No platformed again. Silencing debate and the shame of academia

About two months ago, I received an invitation from a student society to speak at the University of Warwick alongside Ghada Karmi. I do not intend to name the society, nor the students involved, as I do not feel they are anything but unfortunate victims.

The event was to be a debate on Trump and the Middle East Peace Process, and by early September both speakers had been arranged. Over the last two months, I received several emails nailing down the finer details. On Friday I was told that the final pieces of information would be sent to me early this week. The event was scheduled for Thursday 1st November.

Ghada Karmi is a fellow and lecturer at the Institute of Arab & Islamic studies at Exeter. This places Karmi working alongside conspiracy theorist Ilan Pappe at the heart of academic anti-Israel activity. Ghada Karmi is a well known figure on the anti-Israel circuit, and I have seen her talk many times before. Her book ‘Married to another Man‘ was already on my bookshelf. In preparation for this event, I also purchased another of Karmi’s books, ‘In Search of Fatima‘:

Ghada Karmi

Ghada Karmi and the event cancellation

Yesterday afternoon I received a short email notifying me that the event had been cancelled:

The above email exposes a truly shameful episode. The reason given for this cancellation – Karmi ‘does not wish to debate with’ me. Yet Karmi had agreed to the debate and she had known it was me she was facing for some time. This last-minute cancellation is an extremely effective way of ‘no-platforming’, as without time to find a replacement, Ghada Karmi had quite clinically ‘shut down the debate’.

It is unlikely Karmi cares that students have been left ‘annoyed and confused’. Putting aside the outrageous notion that people in debate should decide who is allowed to speak for the opposition, Ghada Karmi is a ’cause above all’ academic, just like Ilan Pappe and many others. There are things these people don’t want students to know or see.

Breadcrumbs of last-minute interference

I highly doubt Karmi had planned in advance to scupper the event at the last minute. Who she spoke to and who advised her that it was ‘in the interests of the cause’ to cancel, we will likely never know. However, I would wager that whatever forces contacted Karmi, came from within the University of Warwick itself. As anyone who reads this blog would know, Warwick campus has a small but active anti-Israel academic faction. I have heard Warwick faculty tell awful lies to students, I have seen them promote myths and create events that simply flood university students with a deceptive poison.

They recently held an event there to deny that claims of antisemitism are anything more than a smear campaign. *Ironically*, they used that stage to suggest Zionists seek to shut down debate. I have even been denied access to an event there, and seen academics make up stories to justify such behaviour. Academics at this campus even created a ‘friends of Palestine’ society, because the student Palestine society wasn’t extreme enough.

So perhaps it is no surprise that my forthcoming appearance at the university was addressed online by a member of this clique. About a week ago, Nicola Pratt, one of the key anti-Israel academic activists at Warwick posted on Facebook a ‘why UK universities are so demoralising-rant no.1‘:

The post clearly has Pratt unhappy at something she has heard about a speaker being invited to speak at the campus. In one of her responses, she explicitly names me:

A one-sided narrative

I want you to consider Nicola’s comments. This was posted almost two weeks after Marie Waters had been scheduled to speak on campus (the event was postponed), so it is fair to assume Pratt had ‘calmed down’ in the meantime. The logical conclusion is that Pratt had just found out I was attending or had just engaged in a discussion of some kind over my impending arrival. She wanted to let off steam and so posted her ‘rant’.

Then consider that at the debate, both participants would freely be able to express their views, present arguments to students and face questions. Therefore, what clearly bothers Pratt is that Karmi’s opinion is to be opposed. What is the alternative? She is clearly not bothered that Ghada Karmi would speak to students, hence the logical conclusion is that Pratt does not believe the political opinions she pushes onto students should face legitimate challenge.

Ghada Karmi has been doing the circuit for years, the idea that after two months, she suddenly and independently decided not to debate me, without a word in her ear from ‘friends’ is unsupportable. Someone ‘advised’ Ghada to close down the event. I cannot be sure if it was Nicola Pratt, or one of the other academic activists at Warwick, but judging from the posts above, it was certainly someone with the same regressive mindset. That these close-minded people are in education is shameful.

Rumours of my extremism have been greatly exaggerated

This is a core issue and must be addressed. It isn’t enough to suggest that I should have the right to speak regardless of my opinions. In many ways that position feeds into the narrative there is something unsavoury about what I have to say. This ‘sleight of hand’ is deliberate. Notice how I am aligned with Marie Waters in Pratt’s post (Nicola Pratt has clearly never properly read anything I have written).

