Tzipi Hotovely is a right wing extremist who supports the annexation of all Palestinian land and describes the 'nabka' - the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 - as an "Arab lie".
She's the Ambassador of a state deemed by Human Rights Watch to practice Apartheid.
Just as anti-apartheid protesters were right to protest the South African Embassy - which they did far more aggressively than anything that happened last night at LSE - students are entitled to protest an extremist Israeli Ambassador who freely spoke at their university.
For those saying: "What about China!" Please do protest the Chinese Ambassador if he does a talk at your university legitimising the persecution of Uighur Muslims.
The difference is Israel is our ally - armed and backed by our government, and the UK helped cause this whole mess!
And I'm sorry, but anti-Palestinian racism infests this "debate".
If you believed Palestinian lives mattered, you wouldn't condemn protests against someone advocating the theft of literally all of their land, when they already suffer what HRW damns as Apartheid.
Sorry, that should read ‘nakba’
Truth just gets destroyed at times like this, doesn't it? Hotovely wasn't prevented from attending any debate. Here she is at LSE, speaking freely and unchallenged.
Another young woman tells me: "I would like to also add that I go to LSE, attended the protest and it was extremely peaceful! the moral panic that it has caused is insanity."
So basically this is where we are at: "free speech" is under threat on university campuses, but students must be arrested if they boo and heckle the far right racist Ambassador of a state condemned as Apartheid by Human Rights Watch after she freely speaks at their university.
I'm also being contacted by Jewish students noting the exceptionally offensive comments made by Tzipi Hotovely against Diaspora Jews.
Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary comes to the defence of a far-right extremist who calls for the annexation of all Palestinian land, against young students - including Jewish students - opposing racism and what Human Rights Watch deems to be Apartheid.
The Shadow Home Secretary has used his platform to denounce young students at LSE as antisemites - because they protested against an Israeli Ambassador who is a right-wing extremist who wants to annex all Palestinian land.
As someone who's been targeted in the street by Tommy Robinson supporters claiming I'm a stooge of Hamas and Hezbollah, both @lisanandy and @NickTorfaen are playing with fire here.
By demonising student protesters like this, they're putting massive targets on the students' backs
All LSE students did is boo at a right wing extremist who wants to permanently annex all Palestinian land after she spoke freely at their university.
Can those whipping up hysteria over this explain why this is wrong or contradicts the right to peacefully protest.
Don’t answer if you think booing constitutes violence.
I've spoken to multiple LSE students, all of whom are insistent that 'lseclasswar' - cited as evidence of violent intent - is a fake account, widely believed to be operated by a right-winger, but certainly none of the protest organisers.
LSE students also tell me that they are being targeted by menacing posts by hard right Twitter accounts because of the storm which has been whipped up by the media, the Tory government, and - shamefully, it must be said - Labour shadow ministers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Solidarity and love with the brilliant Prof. Alison Phipps, who has been driven off Twitter because the anti-trans cult has allied with that well-known champion of women's rights, The Telegraph, to hound her.
You might think anti-trans activists who call themselves feminists might have a moment of self-reflection, and ask themselves why right-wing newspapers who for so long so passionately opposed LGBTQ rights and feminism are their most committed champions.
If you want to make the case for Kathleen Stock, fine, make an honest case.
If you ignore students' actual objections - not least that she signed a Declaration which supports abolishing almost all trans legal rights - that isn't journalism, it's propaganda and lies by omission.
Imagine if a university academic signed a declaration calling for the abolition of almost all legal rights for gay people, and that angered their students.
Would media outlets portray the academic as a mere victim, or would they at least try to understand the anger of students?
What this comes down to, as always, is trans people are not regarded as a legitimate minority according to Britain's media outlets, and therefore the real victims in all of this can never be trans people, but only the privileged people opposed to their fundamental rights.
Since this BBC journalist is invoking Jimmy Saville to justify the demonisation of trans people, let’s have a look at his past utterances on the BBC cover up shall we.
I would expect most people would respond to such an article by saying 'While there's undoubtedly examples of gay people trying to pressure straight people into sex, they are not representative, and such an article will only fuel hatred towards a group which suffers bigotry'
The key difference, of course, is that in modern Britain, cis gay and bi people do not face the level of Establishment sanctioned bigotry which trans people suffer.
It's beyond belief that the BBC published such unbelievably appalling journalism, based on no reliable data and the testimonies of anti-trans activists.
You'd expect to find this sort of conspiratorial hate on the darkest recesses of the internet, not on the BBC.
It's difficult not to conclude that BBC management have made a decision to promote anti-trans talking points as a matter of editorial policy.
A leading pollster explains why it is so disreputable for the BBC to use a *social media poll* distributed by an anti-trans rights group on their own network as evidence.
This article doesn't even mention the anti-trans rights LGB Alliance, for which Kathleen Stock is a Trustee, and which is the *main focus of the Sussex students' objections*, which shows how utterly bereft of basic journalistic standards this is.
If this piece was a proper piece of journalism, it would note that Kathleen Stock signed the "WHRC Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, which Sussex University students contend seeks to abolish trans rights".
If you are going to write a piece about why Sussex University students are objecting to a certain academic, and you don't even mention the reasons why those students are objecting, then you are clearly not telling your readers the truth.