Statement addressing the intended date for ‘Free Speech and Feminism’ event being cancelled.

Statement on the intended date for ‘Free Speech and Feminism’ being cancelled.

The York Free Speech society event ‘Feminism and Free Speech’ was set to take place on the 16th of March in a lecture theatre at the university of York. The premise of the event was exploring why a single perspective of feminism is often presented as the only acceptable feminism on university campuses. Liberal/choice feminism. The speaker - Julie Bindel, had planned to speak on why those with feminist beliefs that don’t fit into a singular perspective on issues such as sex work and prostitution often feel alienated and feel afraid to speak up. She was also going to speak on the concept of political lesbianism. This is the brief that was presented to both the speaker and the student union. The event was approved by the student union and all of the relevant paperwork was completed on the 22nd of February. The event was then put on the website where tickets could be ordered on the 2nd of March.

5 days later on the 7th of March we received an email stating the event had temporarily been taken down from the website to do a more thorough risk assessment. I didn’t have an issue with this and assumed the event would still go ahead once this was finished and the event would be returned to the website promptly. It was not.

On the 9th of March I was able to look at the revised risk assessment. Added to the risk assessment from the one I originally submitted was that there was a chance of protest. We assumed that this may be related to an email we had received from the LGBTQ society offering guidance. I decided I did not need any guidance. The event was not planning to address gender identity and 3 out of 5 members of the society committee are gay so we were more than prepared to moderate discussion related to Julie’s views on political lesbianism. The reason given that there was a risk of protest was “people may want to protest as the speaker has made previous comments that risk causing offence, particularly in relation to trans rights”. I was aware some of Julie’s comments on issues of gender identity had been deemed controversial and it was not unexpected that the LGBTQ society may find issue with this. A small protest was not an issue and it wasn’t something I was not prepared to handle.

There were some parts of the risk assessment I was confused by however, and have since asked for clarification. They stated there was a 5/5 likelihood (the maximum) of “The speaker breaches the University’s EDI policies or relevant legislation, the Society or a Member breaches bye-law 12 (YUSU Code of Conduct)”. They also claimed that the risk rating for this was 25 (also the maximum) given the subject of the talk was simply free speech and feminism and discussing some radical feminist perspectives as opposed to what is considered the university orthodoxy it seems strange that they saw such an enormous risk in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy being broken. What exactly did they expect her to do? There was also a further addition to the risk assessment stating a likelihood 3/5 for “damage caused as a result of breach of EDI policies”, further confirmation they believed Julie may break these policies despite the proposed content of the event not implying as such. The accusations that Julie would break EDI policy looked to me purely an accusation based on the speaker's own character and unrelated viewpoints. Although sent to me as a draft, it was the risk assessment that would have been used had the event gone ahead as planned.

I expressed that I saw some of the risk assessment as quite extreme but was happy to accept it in order to get the event back on the website so that I could advertise. When I asked if I could have it returned to the website they claimed they needed permission from the relevant departments. This was confusing because the event had previously been approved, but I decided to wait a bit longer even though the event date was looming and we had been given no opportunity to advertise as there was nowhere to direct potential audience members to for tickets. It was already getting quite frustrating with all the uncertainty. They continued to not allow the event to be displayed on the website until they announced the event could not take place on Monday the 14th of March, two days before it was due to take place. This “temporary” measure to remove the event from the website appeared to in fact be permanent.

The reasons that were given for the event not being able to take place on the planned day was that the university wanted to reclassify the event from a regular society speaking event to a ‘special meeting’. Meaning that the event would require extra measures to ensure safety such as security and stewards. This change has been confirmed to be due to a student campaign to have Julie Bindel deplatformed and to be declared not welcome on campus with threats of protest. We support the right to protest and would have taken the opportunity to engage with protesters, however the university deemed it too much of a risk.

An open letter made claims that Julie was “biphobic, transphobic, and misogynistic” and from what I’ve gathered was advertised in group-chats and shared around. There was also a pile-on on the @freespeechyork Instagram asserting that Julie was a bigot and should therefore not be welcome. Some memorable quotes from these student “activists'' were “no platform for transphobes”, “should be called the hate speech society”, “why is this woman being allowed to speak here?” and “are those students directly endangered by her rhetoric to understand they are not safe on campus?”. Several commenters seemed to believe the event was discussing trans issues rather than the actual brief which was alternative views within feminism and the sex industry. There is also a campaign from York Students Solidarity network that calls for the university to noplatform Julie Bindel claiming “Julie Bindel’s whole career is founded in supporting the mass homicide of sex workers“ due to her support for the Nordic Model. This claim beyond being grossly defamatory is also plainly incorrect about the Nordic model. The Nordic model decriminalises those in prostitution but criminalises buyers. To many this is reasonable and appears to help reduce deaths in an often dangerous trade. Sweden introduced the Nordic model in 1999 and has reported only one murder of a prostitute (by an ex-partner not a sex buyer), compare this to Germany which legalised prostitution in 2002 and has seen 69 murders (data recorded 2015). The number of women in prostitution is a lot higher in Germany, but the murder rate per the population of women in prostitution is stil 3.25 times higher. I have to defend Julie here by stating this fact as the accusations are outrageous. Stats found here - https://prostitutescollective.net/dead-bodies-dont-lie-statistics/

There were unfortunately also accusations sent to the Speak Free society of transphobia from this group. The Speak Free society being a society dedicated to advocating against instances of sexual violence and assault. Embarrassingly in the heat of passion they failed to tell the difference between the two societies.

