Oxford Union Faces Anti-Terror Probe Into Israel Debate

[Social Media]

 

The Oxford Union, long regarded as one of the world’s most esteemed debating societies and a haven for free speech, has found itself embroiled in a heated controversy following a debate that labeled Israel an "apartheid state responsible for genocide." The event has sparked an anti-terrorism investigation and allegations of censorship.  

 

Jewish journalist and Oxford alumnus Jonathan Sacerdoti, who opposed the motion during the debate, became the target of heckling and abuse. During his speech, one audience member shouted, "You’re a liar," followed by an explicit and profane outburst: “F*** you, the genocidal motherf*****!”  

 

The incident drew the attention of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, which is now investigating reports that an individual at the event expressed support for a proscribed organization. A spokesman for the agency confirmed that they are “making enquiries” into the matter.  

 

The controversy deepened when Sacerdoti accused the 200-year-old debating society of muting parts of a video of his speech uploaded to its YouTube channel. The edited footage, he claimed, failed to capture the chaos and verbal abuse he endured. About eight minutes into the video, his remarks about Israel delivering 700,000 tons of food to Gaza prompted loud shouts from the audience.  

 

Sacerdoti, determined to highlight the full extent of the disruption, uploaded his own version of the event. His video included an audio recording of his speech synced with mobile footage captured by his husband. The unedited recording reveals the tumultuous scenes that halted his presentation.  

 

Reflecting on the incident, Sacerdoti expressed concern over the state of discourse at the historic debating society. “If students today – and especially those in our premier university – can’t debate and talk rationally and calmly on a contentious issue, then there is a big problem,” he remarked.  

 

The debate has ignited a broader discussion about free speech and the capacity for universities to facilitate civil discourse on polarizing topics. The Oxford Union, which is run by students and has faced a series of controversies in recent years, declined to comment on the matter.  

 

This latest episode has raised questions about the balance between fostering open dialogue and maintaining order, with critics arguing that the muted footage undermines the Union’s commitment to transparency. As the anti-terror probe unfolds, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the challenges involved in preserving free speech in a highly charged political environment.

 

See the footage they tried to hide: the FULL and UNCUT version of Jonathan Sacerdoti's speech to the Oxford Union, defending Israel against charges of genocide and apartheid. The Oxford Union has published a version of this speech at  @OxfordUnion , however they have heavily censored it to remove the abuse from the audience levelled at the opposition team.

 

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-09

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

When the police are used to investigate speech, instead of catching criminals, something is rotten in the state of Britain.

[Gobbler]

The Oxford Union has rules. Why aren't the rule breakers ejected from the debate? 

 

Answer this question.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

The Oxford Union has rules. Why aren't the rule breakers ejected from the debate? 

 

Answer this question.

What rules were broken and by whom?

[Gobbler]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

What rules were broken and by whom?

 

Screaming insults from the audience breaks the rules. 

 

Next.

[Bkk Brian]

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When the police are used to investigate speech, instead of catching criminals, something is rotten in the state of Britain.

The whole point being that free speech was not allowed to one group only because the other group stopped them with vile hate speech leading to an anti terror probe. They even censored the official released video by Oxford. But we know whose side you are on don't we. 

 

Either you read a completely different OP or you are doing a lame diversion to allow this terror supporting rhetoric to continue. 

 

 

[RichardColeman]

What happens when islam infiltrates education and the minds of idiots

[soalbundy]

Who won the boat race last year?

[placnx]

15 hours ago, Gobbler said:

The Oxford Union has rules. Why aren't the rule breakers ejected from the debate? 

 

Answer this question.

Well, maybe the claim of 700.000 tons of food seem to be an outrageous, blantant lie. Maybe there's a limit to the amount of huperbole that is kosher in the tradition of the Oxford Union.

[coolcarer]

49 minutes ago, placnx said:

Well, maybe the claim of 700.000 tons of food seem to be an outrageous, blantant lie. Maybe there's a limit to the amount of huperbole that is kosher in the tradition of the Oxford Union.