There are two issue here. One is the freedom of speech argument. Two is a smear campaign. I am not denied a platform because I am far-right, I am accused of being far-right in order to justify denying me a platform. There is an important distinction. In reality it is my moderate opinion that they find so threatening.

What scares them the most is the fact that when placed on campus, students will soon realise that my message is at odds with what they are fed on campus. I present an academic argument and have spent seven of the last eleven years inside a university studying. I am not an enemy of Arabs living in Ramallah. My views over the conflict are moderate, well-supported and I am a stickler for historicity. I am well versed in the weaknesses of the anti-Zionist position. I can contextualise the historical events and humanise them. In short, I expose the other side as extremists.

So the last thing they want is to have their lies exposed by someone who knows more than they do, can explain better than they can and is far more reasonable than they are. It is this threat they need to silence. It is why blog after blog has been produced labeling me as everything from a misogynist to someone who hates Muslims. One even labelled me ‘the most extreme racist he has ever met’. The evidence they have for these horrific slurs – ZERO.

These people are both cowards and liars and the education of students MUST NOT be left to these people unopposed.

Intertwined

The links between academia and the political situation are not imagined. Ghada Karmi is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). A movement that is riddled with hard-core antisemitic activists. Another Patron is of course Ilan Pappe. So too Baroness Jenny Tonge, a member of the House of Lords who disgracefully responded to the recent massacre of Jewish worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue by trying to blame Israel:

Jeremy Corbyn is also a Patron of the organisation. The PSC is merely one manifestation of an attempt to spread non-history as fact whilst injecting antisemitism into wider society. The Jeremy Corbyn supporting faction in Labour are another. Some academic networks provide another. These groups are intertwined and when you look through the names of those involved, you realise they are the same people wearing numerous hats. All these hats though, are made in the colours of the Palestinian flag.

A pyramid of tragedies

A denial of a platform, pushing lies so that arguments cannot be heard, the protection of a false paradigm. I could go on, the list of issues highlighted by the cancellation of the event is a long one.

Yet nobody cares. Pratt certainly doesn’t care that a ‘provocateur’, ‘an apologist for Israeli Apartheid’ isn’t coming to campus. Karmi doesn’t care, she knows she will be allowed to talk at Warwick without opposition. The university doesn’t seem to care, or it would have dealt with this insidious poison years ago. The real losers are the students, those left ‘annoyed and confused’ by an event cancellation that would have helped to educate them.

Academia doesn’t ‘have a problem’ that is easily remedied. It spews poison into the veins of society and wraps up its bias and intolerance in a fake intellectual veneer. This academia self-justifies and denies alternative voices as effectively as if it were a fascist soldier. The soft science element of modern academia today is as rotten as a forgotten carcass. Denying students the opportunity to hear different sides of an argument, in an environment where those speaking can be simultaneously challenged, is an academic crime.

I end with a simple message to those like Ghada Karmi who think they can silence me. There is no stopping. I carry on investigating, I carry on exposing, I carry on writing. I will take that platform wherever it is genuinely offered. If we all keep fighting, truth will out. Fake paradigms always fall.

 

———————————————–

Help support my research

This research is dependent on community support. It is no exaggeration to say that without you, much of the work I have completed would never have been published. I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. My work is fully independent and can and does make a serious difference. There is always work to be done. In the last few years, many key stories on antisemitism that received global coverage were uncovered by this research and originally broken on this site.

If you can, please consider making a donation. Either a single amount or a small monthly contribution.  Research such as this is intensive and at times really expensive. We need to be there to expose the hatred and the lies. We have to shine a light into the shadows and show people what is happening. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

38 thoughts on “No platformed again. Silencing debate and the shame of academia

  1. The situation you describe is disgraceful. Warwick “University” should be ashamed of the behaviour of its anti-Zionist cabal.

  2. Ask the Israel Society or equivalent to invite you to speak or debate on the same subject with whoever they can get to volunteers to oppose you. Then the arguments on both sides can be aired for all who are interested in open debate at Warwick, which claims to be one of the UKs best EDUCATIONAL establishments.

  3. David, this is terribly frustrating. But I am in full agreement, the other side are afraid of other students seeing sense and the bull of their propaganda!

    1. You are such a fuck wit Scoffie. There is no no platforming. One person decided they didn’t want to debate David. It’s a bit like someone didn’t want to debate you on the grounds that they would be better engaged debating my sisters pet canary’s retarded cousin.

