Hypocrisy Etched in Sandstone

lynchNot so long ago, as Michael Warren Davis reported in the December, 2014, edition of Quadrant, Professor Barry Spurr was hounded from Sydney University after his private emails were hacked and stolen, then selectively excerpted by the website New Matilda. Spurr was a target not because UTS journalism (sic) academic Wendy Bacon, the red-raggin’ godmother in the website’s attic, disagreed with his views on T.S. Eliot, a subject on which he remains the world’s leading authority. No, his “crime” was to have used some ugly turns of phrase in a series of notes intended only for the eyes of a friend.

The university’s response was immediate. Not only was Spurr banished from his post — a position from which he subsequently resigned — he was banned from setting foot on the campus where he had worked for decades. As the university’s vice-chancellor, Michael Spence, made haste to explain:

“Professor Spurr is suspended effectively, from teaching and engaging in any other University of Sydney business and is precluded from attending any University campus, while the matter is investigated and dealt with an accordance with the University’s Enterprise Agreement.”

Words matter, you see. Well, some people’s words matter. That Ms Bacon has been deemed a person unfit to practice law in NSW, and that she once appeared in court, dressed as a nun and with the words “I have been f***ed by God’s steel prick” emblazoned on her habit, have been matters of no consequence in her rise and rise through the academy’s ranks. (editor’s note: Is it that Bacon has risen, or that the academy has subsided?)

That was then. Last week, another Sydney University academic, Jake Lynch, who does not much like Israel, invaded a lecture by Colonel Richard Kemp CBE. He was accompanied by the standard posse of pierced and screaming campus ferals and, to the accompaniment of a slanderous chant, an ugly fracas ensued. During the course of Lynch’s orchestrated assault on civility he was filmed brandishing a fist and paper money in the face of an elderly Jew. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

All this happened early on the afternoon on March 11 — five days ago, in other words, and Lynch, a former TV news hack in England, continues to bestride the campus. Spurr, by contrast, was ordered from the academy within 36 hours, fated never to return.

Beyond disgust, there are many possible reactions to the incident, some of which would be most encouraging for those who believe in free speech and the quaint notion that universities should be the site of vigorous, civilised discourse and debate.

It would be interesting, for example, if university patrons and those responsible for overseeing endowments — it is the most lavishly supported tertiary institution in the country — were to announce that they are investigating the possibility of withholding funds.

That might get Vice-Chancellor Spence’s attention.

In a similar vein, members of Sydney’s legal community might consider doing a little pro bono work and suing Lynch on behalf of those in the audience who were jostled or abused. Some members of the bar seem constantly available to prosecute the left’s agenda in the courts. Isn’t it about time learned friends of other political persuasions also took the crease? Jake Lynch might have a good deal less time for transforming lecture rooms into kindergartens were he further pre-occupied with defending himself and his wealth against accusations of assault, harassment and defamation.

Until then, the prime victim of last week’s outrage, Richard Kemp, will remain a lonely voice in calling on Spence to get his university’s house in order. His letter to the vice-chancellor is reproduced in full below.

Dear Dr Spence,
I was invited to speak to students at the University of Sydney at lunch time on 11 March 2015, in a session chaired by Dr Gil Merom, one of your senior lecturers. My subject was ethical dilemmas of military operations in relation to recent conflicts. I had intended to engage with students, present my practical experiences as a British military commander and stimulate a discussion.

Shortly after I had introduced my talk, covering the principles of necessity, proportionality and discrimination as they apply under the laws of armed conflict and giving examples from my experience in Northerrn Ireland and
Afghanistan, the event was disrupted by the forceful entry of a group of students.

They entered the room aggressively and noisily. They had a loud speaker set at full volume into which one of the students was screaming abuse directed at me. The other students were chanting the same abusive words and some were waving banners and placards. They were shouting: “Richard Kemp, you can’t hide, you support genocide”. This group was joined in their chants by a few in the audience who had apparently positioned themselves in the room previously in order to join in the planned protest.

The protesters imposed themselves between the audience and me. This, combined with the loudness of their screaming and shouting, made continuation of my lecture impossible until after they had left. I observed the audience, and many of them, including some elderly visitors, were clearly intimidated by the aggression of theseprotesters. Several members of the audience appealed to the protesters to leave to allow the lecture to continue and these were met with even greater aggression including personal verbal abuse. In some cases I saw the protestors deliberately and aggressively invade the personal space of members of the audience, including at
least one elderly woman.

University security officers who were already present in the room asked the protesters to leave. When they abusively refused to do so, the security officers attempted to physically move them out. They resisted and pushed and shoved the security officers, impeding them from doing their jobs.It seemed to me that, in trying to eject the protesters, the security officers were acting out of concern for the safety of the audience members, as the intimidation by the protesters increased.