True, not kosher at all. Over 800,000 tons of food brought by 39,000 trucks is more near the mark. 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

What happens when islam infiltrates education and the minds of idiots

Nothing to do with Islam, and perhaps you should consider that having a different opinion to yourself is acceptable except to those that support dictatorship.

[placnx]

18 hours ago, coolcarer said:

True, not kosher at all. Over 800,000 tons of food brought by 39,000 trucks is more near the mark. 

I looked up the 700,000 tons claim. It was made by Israel during a Security Council briefing on Gaza on 22 August 2024: "For his part, the representative of Israel, said:  “We did not ask for this war.”  Israel is not intentionally killing civilians and “there is no famine in Gaza”, and the Israel Defense Forces take pride in being “the most moral army in the world”, he added.  Since the start of the war, his country has facilitated more than 14,000 trucks carrying aid into Gaza — including over 700,000 tons of food, he said."

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15797.doc.htm

(see paragraph 21 in this link)

 

A while ago I saw Sacerdoti on BBC World News. He was spouting propaganda. I have not seem him there lately.

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

I looked up the 700,000 tons claim. It was made by Israel during a Security Council briefing on Gaza on 22 August 2024: "For his part, the representative of Israel, said:  “We did not ask for this war.”  Israel is not intentionally killing civilians and “there is no famine in Gaza”, and the Israel Defense Forces take pride in being “the most moral army in the world”, he added.  Since the start of the war, his country has facilitated more than 14,000 trucks carrying aid into Gaza — including over 700,000 tons of food, he said."

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15797.doc.htm

(see paragraph 21 in this link)

 

A while ago I saw Sacerdoti on BBC World News. He was spouting propaganda. I have not seem him there lately.

Well that's amazing, you looking up the 700,000 claim and all that, well done man! You called it a blatant lie before. How do you know it's a blatant lie? I think you are the one who is spewing out blatant lies. You see there is one problem, you've already outed your extreme anti Israel bias by calling Al Jazeera "largely factual" and Israel as "hardly reliable"

 

So now to the 800,000 tons of food that I mentioned:

 

Since the start of the war, 39,000 trucks carrying more than 840,000 tons of food have entered Gaza, it said, and meetings were taking place daily with the UN which had 700 trucks of aid awaiting pickup and distribution.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-rejects-biased-warning-of-famine-in-gaza-says-aid-trucks-enter-war-torn-towns/

 

Oh wait, this is from Israel, how dare they quote facts!

 

Here's some more facts from Israel with source data of all food and trucks that have entered Gaza. Yes more pesky Jewish facts.

https://www.gov.il/en/departments/coordination-of-government-activities-in-the-territories/govil-landing-page

[herfiehandbag]

On 12/9/2024 at 4:45 AM, Gobbler said:

The Oxford Union has rules. Why aren't the rule breakers ejected from the debate? 

 

Answer this question.

Because they are Muslims. The rules, quite simply, do not apply to Muslims. This is found across the board in UK public life.

 

Take a case in point. In Hyde Park in London there is a place called "Speakers Corner". For well over 100 years anyone has been permitted to speak on any topic, social, political or religious. Basically you can say what you want, or believe, as long as it does not involve threats of or violence against people, individuals or groups, who do not agree with you. If you, as a listener don't agree with what you are hearing, you are free to say so, and to move on to listen to other speakers, or speak yourself. I've been several times, sometimes the speakers were informative, sometimes challenging, often amusing, a couple of times downright hilarious. It takes a lot of bottle to speak like that in public.

 

It is an important concept, one which absolutely enshrines freedom of speech, a right for Britons; rather like the Oxford Union.

 

In recent years it has become increasingly taken over by radical Muslims, to the point where they effectively monopolise it. They make speeches (really religious sermons) which demand Sharia, the denial of basic rights to women, prescribing how women should look and dress, and threatening violence and or death to anybody they consider has moved or is moving away from the Muslim faith. At times these threats are deployed against named, identified individuals.

 

A brave, some might say foolish, young Christian woman has a couple of times now spoken, highlighting the savagery of the policies and threats being made. She was surrounded by what can only be described as a slavering mob (all male, all Muslim) threatening violence and rape.The Police arrested her, for committing a breach of the peace.