      1. Of course it is no-platforming Stephen. Had she declined to debate me from the beginning, you might have a case. But instead, she agreed, and chose to withdraw at the last minute. Karmi had known she was going to face me for weeks. Karmi is experienced enough to know the way these events are monitored at the moment. Each speaker needs to be vetted. She was surely aware that by cancelling when she did, the event would no longer go ahead as planned.

        1. Sorry David that doesn’t fly. This is drama queen Hoffmanesque stuff. Who has decided that David Collier may not speak or debate at Warwick University ?

          What does seem to have happened is that Karmi sabotaged the debate in a way that was discourteous in the extreme. It doesn’t look good for her. But that is not the same thing. The truth matters. People are entitled to persuade others to do something or to not do something.

          Doubtless an argument that was used was along the lines of, ” Collier habitually drags along with him a bunch of moronic disruptive thugs and things could get ugly”.

          1. Of course it flies Stephen. This from the Oxford dictionary:

            no platforming:
            Prevent (a person holding views regarded as unacceptable or offensive) from contributing to a public debate or meeting, especially one at which they had originally been invited to speak.

            It is clear, even by your own description of events, that this was an act of no-platforming. How is was done, who by and when, are just incidental.

            1. But who prevented you David ? It was a 2 person debate, one decided she didn’t want to debate the other. You were prevented by circumstances.

              A bit like a contract being frustrated.

              I am, however, impressed by your new found deference toward the Oxford Distionary

              Antisemitism…….hostility to, or prejudice against, Jews.

          2. Karmi is a COWARD. She is AFRAID to debate because she knows she will be INTELLECTUALLY beaten to a pulp.

            The savages murdering (hijacking, ramming, stabbing, shooting, bombing, raping, burning, BEHEADING, stoning) people ALL OVER THE WORLD ain’t JOOOZ.

  4. Does is ever occur to Jenny Tonge that an antisemitic act can have nothing to do with Bibi or Israel or “treatment” of ‘palestinians’? Apparently not.
    Has it ever occurred to her that she is part of the problem? That would take a self-awareness she clearly does not possess.

  5. Hi David, thanks for another excellent post. You write “I do not intend to name the society, nor the students involved, as I do not feel they are anything but unfortunate victims.” I understand the sentiment. But t beg to differ: they are not without blame. The response of the society/students to Karmi’s last-minute cancellation should have been “If so, we will invite David Collier to talk to us in your absence.” Cancelling you because Karmi does not like you only rewards her unsavoury conduct and encourages similar behaviour by others.

  6. I am totally in tune with the experience that David went through. I had a dialogue via email with Ghada Karmi about 2 years ago where she recommended her book ‘Married to another Man’. The book opens with her horror that Jerusalem was being inundated with white European Jews. Now who is being racist? By page 26, I was reading about the Suez Crisis where she tells the reader that suddenly Israel invaded Egypt. No ‘why’ or that Nasser had commandeered the canal by nationalising it. At that point I stopped reading the book. I made the point to her that her book was scant on detail and history. I have not heard from her since.

    It is obvious from David’s experience, as well as mine, that there exists a hatred of the Jewish homeland, an unfathomable love for the Palestinian plight…right or wrong and most importantly, David and many of us are experiencing ‘history repeating itself’. In the 1930’s after Hitler came to power, one of his tactics to win the support of the younger generation was to oust the Jewish and left-wing philosophy lecturers throughout all the universities in Germany. One of the victims was Hannah Arendt. Eventually, German universities only knew one version of German philosophy and that was Nazism. The same scenario is happening now with Zionists and the Palestinians. Rather than weaken your argument with open debate, it is better to bar Zionists from public debate than to risk being challenged by the false history of the Palestinians. The following is a list of all the pro-Palestine advocates that now refuse to speak to me:

    Bar. J. Tonge.
    Bar. C. Short
    Prof. Avi Schleim
    Prof..Ilan Pappe
    Dr. N. Finklestein.
    Tony Greeenstein
    Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
    PRC
    Prof. Richard Falk
    ben White
    Dr. Ghada karmi….to name but a few.

    Don’t anyone tell me i have not tried.

