According to minutes from an internal meeting of the Oxford Union, the members of its governing body were advised late last year that they could face criminal liability as part of a counter-terrorism investigation into a debate on Israel.
A stir rippled through the national media last November when the Oxford Union hosted a debate on the motion ‘This House Believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide’. The event saw a level of chaos rarely observed in the Union, with heckling in English and Arabic, as well as audience members and even speakers being ejected from the chamber.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Union’s members voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion, condemning Israel and leading one of the pro-Israel speakers to label the entire debate “a sham”. Indeed, videos from the event show the opposition speakers including Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, heckled as “traitor” and “prostitute”.
In what was possibly the most intense moment of the debate, author and activist Avraham ‘Miko’ Peled described the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 as “acts of heroism”. This part of his speech has been edited out of the official video of the debate published by the Oxford Union.
The Union may have had a good reason for doing so. Immediately after the comments were made, one of the opposition speakers, Jonathan Sacerdoti, pointed out to the President that the “depiction of the acts of Hamas on October 7 is under UK law, Terrorism Act 2000 [as heroism], is illegal”.
The speech was allowed to continue, however, as the President of the Union explained that he was not in the business of “legal enforcement”. In the days following the debate, a spokesperson for Counter Terrorism Police South East confirmed to the Telegraph that they were aware of the incident and “enquiries [were] ongoing”.
According to minutes from several internal meetings viewed by the student newspaper Cherwell, the Standing Committee of the Oxford Union were given legal advise towards the end of last year that they risked facing “liability, jointly, and severally”.
The Standing Committee is the governing body of the Oxford Union and consist exclusively of students at the University. In the meetings, the then president, Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, informed Committee members that they “should exercise their right to remain silent if approached by police”.
The same advice was apparently given regarding members of the press. So far, no one on the committee has been willing to speak to CAF about the situation. However, an anonymous member told Cherwell that “members of [the] Standing Committee are [not] fully aware of the level of liability they face because of the negligence of others”.
A spokesperson for Counter Terrorism Policing South East told CAF that “following enquires the investigation has concluded”, adding that “no arrests were made”. The spokesperson refused to comment on which individuals or group of individuals had been subjects of the investigation.
This is clearly good news. Although the nature of the potential liability remains unclear, any attempt to prosecute the Standing Committee would obviously have been an overreach from the police. Miko Peled very likely broke several British laws by directly praising Hamas’ terrorist attacks during the debate, but he should bear the consequences of those utterances alone.
The Oxford Union neither endorses the views of any particular speaker nor does it pre-screen speeches for potential violations of the law. Holding the Union’s members responsible for the words of a speaker would have been a grave mistake, setting a dangerous precedent.
November’s debate over Israel’s war in Gaza was in many ways a deviation from the Union’s normal form. The president joined the proposition speakers without recusing himself. There was an attempt to eject two of the opposition speakers and one of them, Yoseph Haddad, was actually removed from the chamber during the proceedings. Insults were freely shouted at the speakers throughout the debate. Far from the finest day in the Union’s history.
However, despite these shortcomings, the debate was an exercise in free speech. The chamber may have been stacked with supporters of the motion from the beginning, but the opposition speakers were steadfast in standing up against the consensus and arguing their case.
For those who have not yet done so, it is worthwhile to watch the entire debate, including the parts that have been edited out of the official recording. It is a fascinating, and at times ugly, reflection of what has become one of the most contentious issues on campus. The fact that it was allowed to take place – even with all heckling, jeering, and shouting – is itself a victory for free speech.