An on-line copy of this file is available at http://pacvarley.110mb.com/LetterToCardiff.html .

To: Prof. Ralph MARTIN (COMSC)
cc: Prof. Nick FIDDIAN (COMSC), Dr Peter HALL (Bath University), HTV Wales News

I was outraged to hear on tonight's HTV News that Cardiff University authorities have taken action against the editors of Gair Rhydd for promoting and defending freedom of speech. I demand that those responsible for this disgrace be held to account.

I remind all concerned that the university statutes specifically require the university and all of its members to defend freedom of speech and oppose superstition, bigotry and violence.

If the university statutes are to be taken seriously, the following actions are necessary:

1. The editors of Gair Rhydd must be reinstated.

2. The copies of Gair Rhydd destroyed by the university authorities must be reprinted and circulated as normal.

3. Those university officers responsible for this outrageous interference with free speech must be reprimanded and removed from posts of authority.

Pending satisfactory resolution of this affair, I am not prepared to work on collaborative projects with Cardiff University or any of its members of staff.

If no visible progress on this matter has been made by Wednesday 15th March I shall sever all connections with Cardiff University and return my postgraduate degrees.

Dr Peter Varley MA MSc PhD CEng MIEE
Green Party Candidate for Newport West at the 2005 General Election

Posted on Tuesday 7th February 2006

To: The Vice-Chancellor of Cardiff University

I was outraged to hear on Tuesday's HTV News that Cardiff University authorities have taken action against the editors of Gair Rhydd for promoting and defending freedom of speech. I demand that those responsible for this disgrace be held to account.

I remind all concerned that academic tradition requires universities and all of their members to defend freedom of speech and oppose superstition, bigotry and violence.

More specifically, the Cardiff University Code of Practice on Free Speech states that Any member or employee of Cardiff University who intentionally or recklessly prejudiced freedom of speech ... will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. If these fine words are to be taken seriously, the following actions are necessary:

1. The editors of Gair Rhydd must be reinstated.

2. The copies of Gair Rhydd destroyed by the university authorities must be reprinted and circulated as normal.

3. Those university officers responsible for this outrageous interference with free speech must be reprimanded and removed from posts of authority.

Pending satisfactory resolution of this affair, I am not prepared to work on collaborative projects with Cardiff University or any of its members of staff.

If no visible progress on this matter has been made by Wednesday 15th March I shall sever all connections with Cardiff University.

Dr Peter Varley MA MSc PhD CEng MIEE
Green Party Candidate for Newport West at the 2005 General Election

Posted on Monday 13th February 2006

To: Letters Editor, South Wales Argus

I usually read Mandy Langley's column Off Centre with interest and pleasure. However, last Friday's column muddies the waters of what is really a very clear issue. Freedom of speech is essential to any democracy, and those who attempt to use violence to suppress freedom of speech must be opposed. The giving and taking of offence is irrelevant.

For example, Tony Blair offends me nearly every time he opens his mouth. Nevertheless, if he believes what he says, he is right to say it. It is his violent actions, not his words, which are dangerous.

I am sure that most of what I write would be equally offensive to him. I hope so. Giving offence to people one dislikes is one of the few pleasures which remains both legal and tax-free.

I wonder what alternative the opponents of free speech would prefer. Do they want the Government to dictate what people may and may not say in public? Would they, for example, be happy if the Government were able quietly to suppress the video currently in the news of the British Army's behaviour in Iraq, on the grounds that anyone watching it will be offended?

Peter Varley
Green Party Candidate for Newport West at the 2005 General Election

Posted on Monday 13th February 2006

Partially published (missing the final paragraph) in the South Wales Argus on Wednesday 15th February 2006

I received a reply from Karen O'Shea, Deputy Director of Public Relations and Communications at Cardiff University, on Thursday 16th February. My own response is below. Cardiff's public statement is similar in content but not identical in every detail. Where I quote (as indicated by >>), the quoted words are those of the private reply, not the public statement.

To: Karen O'Shea (Deputy Director of Public Relations and Communications)
Cc: Prof. Nick Fiddian, Prof. Ralph Martin

Thank you for your reply to my complaint, and for correcting the errors of fact contained in the news reports. I note that a similar correction has appeared in a public statement on Cardiff University's web site at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/newsevents/18903.html.

I must nevertheless insist that this statement is unacceptable, as I hope to make clear below. Points 4, 6 and 7 are particularly important.

1.
>> Cardiff University has not suspended those students from their academic activities.