  7. Perhaps you would like to start a campaign to stop Gharda Karmi, who lectures and researches the Arab/Israeli Conflict at SOAS and University of Exeter. Are you aware that she is a Dr. of medicine with a doctorate in Medieval Arabic Medicine? In short, she does not possess a qualification (O/A, Degree, Masters or PHD) to lecture at the abovementioned universities in this subject. Further research needs to be undertaken and there needs to be a full enquiry to establish why she is given licence to promulgate her uneducated and incendiary views to naive students in British universities.
    She was also caught out during a debate – ‘Intelligence Squared’ (It’s on Youtube) and I suggest you read her website writings where she contradicts herself. For example, she states that she was thrown out of her home in Palestine by “Jewish Thugs”, yet in her writings, she states that her father decided to relocate the family to Syria as their home was caught in a crossfire. She also agrees with racial profiling stating that any Jew who does not look dark, like her, is not a Jew but a ‘convert’. BTW- I have had a letter regarding Dr. karmi printed in the Jewish News and I sent a copy to her. Her response: “I don’t read anything from ignorant bigots like you. Go get a life”. Clearly, her only insight into the contents of my letter was that it had been printed in the Jewish News. Logically, her refusal to read it must therefore be simply because it was written by a Jew- and I don’t know about you, but isn’t that anti-semitism?

    1. By that ” reasoning” Bertrand Russell should never have been allowed to teach philosophy at Cambridge because his degree was in mathetics, ditto the greatest living philosopher Saul Kripke should not have been allowed to do the same at Harvard on the same grounds.

      I’m wondering if Coral should maybe leave thinking to those of us with an aptitude for it.

  8. Is this bit of history covered in British academia?

    A 30 second Youtube of a Newsreel showing Socialist hitler meeting and sitting down with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviQJesQ7Us

    Why wasn’t the Grand Mufti strung up like Mussolini or the convicted leadership of National SOCIALIST Germany?

  9. You lable the Exeter professor “conspiracy theorist”, and you wonder why Karmi is not going to talk with you?

    1. I prefer conspiracy theorist to liar. Benny Morris calls him a liar, or the world’s sloppiest historian. I prefer the more polite conspiracy theorist. Karmi had agreed to debate me. Let’s not get confused about facts.

      1. Karmi is an adult, as well as a seasoned Palestinian activist – also a refugee born in Palestine in 1939 – and thus, one can only assume she decided not to debate with you on her own decision.
        Benny Morris’ critique is interesting because his own historical research comes to a conclusion that is almost identical to that of Ilan Pappe. It is worth not that Ilan Pappe is just famous, but he’s hardly the only historian with such a position, he is actually just one of a fairly large crowd. In fact, Morris himself admits that Israel perpetrated exactly what historians call “ethnic cleansing” in 1948. But at the same time he maintains that Israel also had not “expulsion plan”. He mainly refuse to use the term. Yet he describes the same thing.
        But the interesting aspects in Benny Morris’ thought are its gross contradictions. We may say the elephant in the room is the moral stance he takes. His point is: that no Jewish state would have been possible without the expulsion of the Arab indigenous population.
        So the curious fact is that, while he denies that an “ethnic cleansing” and no “expulsion policy” occurred, at the same time he maintains that expulsion – that very expulsion which he claims didn’t take place – was an absolute existential need in order to establish a Jewish state.
        What should we say about a guy who expresses such a coherence?

        Let’s paste a bit of a famous Benny Morris interview:

        Q: Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

        BM: “From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.”

        Q: Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

        BM: “Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.”

        Q: I don’t hear you condemning him.

        BM: “Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”

        That’s not all. In fact as it goes on, Morris himself admits that it was indeed “ethnic cleansing”; and not only, but he also *justifies* it. He says he agrees with it, calls it a good thing. See:

        Q: Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

        BM: “There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands”.

        Q: We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

        BM: “A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it’s better to destroy”.

        Q: There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

        BM: “If you expected me to burst into tears, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that”.

        Q: So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

        BM: “I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being”.

        Q: You do not condemn them morally?

        BM: “No”.

        Q: They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

        BM: “There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing”.

        (…)

        Benny Morris’ point is not really about facts, the facts are basically the same, it’s about his ideological take on history, his moral beliefs, which he summarizes as follows:

        BM: “I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

        Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them”.

        Q: And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

        BM: “That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history”.

        *

        So, let’s leave aside for a moment the obvious ramifications of Morris’ particular bias, the consequence of his identifying with one side and argueing for one specific ideology (which leads at least to a natural involuntary bias, as there is no such thing as an unbiased point of view, an unbiased history or a “neutral” source);
        let’s consider one thing instead: declares that the existence of Israel has, as a necessary premise, or a necessary consequence, the annihilation of an existing indigenous community. That is, he declares that Zionism requires the ethnic cleansing, the uprooting of another population, that is “if the desidre to establish a Jewish state is legitimate” (sic) , then also ethnic cleansing is legitimate since there is “no choice”.

