I wish to be clear. The actions of Cambridge Defend Education should be unilaterally condemned by students of this university. This condemnation should come regardless of any stance each individual might take on planned education reform. For the condemnation need have no ideological basis save the fundamental principles of democracy.

The right to free speech and freedom of expression are cornerstones of our society. The right to say what you like, listen to what you like and, crucially, not listen to what you don’t like, underpins the independence of the individual in a liberal-democratic state. The right to protest is a subset of this right, and should be equally protected: the right to voice dissent against opposing views and be heard against the power of others.

I will defend the right of CDE to protest with all my breath. But protest does not entail the right simply to ignore, interrupt and disrupt the views of others. Spin this on its head: imagine the outcry should the state seek to disrupt protest rallies by storming the stage with police.

CDE sees the idea of the university under attack – they claim it will no longer be the place of abstracted value-free learning as market forces are brought to bear on the system. They claim the values that set universities apart – the focus on debate, on reasoned argument – will be lost. How, I ask, does preventing the Higher Education minister from giving a speech, in any way meet the values they aim to protect? Debate drives society – entrenching our positions gets us nowhere.

Some argue that Mr Willetts has been given adequate free speech elsewhere, and thus has not had it denied him. We cannot limit a man’s right to free speech ‘because he’s had enough’ – there can be no limit. Otherwise, might someone not decide that CDE ‘has had enough’ too?

Free speech is an absolute, and must remain so. We cannot permit a system where free speech is free only as long as we agree with it. It must be free for everyone, or no-one at all. If it does not remain free for each and every individual, all the time, then someone, somewhere, is deciding what is acceptable. And we’d better hope they don’t get into power.

CDE’s defence of their actions in terms of democracy makes a mockery of the term itself. Using democratic facilities when convenient, ignoring them when obstructive, stands as a bigger potential threat than any educational reforms. At least the government was elected.