Comment Corner: Reform Cllr George Finch on campus

Today, The University of Warwick’s own PPE Society will be hosting the next event in their Speaker Series: a Q&A with Reform UK’s Councillor George Finch, the leader of Warwickshire County Council. The comments of the Instagram post announcing the event aptly demonstrate the controversy this has generated among the student body.

PPE Society have emphasised a focus on open debate in their advertising, titling the event ‘Democracy in Action’ and stating that the event “is about discussion and deliberation, not endorsement”. While some commenters share this view, and argue freedom of speech should be upheld, others believe the event will merely serve to platform hateful views.

The debate hasn’t stayed put in PPE’s comments, either. Rootes Debauchery, a popular Warwick satire account, posted a parody announcement for a similar event with Joseph Goebbels, a well-known Nazi. A similar debate erupted in their comments, some criticising the comparison, while others returned to the freedom of speech argument.

As the event approaches, we’ve turned to some of The Boar’s writers for their thoughts on the matter.

Performative free speech isn’t free speech
By Cianan Sheekey

Why does Cllr George Finch even want an audience of Warwick students? University students festering in “socialist wokeism” hardly seem like his ideal crowd; perhaps he’ll attend donning a face mask and caked in hand-sanitiser.

It’s odd that Finch will only face pre-selected questions. The society hosting the event has reposted its initial announcement with hazy language, trying its best to save face, but it all seems rather comical. “We believe our voices makes democracy work”, reads the final line of their (grammatically incorrect) press release, and yet only those with prior approval will be permitted to pose questions. Right.

‘But what about the trolls?’ What about them? He’s a politician; this is part of the job. You can’t police free speech because someone at ideological odds with an official might pose a rude question

Cllr George Finch is an elected official and has the right to speak where he pleases. That’s free speech, of course, and it doesn’t solely apply to those with whom you politically sympathise. But there’s an irony in heading an event titled ‘Democracy in Action’ and only permitting free speech for some. Regrettably, this is less comical irony and more the ignominious kind.

‘But what about the trolls?’ What about them? He’s a politician; this is part of the job. You can’t police free speech because someone at ideological odds with an official might pose a rude question. Campus security is in attendance for a reason, and this is where politics is at: tribalistic and vulgar. That doesn’t seem to be changing, so get real or get off your free-speech high-horse. The right to free speech and the right not to be offended aren’t one and the same.

To welcome Reform is to invite racism, not debate, onto campus
By Charlie Taylor

Political discussion in a university is inevitable, and for many of us it is written into our degrees. I believe that for healthy debate, most forms of political discussion should be tolerated in open dialogue. But to welcome values that contradict principles that we have established to be morally wrong, such as racism, is a disgrace to this university.

Reform UK is racist to the core. It is not racist to have genuine concerns about the failure of border control and undocumented people entering the country en masse. But it certainly is to blame these people, and others of the same ethnicity and/or skin colour for the failures of the British government. These are Reform’s methods, weaponising discontent and abusing immigrants to gain popularity among the uneducated public, who fail to recognise that their problems stem not from people seeking a better life in England but from those leading their far-right party as they seek to widen the wealth gap and keep the rich wealthy as everyone else suffers.

We cannot say that we are a proudly diverse and multicultural community when we welcome these xenophobes and their ideology onto campus

If we at the University of Warwick condemn racism, we must condemn Reform. To fail to do so, and to invite their leaders onto campus to speak so that we may hear out their offensive rhetoric, is hypocritical. We cannot say that we are a proudly diverse and multicultural community when we welcome these xenophobes and their ideology onto campus. While free speech is essential for good debate, it is paradoxical to compromise our morality by allowing those who advocate for the horrific rhetorics that we oppose at this university to spew their hatred.

Let Finch speak, but call him and Reform out for what they are
By Che Wheeler

I don’t think Reform’s presence on campus in isolation is an issue. As a principle, free speech can only be maintained when groups across the political spectrum are given a voice in democratic debate. The reason why most people are apprehensive is because Reform’s presence risks spreading a deeply undemocratic culture of thought into one of the last places untouched by it.

Regardless of ideological semantics, it is a fact that the information of mainstream political discussion is heavily influenced. 90% of the UK’s newspapers are owned by three companies, corporations with piles of money to burn. This also bleeds into corresponding digital platforms with wide reach, such as the Daily Mail and GB News.

Students at Warwick should not be afraid to challenge Reform at every angle, campus included. We cannot let a politics that seeks to destroy everyone but the very top blackmail its way towards victory

The result? A damning paradigm that undeniably favours the status quo. Migrants and the disabled are blamed for taking money and homes, even though this is the result of continuing governmental austerity. Meanwhile, any kind of alternative that seeks to challenge the primary beneficiaries, wealth from above, is delegitimised as extreme and unrealistic, even though this is far from the case.

It is this culture of scapegoating, induced divisiveness and capitalist realism that has embodied the rise of Reform. I am not saying that university students know everything, but we see through Farage’s puppet show, not through ideological conveyor belts, but by understanding the truth. It is for this reason, that students at Warwick should not be afraid to challenge Reform at every angle, campus included. We cannot let a politics that seeks to destroy everyone but the very top blackmail its way towards victory.

The insincere politics of Reform don’t allow for fair debate
By Anonymous Writer

I do not disagree with fair debate; I actively engage in it inside and outside of my degree. I am aware that politics have been, are, and always will be an active part of student life – student politics movements are why we have an SU building, as an example. My stance is against tolerating those who are intolerant.

George Finch is just one example of this. During Pride month, he attempted to have the Progress Pride flag removed from the Warwickshire County Council building. When he was told he could not do this, members of the party attacked the chief executive online, building upon conspiracy theories that democracy is falling.

Reform UK are as insincere in their argument for “free speech” and fair debate as they are intolerant in their actions and policies

Students should feel safe, respected, and represented at university, and views like the ones held by Reform UK put that safety into question. So perhaps having politicians with harmful viewpoints speak to a wide audience is a bad move, if we wish to prevent harm.

35% of students said Reform UK should not speak on university campuses: 16% said the same of Labour. Students are aware, then, that both parties hold beliefs which can be harmful. If an individual represents a party which bases itself on oppressive and harmful beliefs, I am less inclined to believe that they would engage in fair, respectful debate.

Debating those who are insincere is futile; they cannot engage in fair debate. Reform UK are as insincere in their argument for “free speech” and fair debate as they are intolerant in their actions and policies. Often, they know little about the topic outside of spreading hate and misinformation.