put out downright lies on a daily basis.
Fishy of course is ultimately responsible for the Civil Service but it requires a young woman of real guts to take on the DWP which is a grotesque organisation making the lives of thousands of staff miserable with its wokery, inculsitivity and any other nonsense currently fashionable. And I speak from painful experience.
Fishy who has failed to rein in the wholly non-democratic Khan, the laws banning free speech in Ireland, the madness in Scotland.
And the rest.
Oh that Fishy.
Obviously he’s acting on orders from his WEF handlers but for what purpose is not immediately clear.
Fishy, about as honest as a trans cyclist.
Yes, regarding the behaviour of the DWP, the Permanent Secretary should be out on his ear. As per usual Sunak and his Cabinet are all talk but no action.
👍👍👍
This from the man who, in a well choreographed ballet with his Davos counterparts, is implementing the Online Harms Bill designed to abolish private messaging and make all digital communications state sanctioned. With pubs soon to be liable for their customers wrong-think I can only think the next logical step will be granting the government seamless access to everyone’s Alexa. (If you’re dumb enough to have one). And all this buttressed with his forthcoming digital currency, digital ID and a raft of digital banks that are already working hand in glove with these grasping sociopathic goons to defund anyone who fails to submit to this dystopian horror show.
So whatever comes out of Sunak’s mouth is just stale bread thrown to the crowds from the palace turrets. Or in simpler terms, horse shit.
A wonderful post 👍
Interesting article from an insider about how and why so many brands are promoting and flogging Woke;
”No longer is the pursuit of the almighty dollar – within the bounds of morality and the law – the sole purpose of so many of America’s top companies. Today, the country’s greatest enterprises have been repurposed into vehicles of social change.
Allow me to explain.
Target and Bud Light are publicly traded companies, which means that, ultimately, it’s their investors – a.k.a. Wall Street – that’s calling the shots.
Enter BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, the three largest and most influential financial institutions in U.S. history. They’re known as the ‘Big Three’ on Wall Street, though many Americans have never heard of them.
These three companies control more than $20 trillion in assets, almost none of which is their own. Rather, they manage the money held in everyday American’s retirement accounts, pension funds, mutual funds and investment accounts.
Together, the Big Three constitute the largest shareholders of nearly 90% of the largest companies listed on the U.S. stock exchange – the S&P 500.
The Big Three’s influence is staggering. But if they were managing this money simply to make more money, there might not be an issue.
They’re not.
The Big Three are proponents of what’s called ‘stakeholder capitalism,’ which is a belief that businesses should be run not only to increase value to shareholders, but to serve all stakeholders, including government agencies, activists, and non-governmental organizations.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12129995/How-401k-savings-used-turn-biggest-brands-woke-revealed-ex-Anheuser-Busch-exec.html
Rishi Sunak:
As a general principle I agree with his points above. So where was he when the BBC and other broadcast and print media refused to hear and debate views on the ineffectiveness of lockdowns, social distancing and school closures, the usefulness of face coverings in public or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines? Or was that because ‘the science was settled’?
Hypocrite.
I’ve contemplated paying for a Telegraph subscription in the past, but not anymore:
Prof Stock, who believes trans women are not women
Men are not women. Period.
I find the term “trans woman” very confusing. I think we should stop using it. As soon as I see the word “woman” I start to think of, well, women. In some ways the term “trans man” makes more sense – a man who has made a transition from being a man to being a hacked about man pretending to be a woman. I can’t think of a snappier title than “trans man”.
“Trans” is doing a “pandemic”, in that I’ve never heard/read the word so often in my entire life as I have over just these last 2 – 3 years. The trouble is I don’t think we can put the former to bed as readily as we have with the latter ( still it’s rumbling away in the background, I know. The WHO will take care that word never leaves us entirely ) as it’s in your face every flipping day with no signs of letting up. I think they’re out for world domination.😨
Yes much like a slug is not a homeless snail or Freddy Krueger can never become Edward Scissorhands, a man can never truly transform into a woman. These trans extremists are basically deluded Hermit crabs. 🦀 🐚🪄
Aside: The German word for snail is Schnecke and slug is Nacktschnecke,
literally nude snail. Schnecken can’t undress to become Nackschnecken, though.
Speaking of a ‘tolerant society’, which the article does, I’m minded of Karl Popper’s quote on the subject. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.If we extend unlimited tolerance, even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.’
Religions are naturally intolerant as they’re competing theories about the world which cannot all be true at the same time and the transexuality religion is no exception. That’s not necessarily a problem provided their organizations are equivalent to sports clubs people may join or leave as they see fit and the leadership has no power over members of other clubs or people not associated with any club beyond what stems from ownership of buildings privately owned or rented by the organization/ club. That’s what Clownwall and Weremaids need to be reduced to and their financial backers need to be told a lesson about non-interferences in other people’s affairs, regardless of how many gadzillions of $currency they own.
Deeply sceptical of the timing of this move. Why not step in at any time during the last 2 years. Kathleen Stock is a hero, but RS is looking to distract attention from the WHO this week.
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/pandemic-treaty-update-f46
If I had the means to contact Dante, I’d be asking him to add a 15th circle.
There are people who want to deny biological facts, and it should be maintained that they exist. If a man wants to be a woman or a woman wants to be a man, then we can accept their position, but it can never actually happen. So we need to put these people into a different sexually described group, and at the moment it seems to be Trans-Woman or Trans-Man. These groups cannot be given the same rights or access given to normal women or men, so it seems that separate provision needs to be made for them. How that can be achieved is beyond me, but it does seem to be necessary. The next issue that follows from this is the question of which group homosexuals or lesbians belong in. I think the majority would prefer to be included with the group of heterosexuals of their birth gender, and I am quite content that would continue, but it does provide the opportunity for some people to consider a change in that situation. For that reason, I can understand why some in the non-heterosexual group might object to the trans ideology that seems to be gaining traction.