Blind student dragged from Oxford Union chamber 'by his ankles'
 

The Oxford Union has been heavily criticised after a blind student was reportedly “dragged by his ankles” out of a debating chamber, leading to calls for the union president to resign.

The incident, which was caught on video and described by the Oxford University Africa Society (OUAS) as “violent, unjust, inhumane and shameful”, left the student feeling “unwelcome in the union, Oxford and even the country”.



Ebenezer Azamati, 25, a postgraduate student from Ghana studying international relations, is said to have arrived early to attend a debate – about whether it was right to feel confident in the UK government – on 17 October in order to reserve an accessible seat, as he was concerned that there was no special provision for disabled people. He then left to eat dinner at his college.

When he returned before the start of the debate, Azamati was refused entry, but when a friend arrived to accompany him, he went inside and sat down. Shortly afterwards, security officials entered and manhandled him out of the building. His union card was confiscated and he was expelled from the union.

The Sunday Times reported that the union’s president, Brendan McGrath, subsequently called a disciplinary committee meeting, alleging that Azamati had behaved violently by thrusting an arm out and using aggressive hand gestures as he was being removed from his seat.

Azamati told the Sunday Times: “I felt that I was treated as not being human enough to deserve justice and fair treatment.”

An appeal hearing on Saturday heard evidence from fellow student Henry Hatwell, 21, who said: “Thirty seconds after he [Azamati] sat down, the security guard came in. Five seconds afterwards, he started touching Azamati, who was holding on to the bench. Thirty seconds later, they were dragging him by his ankles.”

On Saturday, the union and McGrath formally withdrew the charge of violent misconduct against Azamati and apologised “unreservedly” for the distress and damage caused.

The OUAS has launched a petition calling for McGrath to resign his position after he “personally lodged a complaint against Mr Azamati for violent behaviour”, which had more than 1,000 signatures at 10pm on Sunday night.

The petition also calls for:

An “unreserved” apology to Azamati from both the union and the president
The cancellation of Azamati’s ban and a reinstatement of his union membership
“Adequate” punishment of “the security personnel who assaulted” Azamati
Compensation for Azamati.

Nwamaka Ogbonna, OUAS president, said on Sunday that none of the demands had yet been met. “We have yet to see a public apology from the union or from Brendan McGrath,” she said. “There have been no details of how the union will be held to account, no details on compensation, and he [McGrath] is yet to resign.”

Ogbonna said OUAS hoped to work with other university institutions to pressure the union.

“It should be a safe and inclusive space for everyone,” she said. “They can’t just declare him not guilty and expect this to go away. This is far from being closed – there must be wider institutional change.”

More than 100 people attended a protest on Friday that repeated the demands of the petition.

The incident has also caught the attention of several high-profile figures, including Labour politician David Lammy, who described “the indignity [Azamati] suffered” as “beyond comprehension”, saying he deserves “far more than an apology”.

The Guardian has contacted the Oxford Union for comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-by-his-ankles

Outrageous

It's the Students' Union so I'm not surprised. The elected officials are a bit like politicians in that, wanting to be one should exclude them forever. The University of Essex voted against a Jewish society being formed. No surprise... The president of the SU in some Cambridge college said she was going to "paint over all those white men if someone doesn't remove that mural". It was a depiction of the men who attended college and died in WW1. The Student Union is home to some very well qualified but stupid people and so every few months there's another outrageous example of their lack of awareness.

looks like he was politely asked to leave and instead created a big fuss and drama?

Shouldn't the question be why was he asked to leave in the first place?

that aside, he could have sorted that out outside without ruining the debate for others and acting like a spoilt child. Just say ok, be civil and go outside and sort it out?

He wants the Leader of that place to Resign.

[When he returned before the start of the debate, Azamati was refused entry, but when a friend arrived to accompany him, he went inside and sat down. Shortly afterwards, security officials entered and manhandled him out of the building. His union card was confiscated and he was expelled from the union.

The Sunday Times reported that the union’s president, Brendan McGrath, subsequently called a disciplinary committee meeting, alleging that Azamati had behaved violently by thrusting an arm out and using aggressive hand gestures as he was being removed from his seat.]

Why should he?
He was acting like someone being harassed and assaulted, because he was.

so a trouble maker was he?

hmmm

He made it clear he was refusing to leave..I don't see what other option they had to be honest.

Its that simple...................

Meanwhile in the real world

"On Saturday, the union and McGrath formally withdrew the charge of violent misconduct against Azamati and apologised “unreservedly” for the distress and damage caused."

yes to stop demos from headcases and move on. someone has to be an adult about it and well done to him for this.

I guess facts don't matter when you want to insist on the victim being at fault.

'The union withdrew their complaint and apologised'
'The blind chap with the African sounding name is clearly still at fault!'

if you care to read the thread you will find he was at fault and ruined a good debate by being selfish

I read the actual article so no need to try to fill me in with your fantasy version.

Then your previous post is very odd if so?

Not really, I can read something without placing fiction over the top of it.

that is brilliant but why do you think that, as this is SD? Most people disagree with you.

'Most people' so you and Parm basically who believes he was in the wrong while everyone else in the thread thinks that the Union were in the wrong. Your definition of 'most people' needs work.

I don't mind people not agreeing with me, people are perfectly entitled to be wrong.

I don’t understand why he was refused entry upon his return especially as the debate hadn’t even begun at this point?

I expect he had previous and the organisers were trying to run a fair and reasoned debate without trouble makers?

"You expect" is not reality.
Oh dear :laugh:
It's SD so stick to facts not your wishful thinking

if you have any evidence to refute my assumption please reply and say what it is?