Skip to content
Get Involved
Opinion

The Jacob Rees-Mogg protest can be challenged but not condemned

,   and  Ed Southgate
6 min read

Epigram is an independent student publication aiming to publish individual views from across the student body. To respond with an opposing view, please email comment@epigram.org.uk

Comment Editor and Bristol University Conservative Association (BUCA) committee member, Ed Southgate, argues against condemning the protest outside MP Jacob Rees-Mogg's talk yesterday at the University of Bristol

It has been just over half a year since I took over as Comment Editor, so my name in this role may well be known to our readers. I am quite certain, however, that my name is not as known as having been in the role of Social Secretary for the Bristol University Conservative Association (BUCA) for that same length of time. It is that role from which I wish to speak today, regarding the protest against Jacob Rees-Mogg when he visited the University of Bristol.

Having learnt that I have a position within BUCA, you may predict that this article will set out to condemn the protest as unnecessary, uninformed and even perhaps ineffective; whilst a fair prediction to make, it is wrong nonetheless.

In short, the protest was a positive display of how our democracy should work; I could almost go so far as to say I support it, however inconvenient and mildly irritating it may have been as an organiser of the event.

Again, that may sound surprising coming from a ‘Tory scum’; why would I support a group of students and members of the Bristol community shouting against a prominent politician who we invited here to speak? Further still, perhaps more surprising is that the content of Rees-Mogg’s talk cemented my support of the protest.

"In short, the protest was a postive display of how our democracy should work"

Well, it is less so much that I support their protest – in that I disagree with the content of their chants and signs – but rather that I support their right to protest. I celebrate that they capitalised on this vitally important democratic tool that our country provides, to express their point of view towards a Member of Parliament - a position which must always be aware of those who disagree with him or her.

Indeed, in an age of increasing political sensitivity, on all sides, it is so easy to dismiss any demonstration against a viewpoint with which you align - not that I align with every view Rees-Mogg holds, particularly on social policy - as unnecessary, foolish, over the top.

But of every protest we must ask ourselves: what, besides perhaps the content, can we fault about it? In this case, there is very little. It was entirely peaceful, legal and democratic, and, for that, the group deserve our respect and our ears.

Besides, with great thanks to the University security and police presence, there was a clear separation between protestors and attendees queuing to enter the venue, meaning that any chance of violence was immediately dissolved.

That is of course not to say that there was a high chance of violence from the protest group in the first place. We need only look at the description of the protest’s Facebook event page, which clearly states that 'of course, he [Rees-Mogg] has the right to speak. But we [the protestors] have the right to show that we’re not happy with him’.

This line makes immediately clear that the event’s title – ‘Jacob Rees-Mogg – NOT welcome HERE’ – was merely rhetorical inflammation, and was by no means a suggestion that they intended to no-platform the man, who was welcomed by a sold-out crowd stretching across the political spectrum. It is clear, therefore, that the protestors had little or no intention of causing physical harm, and this translated in how they conducted themselves on the day. Again, for this they deserve our respect and our ears.

"The peaceful protest outside Jacob Rees-Mogg's talk at the University of Bristol puts to shame and further underimnes the undemocratic, unproductive, and frankly embarrassing efforts of the thugs at UWE"

This matters very much so both in the wake of the MP for North-East Somerset’s visit to the University of the West of England (UWE) not too long ago, and in light of Rees-Mogg’s talk at the University of Bristol.

At his talk at UWE, Rees-Mogg was faced with a barage of violent shouters, who sought to approach him but refused to enter into open discussion - another democratic tool that the MP has explicitly said he would have happily partook in has they been willing. But alas, their methods leant far more towards dictatorial intimidation than democratic opposition.

The peaceful protest outside Jacob Rees-Mogg's talk at the University of Bristol puts to shame and further underimnes the undemocratic, unproductive, and frankly embarrassing efforts of the thugs at UWE. By standing outside, respecting both the law as well as the invitation that had been extended to Jacob Rees-Mogg, the protestors outside his speech at UoB put themselves in a far more respectable position and showed exactly how to implement their democratic opportunity in an effetive yet non-threatening way.

"Simply shouting 'fascist' down his throat, when he is objectively not a fascist and without any sense of a constructed argument, is not going to get me to listen to nor to contempate your view"

Of course, I use the word "effective" in a loose sense; it was effective in that we could not avoid noticing them, and consequently could not avoid hearing them. They behaved in no way that would prompt us to ignore or dismiss them, such as the unacceptably violent scenes at the UWE campus. Indeed, following the UWE outbreak, the nation were interested in the thugs, forgetting the desire to scrutinise Rees-Mogg's views.

It was also effective in that, whilst I did not change my mind, I was able to hear what the opposing side thought of the MPs views. As ever, they had chants which labelled him as 'racist, sexist, anti-gay' - claims which I would challenge, but claims that they validly hold nonetheless and therefore cannot be condemned.

Perhaps the protestors had a secondary motivation to frustrate or annoy BUCA committee members; if this was the case then I do regret to say that this at least was not achieved. But the term 'effective' certainly can be applied in some way to their protest regardless.

Indeed, employing emotionally-charged language by simply shouting 'fascist' and nothing else down his throat - as the thugs at the UWE talk did - when he objectively is not a fascist is not going to get me to listen to nor to contemplate your view. If I do not listen to you view, I cannot be convinced of your view.

If you are not working in a way that will convince me of your view, then what are you doing? Is it intimidation for the sake of intimidation? Is it intimiation for the sake of a social media storm? Whatever it is, surely your primary aim is to change my mind; in that respect, you have fallen before you have begun.

This nicely links with what was at the core of Rees-Mogg's talk; the idea that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but also that democracy is essential to our freedom of speech. This phraseology was particularly striking for me; freedom of speech has always been essential for democracy, of that I have been certain. But I had never before considered how democracy was essential for freedom of speech.

With Rees-Mogg's words in mind, therefore, I can only cement my intial backing of the protestor's peaceful presence outside of the Priory Road Complex. For their democratic methods meant that both sides of the argument got heard by attendees that night, and not just one. And that is surely the fundamental principle of democracy.

Featured Image: (Twitter / Epigram)

What do you think of Jacob Rees Mogg? Let us know...

Twitter / Epigram Comment / Facebook

Related

Latest