by David Robertson, Christian Today
The Oxford Union in 1933 held a famous King and Country debate in which the motion that members would under no circumstances fight for King and country passed by a large margin. The Oxford Union does tend, along with its sister debating society in Cambridge, to be a reflection of the way that the elites view the world in the United Kingdom. So, it was with a great deal of interest that I watched the debate last month on whether ‘this house has a right to be suspicious of Islam’.
The speakers in favour of the proposition were Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Jonathan Sacerdoti, whilst Abdullah Al-Andalusi, Michael Doward, and Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke against it. The motion was defeated by a narrow margin with a much smaller than usual attendance.
What was of particular note were the hundreds of protesters outside because of the presence of Tommy Robinson, and indeed because of the subject itself. Ironically evidence in support of the motion came from a Muslim student stating that it was only because of the Muslim and predominantly South Asian executive that Robinson was not ‘quite literally cooked’. The level of security needed because of a debate was indicative of a deeply divided society, under threat from extremists.
The debate was interesting but also depressing for various reasons. I want to focus especially on Jacob Rees-Mogg’s surprising opposition to the motion. But before we do that, let’s look at some of the arguments that were moved before he closed the debate.
Watch: Laurence Fox, Jonathan Sacerdoti, Tommy Robinson