The campaign sent an open letter to the university asking them to deplatform Julie Bindel. The name of which is ‘Bar Bindel’. Link - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ako4GV_0LT_IRB-zu-zbKbs5upYEmMnnfXKsXxV3qBU/edit

My response to the York Nouse article on this campaign was as follows - “Julie has made statements deemed divisive and provocative in the past. The statements may be strong worded but she has every right to express these views. They do not break hate speech law, being offensive is not a crime.

Further to this, the event’s focus was exploring why there is little representation of feminist thought at universities beyond liberal/choice feminism, not Ms Bindel’s opinions on gender identity. Why does almost every feminist society at British universities only allow a single perspective? Why are there so few radical feminist societies that allow voices to speak on the harms of the sex industry and its connection with sex trafficking and sexual violence? This is what was going to be explored. Criticism of the sex industry is not bigotry, particularly when those comments come from a perspective of wanting to protect vulnerable women. It’s selfish to believe that only your views on issues like this should be allowed to be expressed. The idea that comments a speaker has made in the past (some of which in jest) that have caused offence means that they should not be welcome to have a platform is intolerant. The idea that Julie could be painted as “misogynist” is preposterous given her 40+ year history of campaigning on issues such as domestic violence, sex trafficking and women in the prison system. Words are not violence, words don’t make people unsafe. If having your perspective challenged makes you feel that way it’s your issue, not the world‘s.  Students have the opportunity to challenge the speaker in good faith during the Q&A and the speaker will respond in kind.”

The university expressed in their response to the open letter that “University colleagues are committed to working with YUSU, the Society and other parties to ensure that this event can happen safely, in full recognition of its responsibilities to uphold lawful freedom of speech on campus”. However, the event could still not take place as planned because of the reclassification due to fears of protest. The reclassification of the event means that we will have to provide necessary security, stewards and the student union will choose their own chair for the event rather than me chairing it myself, all substantial changes from what was originally planned as a simple event.

Will they claim they have officially deplatformed Julie Bindel? No.

 Was the date of the event cancelled because of a coordinated attack against her character and her views despite many of the complaints not related to topics planned to be addressed in the event. Yes.

Did it seem like the university was being deliberately slow and unhelpful in order to avoid backlash particularly with returning tickets to the website? In my opinion, yes.

 It’s not an uncommon tactic for when student unions don’t want a speaker platformed, but want to avoid the legal hassle of deplatforming them that they cancel the event at the last minute over claims of safety and security.  That may have been the case here. Their vague message about supporting freedom of speech is hardly useful as it is no reassurance that they won’t cancel at the last minute again. Their “temporary” removal of the event from the website gave us no opportunity to advertise or direct anyone interested in ordering tickets to get them. The uncertainty meant we couldn’t tell those interested whether the event would go ahead or not. We didn’t know. A day or so to update a risk assessment I accepted. The event being taken down permanently early on, I don’t see as the right thing to have done, particularly when at that point there was only light criticism. The campaign from students began the weekend of the 12-13th of March, the disruption to getting the event to go ahead was already happening from within the student union. 

The event may not be entirely dead in the water and I am hopeful it can be rearranged, but I’m not overly optimistic.We will do our best to set a new date, but the date it was intended to be released on is cancelled.

One of the most interesting parts of this whole situation is the authoritarian responses from pro sex-work feminists. The idea that I would invite someone with a different view on this issue to what they saw as acceptable was inconceivable to them. I’m not sure how they plan on persuading people to their side of the argument on sex work when their strategy is to demand all other perspectives be banned. Particulary since their views on sex work are not mainstream, nor do they correspond to the law of this country. Julie has had a long career as a feminist campaigner trying to help battle human trafficking and helping survivors of the sex industry. She has compassionate views on protecting desperate and vulnerable women. Yet the ethos of these “activists” is she should not be heard. She was dismissed as a SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminist) as if that is enough condemnation in itself. The open letter even slates Bindel as a misogynist for her stance on sex work clearly unaware of Julie’s justifications for her critical stance on the industry.

This situation further highlights the intolerance towards diverging opinions on university campuses, with such authoritarian attitudes demanding a single perspective be observed on a complex issue it’s no wonder so many students choose to self censor. It’s unfortunate to see vocal groups of students rejecting open mindedness, intellectual curiosity and free speech and free debate. If you are so confident that your views on a subject are the correct ones you would jump at the opportunity to have them scrutinised. It was also a shame to see students reduce free speech to something that is partisan and designed to be provocative as if it has not been a tool used by progressive movements throughout history, if you allow any orthodoxy of thought to exist unchallenged you are not on the side of progress. Societal values evolve, they always will. If past attitudes should be challenged so too should present ones. Very few people have been on the so-called ‘right side of history’ on every issue. Free speech is a progressive, materialist value that facilitates the ability to challenge what is the status quo. If your faction becomes the status quo you may not value free speech as it represents a threat to your ideology, but without proper scrutiny ideas cannot grow and develop effectively.

A challenge to those who opposed the event. Attend one of our society events. I’m more than happy to enter into a good faith debate. I’m open to criticism and scrutiny so long as you are open to hearing my responses. With maturity you’ll realise this is how you get people to understand you, you cannot be persuasive unless you engage in the doubts of the people you are trying to persuade. No minds have ever been changed because they are told they cannot express their considered views. Your attitudes on the issue of free speech may likely cause you surprise to know I consider myself a leftist and material progressive. We may have a lot more in common than we have differences. Tackling difficult, divisive issues in a tactful and well-considered manner should be an essential skill for any university student. If large swathes of students struggle so deeply managing this then universities are clearly failing to teach this basic skill. That’s why I saw a need for this society in the first place.