 

As I said, the rules do not apply to Muslims. If we accept that, and it appears in many parts of the country the authorities and the constabulary they control do, then we are at the top of an increasingly steep and irredeemably slippery slope.

 

Certainly, "Speakers Corner" and all it means as a symbol of a Britons constitutional right to free speech, is gone! Because the rules do not apply to Muslims.

 

The cynical and simplistic might say that "the country is <deleted>". I don't think it is, yet, but I can see it coming.

 

I'm 66, I served my country (don't get all misty eyed, 'twas a great job) for many years - most of my working life. I'm glad I don't live there anymore 

 

[JonnyF]

It seems Oxford University has changed a lot since the days of sitting on the banks of the river, drinking Pimm's with your hamper while watching the boat race.

 

Can't imagine why...

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It seems Oxford University has changed a lot since the days of sitting on the banks of the river, drinking Pimm's with your hamper while watching the boat race.

 

Can't imagine why...

 

 

Hamper or humper @JonnyF?

[riclag]

On 12/9/2024 at 1:38 PM, RichardColeman said:

What happens when islam infiltrates education and the minds of idiots

What happens , you get Useful Idiots!

 

 

[Kinok Farang]

On 12/9/2024 at 4:48 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

What rules were broken and by whom?

Watch the debate and its blindingly obvious that islam has invaded the Oxford union,controlled the debate and the white allied morons who dress up as Arabs every weekend to march are more than happy to let them run the show.

[Kinok Farang]

On 12/10/2024 at 8:34 PM, herfiehandbag said:

Because they are Muslims. The rules, quite simply, do not apply to Muslims. This is found across the board in UK public life.

 

Take a case in point. In Hyde Park in London there is a place called "Speakers Corner". For well over 100 years anyone has been permitted to speak on any topic, social, political or religious. Basically you can say what you want, or believe, as long as it does not involve threats of or violence against people, individuals or groups, who do not agree with you. If you, as a listener don't agree with what you are hearing, you are free to say so, and to move on to listen to other speakers, or speak yourself. I've been several times, sometimes the speakers were informative, sometimes challenging, often amusing, a couple of times downright hilarious. It takes a lot of bottle to speak like that in public.

 

It is an important concept, one which absolutely enshrines freedom of speech, a right for Britons; rather like the Oxford Union.

 

In recent years it has become increasingly taken over by radical Muslims, to the point where they effectively monopolise it. They make speeches (really religious sermons) which demand Sharia, the denial of basic rights to women, prescribing how women should look and dress, and threatening violence and or death to anybody they consider has moved or is moving away from the Muslim faith. At times these threats are deployed against named, identified individuals.

 

A brave, some might say foolish, young Christian woman has a couple of times now spoken, highlighting the savagery of the policies and threats being made. She was surrounded by what can only be described as a slavering mob (all male, all Muslim) threatening violence and rape.The Police arrested her, for committing a breach of the peace.

 

As I said, the rules do not apply to Muslims. If we accept that, and it appears in many parts of the country the authorities and the constabulary they control do, then we are at the top of an increasingly steep and irredeemably slippery slope.

 

Certainly, "Speakers Corner" and all it means as a symbol of a Britons constitutional right to free speech, is gone! Because the rules do not apply to Muslims.

 

The cynical and simplistic might say that "the country is <deleted>". I don't think it is, yet, but I can see it coming.

 

I'm 66, I served my country (don't get all misty eyed, 'twas a great job) for many years - most of my working life. I'm glad I don't live there anymore 

 

Great post mate.

[Evil Penevil]

On 12/8/2024 at 4:48 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

What rules were broken and by whom?

 

There were different levels of rule-breaking:

 

1)  Miko Peled, one of the speakers in favor of the anti-Israel proposition, said the Oct. 7 attacks were "not terrorism" but "acts of heroism."  The exact quote was "What happened on October 7th was not terrorism – these were acts of heroism of a people who were oppressed."    https://x.com/daverich1/status/1862451758317899869   "Expressing support for a proscribed organisation is illegal under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000."  and that has resulted in an investigation by counter-terror police. A statement from the relevant police unit said,  "Counter Terrorism Policing South East is aware of reports of a person expressing support for a proscribed organisation, namely Hamas, at the Oxford Union on Thursday 28 November and enquiries are ongoing." 

 https://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/news/24782650.counter-terrorism-probe-following-debate-oxford-union/

 

2) The catcalls from the audience and inflamed rhetoric of the anti-Israel speakers were so intensely antisemitic they may have violated U.K. hate speech laws.  Take a look at the video recordings of the debate.  The official versions posted by Oxford Union are here:    https://www.youtube.com/@OxfordUnion  Please note that  Oxford Union censored the recording of  Jonathan Sacerdoti's speech in defense of Israel by to remove heckling by audience members when disrupting his presentation. The uncensored version can be seen here:  

 

Moreover, the Oxford Union didn't post the speech by Miko Peled, most likely due to the possible violation of the Terrorism Act 2000. It also held back the pro-Israel speech by Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a co-founder of Hamas.  Because Mosab became an anti-terrorist supporter of Israel and converted to Christianity,  Hamas supporters always seek to deny him a platform to express his ideas. He was ordered out of the debate for no good reason.  The Oxford Union may be trying to conceal one incident during his speech.  Mosab asked audience members if they had had knowledge  in advance of the Oct. 7 attacks, would they have notified te Israeli authorities.  Only about 25% of the audience indicated by a show of hands they would.   That proves conclusively 75% of the audience members were pro-Hamas and not just pro-Palestine.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have wished the deaths of so many people, both Israelis and non-Israelis. That is also roughly the same margin (21%) of audience members who voted against the proposition that Israel is an apartheid state committing genocide (278 votes in favor, 59 against).  You can hear an audio recording of his speech here:  https://youtu.be/sGGyltraWBg?si=o7Y0QpXI8Fj-BYwc  

 

 

3) The Oxford Union Society has rules governing conduct during its Thursday  formal debates.  The pro-Israel speakers were  interrupted, shouted down, insulted and booed throughout the debate, which was a clear violation of Oxford Union rules.  I'll put all the boring details and links at the end of this post for those who want them.  Previous posts in this thread have shown the abuse of the pro-Israel speakers, so I won't repeat those links either.  The behavior of the anti-Israel speakers and the members of the audience spit on the Oxford Union's historical dedidcation to freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas.

 

4) The President of the  Oxford Union is supposed to function as a neutral "chairman," i.e. moderator, during debates.  His job is to ensure speakers and audience members follow the rules and admonish those who don't.  Incredibly, the current President, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, was one of the four anti-Israel speakers but didn't relinquish his role as debate chairman.  That's against not only Oxford Union rules but also the entire concept of fair debate.  It's analogous to someone acting as both prosecutor and judge at a court trial.  It simply isn't done and it's close to unbelievable a venerable organization like the Oxford Union would allow it to happen.  Mowafy exhibited clear bias against the pro-Israel speakers and did nothing to halt the attempts of intimidation against them.  . https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oxford-union-has-disgraced-itself/

 

 

The details for:

3)  The relevant section  (RULE 71: DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE  (a) Disciplinary Offences) forbids  members or guests to "(A) Act violently or in a manner that is liable to distress, grossly offend, or intimidate others." Paragraphs  (B) forbids "harassment, bullying, or victimisation,"  while (C) forbids "a harmful course of conduct motivated by discrimination."  You can download The Rules, Standing Orders, And Special Schedules Of The Oxford Union Society from this page:  https://oxford-union.org/resources/rules-regulations-and-policies/83/rules-and-regulations-of-the-oxford-union-society-september-2024

4) Same as above, in addition to CHAPTER THREE: OFFICERS  RULE 13: THE PRESIDENT.

[Gobbler]

On 12/10/2024 at 8:34 PM, herfiehandbag said:

For well over 100 years anyone has been permitted to speak on any topic, social, political or religious.

Who permits them?