This was an email from an Edinburgh student who is clearly a little pissed off about the ridiculous attempts by EUSA to ban the Daily Mail from it's outlets:
Adam Ramsay's press release explaining his stance is one of the most pitiful attempts at political argument yet to dribble from our most abhorrent champagne socialist. It demonstrates the mental capacity of a three-year old to claim that the paper is "not worth the paper it is printed on," considering that every day 2 million people cough up for it. And it constitutes downright irresponsibility to make cavalier claims (on behalf of the student body), about a newspaper which regularly pays its libel lawyers £1200 an hour to defend it's reputation.
Fair enough, The Daily Mail occasionally prints some fairly radical points of view and not everyone can agree with them. But let's remember here that Adam is taking a decision to restrict a product's distribution on campus, thereby making a direct impact on profit & loss within EUSA shops and henceforth affecting fiscal re-investment into student services. (Basically, it could affect the price of your Teviot pint) So surely it would be fair to provide some concrete evidence to back up his claims?
Oh yes, of course - he does! He glibly informs us that it's "really, really bad." Aside from the weak double adverb, I'm afraid arguing that it's just "bad" simply doesn't cut it Adam. Neither can you boldly claim that "Daily Mail headlines are misleading," without providing substantial evidential backing for this. I'm sure the legal staff at Associated Newspapers would have something to say about that accusation, should this cause a stir nationwide.
Another poorly formed argument stems from the premise that "27% of our students come from other countries." The Daily Mail, he argues, is in the newspaper business to vilify these people, so it should be banned. Whether it's editors promote this agenda or not is simply irrelevant, Ramsay's argument doesn't hold much water, and here's why. On any typical afternoon outside the library, we're all regularly accosted by members of Edinburgh University Socialist Society, pushing copies of "Socialist Worker." Aside from the irony of these guys actually selling this publication for fifty pence a pop, I'd wager that it's content includes some material which vilifies the capitalist outlook of many students. But judging from membership of their Facebook group, their society represents just 0.001% of the university population. Therefore, by Ramsay's argument, it would make sense to ban this publication as well, on the grounds that it vilifies 99.99% of Edinburgh students (who aren't fans of socialism/institutionalised thievery). Adam Ramsay, is there anything between those big ears of yours?
But I don't want Socialist Worker banned either, mainly because I believe, especially at a university, that we should retain a fondness for free speech and a passion for promoting choice. Adam Ramsay and his cronies seem to blindly ignore this. They're more interested in being the big fish in a small pond than pursuing student interests. They think that because their own political views don't align with The Daily Mail, it can be dismissed as "hateful" or "homophobic." They forget of course that this newspaper promotes views in line with Green Party policy (for instance supporting a ban on GM crops) and that it refused to print this advert on the grounds that it was racist. They also forget that Edinburgh students are all bright, intelligent young people who are consistently tutored to be aware of their sources and make up their own mind. We simply don't need babysitting when it comes to choosing what to read and what not to read.
Adam Ramsay has made a pathetic last-ditch attempt to make a name for himself after a year of ineffectual pontificating and perennial promise-breaking. This will undoubtedly spark some media controversy and perhaps a jibe on "Have I Got News For You." And maybe Adam's name might make into a few more newspapers, just before he slips into his ultimately trivial career within the Green Party. I can think of no other reasons why someone might go to such extreme lengths to restrict freedom of speech on campus, other than last-minute ego masturbation. It's an outrage, an embarrassment to the whole university, and shouldn't be allowed to continue any further.
Posts
