Opinion
15 MARCH 2021
New university ‘free speech champion’ is not in the interests of the student body Zaynab Mufti, BA International Relations and History We Brits are known for our pride in our values and freedoms. No matter the stake and no matter whose neck is stepped on, all is fair as long as our freedoms are upheld - right? It seems our government thinks so too. In an attempt to strengthen free speech in England, the government has announced a new ‘free speech and academic champion’ in universities under the Office for Students (OfS). The role expands the existing regulations for universities on free speech and now gives the OfS greater influence over students’ unions. The ‘Champions’ will be able to fine students’ unions that they deem to be denying freedom of speech as they understand it. Examples of this could include de-platforming bigoted speakers and preventing public discussions of intolerant beliefs. Effectively, the Conservatives have created the legal means to suppress any campus protests - free speech, right?
“The Conservative’s have created the legal means to suppress any campus protests - free speech right?” Education Secretary Gavin Willamson claims that it will counter ‘unacceptable silencing and censoring’ on university campuses. It is clear that the majority of the general public will welcome this move as a 2019 YouGov poll revealed that 52% of British adults agree that this is a significant problem.
This perceived threat comes as part of a larger culture war engineered by the right - the so-called ‘war on woke.’ This has manifested itself in the government's response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Home Secretary Priti Patel labelled the 2020 BLM protests as ‘dreadful’ and Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick suggested drafting a new law to stop ‘woke worthies’ bringing down statues. It is clear that the government does not favour positions that draw attention to Britain’s questionable imperial past. Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden even went so far as to criticise the increasing acknowledgement of Britain's colonial history in order to ‘defend our culture and history’ from the ‘activists constantly trying to do Britain down.’ So, this move to silence critics and ‘protect’ freedom of speech is not surprising. It begs the question, however, is freedom really being threatened on campuses? In 2018, the Joint Committee on Human Rights investigated free speech on university campuses and concluded that there is no threat nor is there ‘wholesale censorship of debate.’ Despite the strong media narrative that de-platforming is widespread, the OfS themselves revealed that only 53 out of 62,094 requests for external speakers were declined by university bodies during 2017-18. It is apparent then that the free speech crisis declared in mainstream media is a fabricated right-wing offensive. In fact, to suggest that the Conservatives are champions of this freedom is laughable. It is the same right-wing that silences students with the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy and dominates the British press. If freedom of speech is the primary concern, the government would be supporting their critics like they do their loyalists. Instead, the government is preoccupied with trying to protect their idealistic version of free speech.
How, then, will students be affected, and what is at stake? Autonomy of the student body is at risk. Regulation of intra-university events and debates should be conducted from within, rather than imposed from above. In handing power to the OfS, not only is a fundamental freedom to protest being taken away, but a contradiction in terms is being declared. The OfS has been given an unprecedented amount of authority to control what can and can not be said in our campuses. To supervise free speech is to remove the freedom inherent within it. What was once in our hands as students is now in the hands of the government. So yes - ‘free speech’ is being protected, but only if it fits the government's agenda. The threat to our independence and freedom should not be understated, especially considering Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s history of penning savage articles targeting Muslims, Black people and other marginalised communities in his previous career as a journalist. Undoubtedly, this provides a further license to his loyalists to continue slandering people of colour, migrants, the poor and minorities. Ultimately, this debate is only a distraction from the dire education failures of this government throughout the pandemic. Instead of providing solutions for students still paying thousands for accommodation they can not live in, this government has decided to champion and prioritise the rights of bigots on empty campuses all under a guise of caring about our education and our universities. If the government truly cared, they would be prioritising hardship funds, the return of maintenance grants and the fair treatment of staff instead of an attack on our independence and freedom.
bifurcation between the country and its representative is difficult if not impossible. This indistinguishability between man and state strikes at the heart of a problem that has plagued international justice since at least the Nuremberg trials. I’m referring to the moral authority of one nation to judge another.
The pariah of colonialism also looms large over the various African cases that are currently in the purview of this court. The ICC has often been criticised for its apparent special focus on Africa (not without cause given that, out of 30 cases and 13 investigations, only 3 are non-African). It has defended itself by pointing out that several Africans hold prominent positions in its hierarchy, one of whom Karim Khan has replaced. This will undoubtedly reignite accusations of not only the moral soundness of the court’s efforts but also raise uncomfortable questions about the new prosecutor’s commitment to prosecuting war crimes given his previous track record. It is a prerequisite that politics be separated from any meaningful pursuit of justice to ensure credibility and, along with it, enforceability. It is due to this reason that the first two prosecutors were elected unanimously, but this tradition was broken by the deep political wrangling that delivered Karim Khan to his new post. It was only after intense lobbying by the UK and Kenya that he received a marginal majority of votes in a secret ballot, another first for the ICC. It is this blatant politicisation of the role that threatens the very fabric of international justice and severely hampers the potency of the ICC. All of this even before the new prosecutor has started his work. The question begs itself, is the appointment of Karim Khan truly in the best interest of justice?
The New Troubling Visage of Lady Justice Abdul Basit, BA International Relations and Economics Universal accountability or faceless justice has long constituted the utopian daydreams of philosophers and international theorists alike. Plato talked about it and so did More. The closest we have come to realise such an aspiration is undoubtedly the founding of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the menace of statism is once again threatening to rot this effort from the inside out and the appointment of Karim Khan serves as a linchpin of this wider phenomenon. The ICC elucidates its mission as ending the impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes that concern the international community. Its appointments, therefore, must also be made in a manner that sustains that ethos. However, to what extent the court will be served in fulfilling its mission by its latest choice of chief prosecutor is debatable. Karim Khan is a career international criminal lawyer who, on the face of it, appears to be entirely qualified for his new job. Yet his track record of being the defence counsel of men like Charles Taylor, Said Gaddafi, Abdallah Banda and Bahar Garda casts a long shadow on his humanitarian credentials. Although some might hail the appointment of a nonwhite individual to this role, it must be remembered that he is also British. In an organisation that is constituted by nation-states that vote to elect the chief prosecutor, the
20
“Is it really just for a British barrister to prosecute injustices in regions of the world that suffer from conflict and instability as a direct result of colonialism?” Is it really just for a British barrister to prosecute injustices in regions of the world that suffer from conflict and instability as a direct result of colonialism? The war crimes committed in Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine conflict are both on this prosecutor’s agenda, yet the common denominator in both these conflicts is British policy that helped exacerbate violence and spread chaos. It is also uncouth for a British barrister to occupy this position given Britain’s continued refusal to comply with ICC’s ruling on the Chagos Islands.
WWW.SOASSPIRIT.CO.UK
