Oxford Students for Life held a controversial panel event at Exeter College on Wednesday, attracting protesters from across Oxford University. Around 20 students turned out on the evening of the event to express their opposition to the event taking place in the College. Exeter College refused to cancel the event, however, citing concerns over freedom of speech.

The pro-life event, entitled ‘Pro-life feminism: A panel discussion’ is part of OSFL’s ‘3rd Week focus on pro-life feminism’ and featured a panel of five female speakers discussing why they are both feminist and pro-life. The all-female panel featured a paediatrician, a qualified solicitor, a Rhodes Schola r, a trainee teacher, and a charity fundraiser explaining how they came to support a pro-life stance, and how they find a pro-life ethos to be compatible with their feminism.

The panel was organised after a peer supporter at Exeter booked the College room. Despite calls from some, including students who had themselves had abortions, to have the event cancelled, College offi cials decided to proceed.

A peaceful protest against the event was organised by Alice Nutting and Ella Richards, both English students at the College. The protest’s Facebook event stated that whilst OSFL were entitled to hold the discussion, Exeter College had a duty of care toward students and staff , which includes not making them feel uncomfortable in their home.

Protestors proceeded to gather outside the Saskatchewan Room where the discussion was being held and made paper fl owers with pro-choice statements and expressions of discontent written on them.

Before the event, Alice Nutting told Cherwell, “I’ve organised this protest as I want college to be a safe place for all those who’ve had an abortion – we’re here, we’ve made fl owers and we’re out in solidarity for all those who’ve had to have an abortion. We’ll be asking questions and making our views known.”

Many of the protestors attended the discussion, using the Q&A session to question the pro-life views of the panel. All bar one of the questions asked came from pro-choice protesters.

Ella Richards commented, “We decided to organise the protest because we were really uncomfortable about the prospect of an antiabortion group holding a meeting at a place which is ultimately a home for a lot of people. One in three women in the UK will have an abortion before they are 45; statistically there will be students, staff , and fellows who have been personally aff ected by abortion in some way.”

The event was also attended by many pro-life advocates, including a Sacristan at Pusey House, Guy Jackson, who told Cherwell, “A lot of people seem to assume that being pro-woman means being pro-choice as well. It was refreshing to hear from women who disagree.”

On its website, OSFL claims that it is a nonsectarian group dedicated to “promoting a culture of life at the University and in the wider community, advocating the protection of human life and dignity from conception to natural death”.

The society holds regular pro-life events which have attracted signifi cant attention in the past. Last term, OSFL had planned a debate between historian and writer Timothy Stanley and journalist Brendan O’Neill at Christ Church entitled ‘This House believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All’. After a large protest was organised by OxRevFems, the debate was deemed a “security issue” and ultimately abandoned. O’Neill described the protestors as “the new enemies of free speech”.

After this week’s event, a member of OSFL told Cherwell, “Last night was less about winning arguments than about having a sensitive and responsible discussion of the complex issue of abortion, and we were grateful to the pro-choice audience members who came along and contributed. In their diff erent ways, our five speakers all offered hope that we can build a society which values both women and the unborn.”

Emily Watson, a panel member, told Cherwell, “It’s wonderful to see dialogue being enabled around the important issue of abortion. It’s a serious issue that deserves attention, and a university like Oxford is a great place to discuss why more young people are declaring themselves pro-life.”

However, Richards responded, “We would still have preferred that the discussion was not held in a college and we are pleased that the College is now working out a system so that events like this don’t occur in future.”

A film night was organised by the JCR for students who wanted to avoid the tense atmosphere around the debate. The JCR Executive and Exeter College declined to comment on their decision to allow the booking of the room and the discussion to proceed.

Two anonymous testimonies from Exeter students who have had abortions were submitted to Cherwell. They can be read below:

Person A

I had an abortion whilst in my first year at Exeter. I couldn’t see how this event was in the academic or welfare interests of students; I couldn’t understand why the event had been advertised at other colleges but not at Exeter. I expressed these concerns to College.

The event went ahead. After peacefully protesting outside, I went in to hear their views. The talk began with them stating that the event was not a debate; we were simply to hear the opinions of the pro-life speakers, and there could be questions at the end.

Some what the speakers said was surprising. One speaker spoke of how abortion clinics in the USA “target” people, specifically “Black and Hispanic communities”. When, at the end, I asked how a clinic can “target” someone – does it hunt them down, get them pregnant, and force them to have an abortion? – members of the panel expressed the view that abortion in the USA was introduced as a form of “eugenics” aimed at controlling the Black and Hispanic population, and that the preponderance of abortion clinics in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods today is evidence of that campaign of “black genocide”.

I defend the rights of women to be able to choose abortion. I defend the rights of Pro-Lifers to disagree with me. Sadly, though, the event did very little for free speech, and even less for the Pro-Life cause.

Person B

As someone who had an abortion less than a month ago, I was deeply distressed to find that my own College, who had been made aware of my abortion at the time, decided to allow the event to occur – especially when I, along with others, expressed serious welfare concerns to the College.

We held a peaceful, well-attended protest outside, writing positive, pro-choice feminist messages on origami flowers that talk attendees had to walk past. We then decided to go in and hear the panel’s views on ‘pro-life feminism’.

Expecting discussion based on the concept that life begins at birth, instead the panel said some productive things about improving help for young single mothers, but balanced out any positivity with anecdotal evidence and claims such as: feminists should consider that abortion deprives men of fatherhood; some abortion clinics offer women no other advice and pressure women into abortion; and, moreover, that the panel wished to give women “more options”, but still wanted to abolish abortion.

I found out later that the student from Exeter that booked the room did so believing that it was for a talk on increasing support for single young mothers, which was clearly not what it ended up being. I would have preferred that the talk was not held where I live, sleep and work, and I’m glad that in response a system is now being put in place by College to not allow this to occur again. In the meantime, attending the debate and hearing just how spurious, unfounded and frankly libellous much of what the pro-life speakers said made me have hope that their cause will go no further.

Several hundred demonstrators have taken part in a protest against the appearance of far-right French Front National leader Marine Le Pen at the Oxford Union, condemning her political views as fascist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic.

Up to 400 protesters, including students, anarchists, and antifascist campaigners, gathered at the gates of the Union on Thursday evening to protest against the platforming of the nationalist leader. Demonstrators chanted, “This is free speech, that is a platform”, gesturing towards the Oxford Union, and “Oxford Union, shame on you”.

“This is free speech, that is a platform!” #marinelepen #nopasaran

— rose (@lleuadau) February 5, 2015

As tensions heightened, protestors scaled the Union’s walls, hung banners on the fences, and attempted to force open the gates, chanting, “Nazi scum, here we come.” A police presence behind the Union walls prevented protesters from reaching the chamber.

OUSU BME and Anti-Racism Offi cer Nikhil Venkatesh told Cherwell, “It was really great to see so many Oxford students and residents at the protest, telling Marine Le Pen she is not welcome in our city, and showing solidarity with the groups she victimises. I hope the Union got the message.”

Divisions emerged between the various groups present at the protest. Some students snubbed those campaigning with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) because of their links with the Socialist Workers’ Party, who have been accused of rape apologism following allegations that the party attempted to cover up a sexual assault by a senior member of the party.

Slogans chanted by members of Unite Against Fascism received a muted response from some Oxford students, although UAF maintained a sizeable presence. OUSU President Louis Trup admitted to becoming entangled in a heated argument with a UAF protester.

Scenes at @OxfordUnion and the protest outside, crowds numbers growing and the noise is getting louder #Marinelepen pic.twitter.com/CQrNfDhtQx

— Tom Sutherland (@tas9173) February 5, 2015

Marine Le Pen was hurried into the chamber nearly an hour late. Cherwell understands that she had been smuggled on-site through the Purple Turtle nightclub on Frewin Court. As protesters scaled the walls, members in the Chamber were asked not to leave their seats for their own safety, and the doors were locked. Some Union members queueing to enter the event were verbally abused by protesters, who referred to those attending as “fascists” and “Nazis”.

Students queuing to attend the talk remained defiant. St Anne’s student Matthew Kirtley told Cherwell, “I believe freedom of speech is an absolute right, and the Union, as the self-described ‘last-bastion of free speech in the west’, should be able to host anyone, however distasteful. When you start saying a particular ideology is off -limits, you’re containing the limits of free discussion.”

He added, “I don’t understand how this legitimises her platform in any other way than all the rallies she gives in France. I don’t understand how her speaking at the Oxford Union is going to make her ideology more legitimised.”

Another Kellogg College student in attendance remarked, “If 25 percent of the French electorate decided she was worthy of having a say – and I don’t agree with her – then I thought I might see what she has to say.”

But Annie Teriba, former OUSU Access and Admissions officer, asserted, “This is not a debate about free speech. Le Pen has the right to say whatever she wants to say on the street, in her bedroom, in her bathroom.

“This is a debate about whether or not the Oxford Union has the right to invite in to our community someone who doesn’t believe that Muslims should be allowed in Europe, who compares Muslim prayer to Nazi occupation, who invokes the memory of the Nazis in memory of oppression, but at the same time is incredibly anti-Semitic.”

Le Pen began her talk in response to the protesters, telling the Chamber, “Freedom is the ability to say what you think without being in fear.” She spoke of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, referring to Islamic fundamentalists as “barbarians”. On the issue of terrorism, she stated, “We need to regain the control of our borders in France. The border must be a filter and not a wall”. In questions, she attracted controversy when she opined, “Islam is very healthy but there are cancerous cells surrounding it,” going on to comment, “Multi-cultural societies often become multi-conflicted societies.”

UAF joint national secretary Weyman Bennett, attending the protest, told Cherwell, “The Oxford Union is going to give a lot of respectability to the Front National, and they’re going to use that respectability to bolster fascist organisations, who will in the long run remove all democratic values. I think that because she so has much support in France, it is even more dangerous that she should be given a platform. No platform policies prevent these people from building a following in universities.”

The protest followed a mild controversy on Wednesday, when OUSU Council mandated President Louis Trup to inform all students by email that the protests were due to take place. Trup opposed the move, including in the email a link to his post on OUSU.org, where he apologised for sending the email to people who “do not care about any of this”. He later clarified to Cherwell, “I apologised to the people who received the email and don’t care because I don’t think this warranted a special email.”

The same motion mandated Trup to write a letter to the Oxford Union about Le Pen’s appearance. The motion stated that the letter, to be addressed to the Union’s Standing Committee, should condemn the views of Le Pen, and ask the Union to refrain from inviting such speakers in the future.

Trup commented, “I am glad there was a protest because I think it is important that Le Pen’s racism is condemned.”

Oxford professors have joined 500 academics in signing an open letter published in The Guardian that condemned the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill currently being debated in parliament.

The letter, which included signatures from Oxford academics, declares that the bill would be “a threat to freedom of speech at Universities”, as well as “an unlawful and unenforceable duty on educational institutions and staff .”

The controversial bill, which seeks to curb campus extremism as one of its aims, has caused considerable debate, both within Oxford University and on the national stage. The letter declares, “One of the purposes of post-compulsory education is to foster critical thinking in staff , students, and society more widely. Our universities and colleges are centres for debate and open discussion, where received wisdom can be challenged and controversial ideas put forward in the spirit of academic endeavour.

“The best response to acts of terror against UK civilians is to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is eff ectively challenged. Ensuring colleges and universities can continue to debate difficult and unpopular issues is a vital part of this.”

After branding the “draconian crackdown” as both “unnecessary” and “ill-conceived”, the academics called on the government to reconsider attempts to tackle extremism in the UK that do not compromise academic freedom.

One of the signatories, Oxford academic Professor Robin Cohen, a former Director of the International Migration Institute, told Cherwell, “One of the odious provisions is that visiting speakers will be required to submit their presentations two weeks in advance. This is a basic violation of academic freedom. Academics are not automata. They think and develop their ideas as they go.

“It is an even more horrible thought that Oxford academics will be obliged to report external speakers who have views considered to be advocating ‘non-violent extremism’ and who are thought to challenge democracy and individual liberty.”

With regards to the legislation, Oxford University commented, “Individual academics from Oxford have already made it clear that they have concerns about the Bill. The University is monitoring events with interest.”

The Home Office told Cherwell, “We must ensure that poisonous, divisive ideologies are not allowed to spread, including through our universities.

“There is no contradiction between promoting freedom of speech and safeguarding the interests and well-being of students, staff and the wider community. Universities UK already provides guidance to help institutions develop extremist speaker policies.

“The measures in the Bill will build on these existing arrangements and ensure Prevent is delivered to a consistent standard across the country. This is particularly important in areas where terrorism is of the most concern but we are clear that all areas need to understand the local threat and take action to address it.”