        In fact Benny Morris’ phrase summarizes the essence of Zionism:
        “the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them”

        Sorry, but we need your world swept away, nothing personal, but the Jewish state is more important than your rights.

        Benny Morris even draws a parallel between the Zionist enterprise and the genocidal policy against the native Americans by the white settlers: sorry, they need them to disappear for a greater good of history.
        What else do you need ?

        Should we listen to this guy, rather than Ilan Pappe?

        1. you should listen to anyone who is prepared to tell the truth as they see it, in preference to someone who deliberately deceives. I would have thought your question was too easy to answer to actually be asked.

          1. For some reason I doubt you’ve read the whole article. Do you really think Hammond’s reading of Morris is just a misunderstanding?

  10. Do you think Ghada Karmi, a person whose family was expelled from Jerusalem in 1939, would debate with someone like Benny Morris?

    1. I will ignore your historical inaccuracy because I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole. I answer only the debate question. yes of course. That’s the whole point of the blog. Karmi has been doing this for years. She debated Regev (I think) and the general assumption was this event would go ahead precisely because Karmi debates for the cause no matter who is on the other side. It’s why I believe she was ‘got at’.

      1. Mark Regev is the Israeli ambassador to the UK; since he is an official representative of
        a state, it could make sense to speak to him even on the part of someone who cannot have a dialogue with him, as he might be just addressed as the recipient of a statement or declaration. As far as I know anway, Karmi did not talk with Regev. She was invited in a tv studio to speak about Trump’s Jerusalem declaration, and Mark Regev was in the same studio. Ghada only talked with the BBC host who interviewed her, then the hoist interviewed Regev; as far as I remember Karmi and Regev did not exchange a word between each other.
        Indeed she has confronted people with a political status and intellectual strenght far greater than yours, so it would be nonsensical to think that she would be “afraid” to talk with you; while it would make sense to shun the debate on her part if she realizes that the other person’s intellectual status is too low (like that of a marginal provocateur).
        I think Ghada Karmi is an adult, a very expert, very confident activist and wholly aware of what she does; it is quite ludicrous to assume that she could be manipoulated into holding some political conduct that she doesn’t follow on her own choice. I don’t know why she cancelled ther debate but I have no doubt this can only be on her own choice, it would be offensive to assume otherwise.

        1. Yawn. Your comment makes no sense. IF you were right, then Karmi would internally acknowledge that *next time* she’ll be more careful about who she agrees to share a platform with and just suck it up for a couple of hours. What she wouldn’t do ‘as an adult, an expert and confident activist’ is tell students three days before an event that they would need to cancel because she had ‘changed her mind’ and didn’t want to debate a person she’d known she was debating for months. Adults behave as adults and take responsibility for their own mistakes. It is so silly the line you are pushing, I am not sure how you keep a straight face. Stephen and I are clearly at odds about most things, but at least when he makes an argument, I can usually see where he is coming from. Don’t be ‘anti’ just to be ‘anti’, don’t get ‘personal’ just to be ‘personal’, I don’t care what argument you make, but at least put real effort and logic into it.

          1. Karmi must have been pressured to cancel. It would have been COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY to risk being made a FOOL of by David.

            Even Brazil has gotten sick of Leftist Lies.

          2. No David, you don’t get the point.
            I agree entirely with Stephen. But Stephen said something else: he said people have the right to persuade and be persuaded or to change their mind whenever
            they get new information. But this doesn’t change the fact that they are adults. It is wrong to say, as you di, that they are adults if you think they behave as adults. They are adults period. It’s an axiom. You need to respect this self-evidence as an axiom before any other consideration, otherwise you are the one patronizing or offending.
            Karmi was not manipulated by someone else. She made a choice.
            You instead try to blame someone else and exculpate her from her responsability. Basically you use her to attack others. This in my view is not a respectful view.

            1. I kind of do get the point Gabriel. You wrote a post earlier to personally attack and ridicule me. That was the point. Now you wish to do a ‘Chris’ and create a Pseudo-intellectual rabbit hole. I don’t perform to either tactic.

              1. Well look. This is very poor behaviour on Karmi’s part. And I doubt she made the judgment sitting all alone in a vacuum. My point is a narrow one. That is, it doesn’t amountt to David being no platformed.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.