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, the Director of your Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, and Dr Nicholas Riemer, one of your senior lecturers, who were both apparently leading and encouraging the protesters, screamed at the security officers to desist. This seemed to be a clear attempt to impose their own authority as faculty members, thereby hoping to intimidate the security officers into allowing the abusive demonstration to
continue. At one point I observed Associate Professor Lynch waving money in the face of a Jewish student, a clearly aggressive and insulting act that seemed to invoke the stereotype of the ‘greedy Jew’. Although not Jewish myself, I found Associate Professor Lynch’s behavior deeply shocking and offensive.

I felt the language directed against me to be abusive and insulting. I have never supported a genocide nor the killing of civilians of which I was also accused by the protesters. In fact I have devoted my entire working life as a British soldier to defending my country and the countries of friends and allies; to preventing killing, terrorism and ethnic cleansing; to peace‐ keeping and to humanitarian operations. I have frequently risked my own life to do so. I have often served alongside troops from your own country. Surely it is not right that I, as a guest of your university and a visitor to your country, should be subjected to such gratuitous insults and slander.

Although the students attempted to intimidate me as well as the audience members, I did not feel personally threatened, as I have faced considerably greater dangers and threats than could possibly be presented or contemplated by such people. However, many of the audience members undoubtedly felt threatened and intimidated by the naked aggression shown to them by these students. I ask you if it is right that students, members of staff and visitors to your university, including elderly people, should be subjected to this form of abuse? From my observations of the audience I have no doubt that some of them were greatly and understandably traumatised by this experience.

Many members of the audience were Jewish and I am sure the demonstrators knew this and set out with the intention of intimidating Jews at the University of Sydney. This of course is nothing other than anti‐Semitism and it compounds the acts of intimidation by the protesters.

On the basis of my observations, as I have mentioned, Associate Professor Lynch and Dr Riemer sought to incite and encourage the student protesters. Can it be right that members of your university staff should indulge in such disgraceful action?

Peaceful and reasonable demonstration, such as handing out leaflets, chanting dissenting views or holding placards with messages of opposition to the views of a speaker, is of course acceptable. Indeed, such a peaceful demonstration was under way outside when I entered the room for my lecture. I was offered and accepted a leaflet, which I read and I briefly engaged in discussion with a protester. However the type of racially‐
motivated aggression, intimidation and abuse that occurred at this event is wholly unacceptable. Also unacceptable in any respectable university is the curtailment of an invited and approved speaker’s freedom to speak and engage in legitimate academic discourse such as I experienced at your university.

I urge you to investigate this incident and to take action against the students and staff members who were responsible for the behavior that I have described. If you fail to do so then you will be failing to discourage such action in your university in the future. You will thus be failing in your duty to ensure that your students, visitors and guest speakers may take part in debate within the precincts of the University of Sydney without fear or
concern for their own safety.

I would add that you have a particular responsibility in respect of the racist, anti‐Semitic nature of this protest. As you know anti‐Semitism is a rising phenomenon in the world. Jews in many places live in increasing fear and concern that they will be singled out and discriminated against. Only by taking firm action against anti‐Semitic
abuse and hatred whenever and wherever it occurs can this situation be reversed. Sydney University has the opportunity here to set an example to other academic institutions that lack the moral courage to face up to the modern scourge of anti‐Semitism.

Yours faithfully,
Colonel Richard Kemp CBE (Address removed)

6 thoughts on “Hypocrisy Etched in Sandstone

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    I share many of the viewpoints of Jake Lynch.

    I find his behavior and those of his cohort in this incident deplorable.

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    It would be very easy to organise students like those responsible for the outrage into Nazi style storm troopers who would then roam the streets beating up anyone they considered politically incorrect. What smashing fun they could have! One wonders what flag they would march under: The swastica, hammer and sickle or perhaps the ISIS flag?

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    What about Vorster’s SA flag or Pinochet’s Chilean flag. They had the same disregard of human life and of free speech.

    I’d also like to see George Brandis stand up for free speech. Where does he fit in this debate? Or is he afraid someone might take offense?

    • IainC says:

      Considering Dr Lynch goosesteps in support of far-right (reactionary/hyper-conservative, homophobic, misogynist, anti-progressive, ultra-violent, militaristic) Hamas-led Palestine (as voted Number One Choice by the population therein), I would agree with KK that Lynch would march under some sort of far-right banner. I hope Dr Lynch didn’t imagine himself as part of the “progressive” Left! To paraphrase Orwell, there is no concept so stupid that an Academic won’t believe it to be true.

  • IainC says:

    On reflection, I see ISIS as the Fascist War Machine Ally of choice for the next phase of the Lynchmob BDS campaign. After all, what has Hamas achieved in 60 years – a terrorist sortie here, a children’s playground attack there, a few desultory rockets popped over the border everywhere. And Israel is still around, stronger than ever. No, Hamas are pikers! No imagination. ISIS will be the ones to take the BDS (Bombing, Destruction and Scarification) of Israel to the next level – a true one state solution. Join those who speak Power to Truth, Dr Lynch! The sirens are calling.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Iain C

    Great to see we are aligned now for your next big logical step.

    Hamas are at war with the Labor/lefties dominated Israelis.

Leave a Reply