The Journal: Content About Advertising Get Involved Contact us Print
The Journal
Updated about 1 month ago | Edinburgh's Student Newspaper | Log in
Home News Features Comment Entertainment Sport Forums Search

Oxbridge debating societies in turmoil

Three Cambridge Union officers resign after violence at debate, while accusations of electoral foul play plague Oxford Union presidential campaigns
Nick_griffin_copy

Nick Griffin

Print article
Post to Facebook

Physical violence, infighting, reports of intimidation and accusations of electoral malpractice have plagued the prestigious Oxbridge Unions over recent weeks.

Three leading members of the Cambridge Union stepped down after a debate turned violent. This event followed just one week after the culmination of a vicious election campaign at the Oxford Union.

Will Wearden, the Cambridge Union president, James Robinson, the secretary, and Dominic Benson, the treasurer-elect resigned following a vote of no confidence for Mr Robinson.

The trio issued a statement claiming they could no longer continue their work in the Cambridge Union, "when petty politics and people’s personal dislike of those trying to democratise and modernise has proved triumphant.”

The vote of no confidence came after Mr Robinson attacked a fellow Union member during a debate.

Sources present at the debate reported that Mr Robinson interrupted the speech of Mr Al-Ansari, the former president of the union.

Mr Al-Ansari said: "I was making a speech while James was chairing the meeting, and he accused me of lying to the members.

"He told me to 'Shut up' and retract my statements. When I refused he asked me to leave, and I again refused, in the name of the freedom of speech. He was shouting over me the whole time, and not in a calm manner.

"He told the president to fine me £2.50, but when the president refused James stood up and shouted 'The secretary hereby resigns'.

"He came down from the chair and walked past me - and the audience cheered at his resignation. He got very angry, and turned round, raised his arm, and threw a punch.

"That missed, but he then barged me, grabbed me, and threw me on to a bench, and punched me in the chest."

Mr Al-Ansari continued: "I was shocked, I didn't expect to be attacked in the Cambridge Union, particularly as I am an ex-president. But a group of spectators then jumped on him and pulled him off.

"I'm not going to press charges because he sent an apology which I accepted. But I certainly don't think he should stay in the Cambridge Union."

Mr Robinson said: "I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to Ali for the altercation on Tuesday evening, and in particular for grabbing his shirt and pushing him on to the bench."

Over at the Oxford Union, conflict over the staging of controversial debates led to a vicious presidential battle that has left the two prime candidates claiming foul play.

Accusations of electoral malpractice and sexual harassment have been flung between the presidential hopefuls.

The reputation of the Union has disintegrated to such an extent that one student put forward a motion last month advocating the abolishment of the famous debating society - whose former members include William Hague and Tony Benn.

The high-profile debates which fuelled the feud included an invitation in November to Nick Griffin, leader of the British National party, and David Irving, the right-wing historian. In January the Union also held a vote to determine whether Israel should be allowed to exist.

Sociology student Krishna Omkar, 23, won an election by over 200 votes in November to be president of the union for the summer term. He beat Charlotte Fischer, 21, who is studying modern history and politics.

However, Mr Omkar, the union’s treasurer, was disqualified and banned from standing again by a university tribunal after Miss Fischer complained that he had breached the rules of campaigning by holding an eve-of-poll meeting.

Supporters of Mr Omkar claimed that Miss Fischer, the union’s librarian, was represented illegally by a London barrister.

Miss Fischer was expected to win the new election, but she stepped out of the contest after claiming that she had received threatening text messages from union officials, including one that read: "fancy a fuck?"

Miss Fischer said she was tired of personal attacks and went back home after arranging to continue her degree next year.

Mr Omkar and Miss Fischer were formerly friends, but the pair rowed over the invitations to Mr Griffin and Mr Irving and decided to stand against each other.

Mr Omkar's stance was that the pair should be allowed to speak in the interests of free speech. But Miss Fischer, who is Jewish, wanted their invitations withdrawn.

Miss Fischer said she was reluctant to accuse Mr Omkar of electoral malpractice because she hated to see the union “weakened" and brought into disrepute by the corruption.

Mr Omkar, an extrovert who reportedly addressed the union wearing embroidered Moroccan-style slippers, said: “I have been punished for doing something most other presidents have done. I held a meeting of 30 people. It was not a party. There was no alcohol present. I had no idea Charlotte had been getting these text messages until I read her resignation letter.”

One union insider told the Sunday Times: “There is a lot of tension. Krishna has quite a dress sense and is considered by some as rather brash. But Charlotte’s decision to call a tribunal and bring in a barrister is seen as unsporting. But both are ambitious and there is a lot at stake. Being president of the union is quite a role to have.”

Founded in 1823, the union has hosted a variety of high-profile speakers over the years, including Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Malcolm X, Michael Jackson and the former American presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

 

 

Comment on this article

You need to have an account to post comments.
Enter your login details below to post, or sign up for an account
User name:
Password:
Comment:

1 comments on Oxbridge debating societies in turmoil

Thomas Hartman 6 months ago

I cannot help but notice that violence always is initiated by those who are opposing speech. It would be understandable if the violence were by those who hate free speech, dictators perhaps, but it is most curious when it is by those who claim to be advocates of free speech. Maybe they only want free speech by those who agree with them, a long standing tradition of insecure persons.