I am pleased to hear this. Can you confirm that all of the students suspended by the Union are currently continuing their studies (i.e. not taking a sabbatical year for the purpose of holding a Students' Union office) ?

2.
>> ... the University has expressed its support to the Students' Union. This support reflected the volatile nature of the external political environment on the weekend in question and the potential threat posed to the security of the University community.

This is cowardly and insulting to all concerned.

In the past, members of academic communities have accepted that defence of freedom of speech may at times involve personal risk. It is insulting to imply that present day academics are in any way less courageous than their predecessors.

It is also insulting to insinuate that British Muslims, as a group, would be more prepared to break the law and commit crimes of violence than would any other section of the community.

3.
>> Throughout, the University's actions have been entirely consistent with its Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech.

This bald assertion would carry more credibility if you stated exactly which section of the code of practice on free speech it is that you believe entitles students to censor one another.

4.
It is both both unacceptable and illegal for publicly funded bodies such as Cardiff University to favour some faiths over others. You must already be aware that there are several religious minorities who cannot support or trust Cardiff University. See, for example, this web site, published by the University chaplains: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/chaplaincy/newreligiousmovements.html.

This web page is undoubtedly offensive to many religions. I understand that an earlier version, published last year, was even more offensive to an even wider range of religions.

Please note that I am citing the chaplains' web site as a precedent, not lodging a complaint about it. The University has continued to permit the chaplains to make their offensive remarks, and provided the facilities for them to make these remarks public, and rightly so. Offensive as their comments are, the code of practice on free speech guarantees that the chaplains have the right to make them.

Since the precedent has been established that offending members of some faiths is acceptable conduct, this precedent must be extended to all faiths.

5.
The web site statement makes much of the international nature of Cardiff and the University, yet it fails to mention the wide variety of decisions made on this issue by newspaper editors in various countries. You state that Gair Rhydd is to be treated as any other newspaper, and I agree. The decision made by the editor of Gair Rhydd is in line with the decisions made by several other editors internationally, and on this basis singling out the editor of Gair Rhydd for exceptional punishment is disgraceful.

Furthermore, if the editor of Gair Rhydd believes that there is a conspiracy of silence amongst UK newspapers on a matter which internationally is considered important and topical, drawing attention to this by publishing is entirely the right thing to do.

6.
The matter is, as you say, controversial. Internationally, various politicians of various parties have made a wide variety of statements concerning the publication of the cartoons. Some have praised it, and some have condemned it. A few have even taken the correct view, which is that the important issue here is freedom of speech. The choice of whether or not to publish the cartoons is the editors' choice, and editors must be able to make such choices freely without political censorship.

I should expect Cardiff University to make it clear on all statements related to this matter that the University regards all forms of political censorship as unacceptable. The lack of such a statement in the University's initial statement is a serious omission.

7.
I shall give my own views on the cartoons. Following on from point 6, I wish to make it clear that if the views of the editor of Gair Rhydd are different from mine, no criticism is intended, and the decision of what should be published in Gair Rhydd remains a matter for the editor of Gair Rhydd.

My personal view is that eleven of the twelve cartoons are boring and not worthy of publication. Political cartoons should make political points, and they should make them well, and eleven of the cartoons fail to do this.

In my opinion, one of the cartoons (right) does make an important point and makes it wittily and memorably. The point is that a minor issue, that of fundamentalist terrorism, has been exaggerated out of all proportion, whereas a more important issue, that of subjugation of women in many Islamic countries, has been allowed to fade into the background.

For this reason, if I were the editor of a newspaper, I should choose to publish this single cartoon, and the time I should choose to publish it would be now, when doing so would achieve maximum impact.

The University's public statement does not say which of the cartoons was published in Gair Rhydd. Although it is none of my business and irrelevant to the question of freedom of speech, I should be interested in knowing which it was.

8.
Another serious problem in many Islamic countries is the denial of the fundamental human right of freedom of religious observance. It is disappointing that none of the twelve cartoons makes this point.

Denying the right of religious minorities to practise their faiths openly without fear of persecution, like denying basic human rights to half the population, is regarded as abhorrent in civilised countries. Cardiff University would do well to consider this point carefully.

Peter Varley MA MSc PhD CEng MIEE

Posted on Thursday 23rd February 2006

I have at the time of writing (19th April 2006) received no further communications on this issue from Cardiff University.

I have, however, received a communication from the University of Wales, informing me of the following facts: