The right to free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. The 'No Platform' supporters claim that 'No Platform is about defending freedom of speech', as 'Fascists use freedom of speech to spread their message of hate, but destroyed all freedom and democracy when they gained power.' But this argument comes dangerously close to attempting to argue something worryingly like 'The loss of liberty is the price we pay for freedom'.

How does one protect a universal right to free speech by taking it away from a select few? Mme Le Pen's views are completely incompatible with the views of the vast majority of people here in Cambridge, yet since when was the right to free speech dependent on the will of the majority? An important part of a liberal society is the appreciation of a variety of different viewpoints, many of which will not be in accordance with your own.

If the Union is ‘promoting’ Mme Le Pen’s ideas by inviting her to speak, surely it is also ‘promoting’ the ideas of its other speakers, which many of us might find ourselves opposed to. The natural fulfilment of this argument would consequently lead to the Union only being able to invite bland, opinion-less speakers.

If the issue with Le Pen’s invitation is a question of balance and unfair promotion of one person’s views over others  then a better way to combat this ‘promotion’ would be encourage the invitation of another speaker, perhaps an avowed anti-fascist, to speak. This would be more in keeping with the Union’s purpose, in promoting debate. Debate and discussion is meaningless if it is only with those with which you already agree.

In response to the accusations that ‘No Platform’ is stifling free speech it’s proponent’s tend to argue  that Mme Le Pen is of course free to speak elsewhere. What ‘No Platform’ is therefore doing is not simply attempting to prevent Mme Le Pen from speaking, but to prevent the Cambridge Union Society from listening. This attacks a core idea even deeper than the freedom of expression, the freedom of thought. Such an argument suggests that we need protecting from the warm inviting words of Mme Le Pen lest we all become goose-stepping fascists.

The proponents of 'No Platform' seek to fight what they deem abhorrent views by denying those views an outlet. By closing their eyes and ears they hope the problem will go away. Yet by refusing to engage with those they oppose, they do not tackle the problem of racism and fascism head on. They push it underground, where its effects are even more insidious. A better response would be to make the positive case for liberal democracy, and have a real debate which the proponents of fascism would certainly lose.

One does not fight fascism with fascism. One protects free speech with free speech. Mme Le Pen's invitation to the Union presents an opportunity for all students in Cambridge to tackle her head on, to challenge her views and the views of her supporters. To eschew this opportunity and instead challenge her right to free speech is not only unhelpful but detrimental to the fight for freedom and liberty in which many of the supporters of 'No Platform' are keenly engaged.

Disagree with James? Read our follow up piece here where Marianne Brooker defends the ‘No Platform’ policy, as potests take place on Tuesday against Le Pen's invitation to speak at the Union.