OUSU denounces Assange

The dramatic result of a vote in the Oxford University Student’s Union this evening saw a Council approve the writing of a letter condemning Julian Assange’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union, which is set to take place on the 23rd.

Representatives from each college were invited to vote on the motion proposed by Suzanne Holsomback (Vice-President of OUSU) , which passed by a majority of 31 votes; 21 people voted against and 9 abstained from voting.

JCR President of Queens College, Jane Cahill, explained her decision to vote for the motion: ‘There’s a crucial distinction between what the Union is entitled to do, and what it should do.

They have the right to invite Assange, and protesters have the right to condemn that choice, and OUSU can also adopt a position.

Assange is avoiding charges of sexual assault, he can still be protected against extradition to the U.S., and should face his accusers.’

JCR President of Wadham, Jahnavi Emmanuel, however said that ‘There was strong agreement for the need to support victims of sexual assault, harassment and rape.

However, we also agreed that Assange’s right to freedom of speech should be upheld and that we should not make explicit or direct links between the Union talk and the issue of sexual violence against women, given that he is as yet “innocent until proven guilty”.’

Jane Cahill: ‘Assange…should face his accusers’

Voters also agreed that OUSU should support the protest organised by Simone Webb, who has stated that ‘The protest is regarding Assange’s continued evasion of justice, and the irony of this juxtaposed with an awards ceremony dedicated to celebrating integrity and truth seeking.’

Thomas Fingar, who is also appearing at the Union on the 23rd, has expressed his wish to disassociate himself from Assange and his actions in an email sent to Simone Webb. He wrote ‘I am appalled by the theft and distribution of US government documents because it violates the law, personal obligations, and professional ethics. It will make it harder to obtain useful information and may cause both sources and analysts to trim and hedge their judgments.

Moreover, the charges against him are serious and the evidence apparently sufficiently compelling to persuade judicial officials in two countries that he should answer them. I believe that he should do so.’

This will surely do nothing to aid the Union’s reputation during a time at which it has already been rocked by allegations of unfair ballot systems and incompetent committee members.