Writing about The big bad Union sabbs? from Verbal Diarrhoea

I’ve decided to write up my email correspondance with the union on this matter, since I believe it to be a serious one.

Me -> president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk

From:   Max Hammond
To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk
Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi,

I’ve heard that an “emergency meeting” of the sabbatical officers decided to cancel a planned debate organised by FOPAL. I would like to know what actually took place, what your rationale was, and how this move is consistent with Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which confers upon you the duty to ensure freedom of speech, within the law.

Note Especially

”(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with

(a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or

(b) the policy or objectives of that body. “

Regards,

Max Hammond

Simon Lucas -> Me

<br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 8:26 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

Dear member,

The Students’ Union have asked the Friends of Palestine Society to postpone their event until security and safety criteria have been met. We seek to ensure that all events run by any part of the Students’ Union are safe for our members to attend and participate in.

The Students’ Union regrets that it is unable to reply individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter. We will inform our membership of any further developments through our website: www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk

(removed in-line quotation of my original message)

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 20:41 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,

> The Students’ Union have asked the Friends of Palestine
> Society to postpone their event until security and safety
> criteria have been met. We seek to ensure that all events
> run by any part of the Students’ Union are safe for our
> members to attend and participate in.

That does not, however, absolve you from your responsibilities to facilitate free speech.

> The Students’ Union regrets that it is unable to reply
> individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter.
> We will inform our membership of any further developments
> through our website: www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk

You have only addressed one of the issues that I raised in my first email. To re-iterate:

1. What happened? – I count this as partly answered.

2. What was your rationale?

3. How is this consistent with the legislation that I cited?

You have a choice now. You can easily defuse a serious situation which is now developing, by giving a full and clear account of what has transpired, and what the criteria for the event to go ahead are. Or you can proceed with brush-offs like the one you have just sent me, which will only serve to escalate the situation.

Your call.

Max

(removed in-line quotation of my original message)

published on union website, 22/11/2004

The Students� Union is no longer requesting that the Friends of Palestine (FoPal) society postpone its planned debate this Wednesday. Our concerns about security and safety have now been addressed and we are confident that the debate should be able to take place without incident.

Since there has been a great deal of uninformed speculation about this situation – let us now finally set the matter to rest by clarifying a few points:

1. The event was never �banned�. The Union did however ask FoP for a postponement on the basis of concerns about security and safety. The Union does not consider there to be anything inherently problematic about the event in itself. What was difficult was putting the necessary precautions in place on such a short time scale. The Union only became aware of the event when posters started going up a week ago whereas under Union policy we should have been consulted in the planning stage.

1. The request for FoP to postpone the event was not politically motivated. It was because of concerns for the safety and security of those attending. The Union has a duty to ensure that all events run by any part of the Students� Union are safe for our members to attend and participate in. We had legitimate grounds for believing that it might not be possible to guarantee that in this case.

1. The Union has always been keen that its members should participate in informed and open discussion about the issue of Israel-Palestine. We believe that open dialogue about such important matters is not only essential but is a key part of what people come to a University to do. We have no interest in curbing the freedom of speech of our members.

We hope that everyone now understands the true facts behind the situation. The Students� Union regrets that it has been unable to reply individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter; we have been busy trying to reach a solution.

We thank everyone for their patience and encourage those who turn up on Wednesday to do so with an open mind and a constructive attitude. It is clear that in the last few days passions have been slightly inflamed by this situation and it is in everyone�s interests that we now all work together to ensure that the debate is allowed to go ahead in a calm, mature and sensitive fashion.

Simon Lucas -> me

<br /><br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 5:56 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

The Students’ Union is happy to make the following announcement:
link

All the best,

Simon

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 6:05 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,

> The Students’ Union is happy to make the following announcement:
> link
> &article_id=177

Thanks for that.

A couple of questions, though:

Which union body made the decision to ask for the debate to be postponed, and where are the minutes?

What were your “legitimate concerns” regarding safety?

Cheers,

Max

Simon Lucas -> Me

<br /><br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 8.27 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

The directors of the Union made the call as a matter of operational practise. We make decisions all the time without having to minute them.

As for our concerns that is to a degree confidential, however you only need think back to two years ago this Thursday at the Union Council meeting where the Home Office had to send in full police protection for those entering the debate and special forces were called on to investigate death threats. Buses of protestors came down and fights were barely averted. It wasn’t nice – believe me, I was there.

This time however by some careful action we’ve been able to avoid going down the same route which is a credit to all those involved.

All the best,

Simon

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 9:05 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,

> The directors of the Union made the call as a matter of
> operational practise. We make decisions all the time without
> having to minute them.

Who are “the directors of the union”? Do you mean the sabbs? Surely on an issue as potentially inflammatory as this, transparancy is of the utmost importance. Democracy is impossible without freedom of speech, so any curtailment of this freedom must surely be explained in depth. To refer to this as an operational matter is misleading; you threatened to deny freedom of speech to some of your members, and that is not a routine operational matter, as you could theoretically have been called upon to justify your actions in court (Education (No 2) Act, 1986, section 43). I believe you probably had a good case for doing what you did, but you must be open about things.

> As for our concerns that is to a degree confidential, however

Do you not see the problem with this line of argument? “You just have to trust us that we can’t hold this debate for ‘security’ reasons”

> you only need think back to two years ago this Thursday at
> the Union Council meeting where the Home Office had to send
> in full police protection for those entering the debate and
> special forces were called on to investigate death threats.
> Buses of protestors came down and fights were barely averted.
> It wasn’t nice – believe me, I was there.

Quite. I do not disagree that there are issues to be addressed, my issue is with the way that the union has handled the whole fiasco. Posting “news” articles addressing your members as if we are naughty children by telling us that you “encourage members not to indulge in ill-informed comment” is not constructive. Comment was ill-informed because you have tried to keep the whole issue quiet.

[I think you mean special branch, rather than special forces. Although special forces attending warwick would have enlivened things somewhat!]

> This time however by some careful action we’ve been able to
> avoid going down the same route which is a credit to all
> those involved.

Indeed. I’m pleased that you’ve managed to sort this out to everybody’s satisfaction. It’s a nasty nasty problem to have to deal with, and I don’t envy you. What I’m trying to get across is that the playing field has changed somewhat recently, especially with the advent of warwick blogs. I’ve never seen such an immediate response to some union decision as I’ve seen with this event (and I’ve been here 7 years!) – and you could have calmed things down with a simple press release.

I can’t speak for the others, but what would have calmed me down quickly would have been:

“On Wednesday, the sabbatical team became aware of a planned debate organised by FOPAL. Considering the events two years ago, they made inquiries into the security arrangements for the event. Having not received satisfactory answers from FOPAL, they decided to ask FOPAL to postpone their debate until such issues had been addressed.”

No ranting about ill-informed comment. No brush-offs like the standard response that you sent out – that merely served to infuriate the people who read it. Tell people what has happened. Tell them why you have acted the way you have. Treat your members like adults and they’ll respect you. Postpone debates with condescending explanations, and you’re heading for an EGM.

Cheers,

Max