Oxford Student Arrested After Chanting “Put the Zios in the Ground”
A University of Oxford student has been arrested and suspended by the university after he led chants for Gaza to “make us proud” and “put the Zios in the ground”. The Mail has the story.
An Oxford student who was filmed chanting “put the Zios in the ground” at a pro-Palestine protest has been arrested by police and suspended by his university.
The Metropolitan Police took 20 year-old Samuel Williams into custody today after he was named by the Daily Mail as the student leading the vile anti-Israeli chants.
‘Zio’ is an offensive reference to Zionists, and some have interpreted the words as calling for death to Jews, after the Palestine Coalition demonstration on Saturday.
Mr Williams was arrested at a property in Oxfordshire on suspicion of inciting racial hatred following an investigation launched by Scotland Yard detectives.
The philosophy, politics and economics student at Balliol College has also been suspended by Oxford University.
A Met spokesman said: “Officers investigating chants filmed at a Palestine Coalition demonstration in Central London on Saturday October 11th have made an arrest.
“A 20 year-old man was arrested at an address in Oxfordshire on Wednesday October 15th on suspicion of inciting racial hatred. He remains in police custody.”
The chants were filmed on the the day after ceasefire came into effect in Gaza.
Speaking through a microphone at the march, Mr Williams told the crowd: “A steadfast and noble resistance in Palestine and in Gaza to look to, to be inspired by and – I don’t want to yap for too long – but a chant that we’ve been workshopping in Oxford that maybe you guys want to join in.
“It goes ‘Gaza, Gaza make us proud, put the Zios in the ground’.”
A spokesman for Oxford University said: “The University of Oxford condemns, in the strongest possible terms, any language urging violence against groups of people or expressing any form of racial hatred.
“The university’s support for freedom of speech does not extend to any statements, including such language.
“When such language is reported, we will always want to speak to the student concerned and consider the matter under our disciplinary procedures in line with university and college policies.
“Oxford is unequivocal – there is no place for antisemitism, harassment, or discrimination within our community. We remain firmly committed to protecting the safety and dignity of all our students and staff.”
A spokesman for the Union of Jewish Students said: “The Union of Jewish Students welcomes the news that decisive action has been taken against a University of Oxford student who called to ‘put the Zios in the ground.”
“Jewish students should never have to stand by as their peers glorify terrorism or incite hatred.
“Universities around the country should take note of this swift action. Institutions must end the culture of impunity that has allowed antisemitism to go unchecked on campus and take a firm, consistent stand against the glorification of terror.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great news!
Deport him to Gaza.
Nice idea!
Intrigued at the down votes. Any of them care to comment why?
They never do, Alan. They never do.
👎 is the mark of a coward. They downvote in lieu of articulating an actual response because they have no counter-argument to offer up. I speak from extensive experience. I could have 30 👎 👎 and not a single sentence cobbled together by way of reply in what they find so problematic about my comment.
I just laugh at such a mentality because it just confirms what I already know about many on here who hide behind their screens but have nothing of worth to say for themselves.
Mind, I’ve also acquired quite the ‘merry’ band of loyal haters over the years, so there is that. Good to know I’ve made a lasting impression on so many ‘pro-free speech’ frauds. 😁
After all, how can one profess to be all about ‘free speech’ but then substitute words for these> 👎 ? 🤷♀️
Only insecure, narcissistic people act like CATHOLIC INQUISITORS, outraged that anyone should dare to downvote their comments, and demanding that all downvotes be explained. They never demand that upvotes be explained, strangely enough. It’s SHEER EGOTISM.
Stop denying our RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH & DOWNVOTES.
NO ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN, so GET OVER IT.
Oh I’ll never stop calling cowardly, ill-mannered hypocrites like you out. Don’t you worry about that, troll. Now I suggest you take a piece of your own advice and ”STOP YOUR INCESSANT WHINING!”
So what? Can you imagine the amount of space that would have been wasted on this website if, for example, all 50 or so downvoters on many of my own comments in the past were forced by some INQUISITOR to explain why?
Only insecure, narcissistic people demand that every downvoter explain every one of their votes, either up or down. It’s a denial of all that the Free Speech Union stands for.
Freedom of Speech, and Thought, and Downvotes!
Maybe it’s best you try looking in a mirror and attempting a bit of introspection before you persist with your usual demonstrations of classic projection. Only a narcissist would accuse others of behaviour that they themselves are guilty of. You are a classic example, and the fact you get so triggered Every. Single. Time by my posts, because you recognize yourself in my comments, tells me all I need to know. Very poor impulse control, to boot; ”A narcissist has an inflated sense of self-importance, craves admiration, lacks empathy, and may manipulate others to uphold their self-image, often linked to narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). What is Narcissistic Supply? This refers to the attention, admiration, validation, or even fear that individuals with NPD or narcissistic traits crave to maintain their inflated sense of self-importance and fragile ego. It’s like an emotional “drug” that narcissists are addicted to, as it temporarily fills their inner emptiness and shields them from feelings of shame or inadequacy. This is described as a pathological need for excessive affirmation from others, disregarding their feelings or boundaries. Narcissistic Rage: Narcissistic rage is an intense, often disproportionate emotional outburst triggered when someone with narcissistic traits feels their self-image, control,… Read more »
(Comment removed for abuse)
Yes I did post it previously, because it’s you in a nutshell. Why else would you get so bent out of shape? Because I’ve obviously touched a nerve!
(Comment edited for abuse)
I didn’t down vote but don’t agree with the sentiment and can explain why very easily.
You don’t arrest people for saying things. You don’t respond to words with violence. You respond to words with words.
Hitler said many things.
Many acted on what Hitler said.
Hitler was able to perpetrate all those horrors because his thugs shut his opponents up with censorship and intimidation.
I hear this argument all the time from people who miss the point entirely. Dictators are able do awful things in large part because they shut people up.
So words never incite violence? It’s people like you who got Charlie Kirk murdered.
Why don’t you simply admit the error in your thinking.
Forcing people to EXPLAIN every one of their votes, either up or down, is a DENIAL OF OUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THOUGHT.
Stand up for your own rights.
No one has to explain anything!!!
If they wanted to comment, they would, Inquisitor.
Was it Voltaire who said “I may not agree with what this man says but I will defend his right to say it”
Voltaire in my view was spot on.
No, it’s the wrong charge. It should be “Incitement to Mass Murder”, like that Foul Communist Ricky Jones urging people to slit the throats of anyone who disagrees with Leftists.
I remember being taken to Speaker’s Corner as a child and being shown the marvel that wa the freedom of expression in our country. I was assured that you could get on a soap box there and literally say anything you wanted to say.
I miss that country.
I agree with that. People shouldn’t be arrested for shouting nonsense in public, regardless of who believes this nonsense to be offensive (instead of just nonsense).
Hang on, he is encouraging the death of others. Could you imagine a white person standing up and chanting about killing blacks (other minorities are available)? The defence ‘it is only a bit of nonsense’ would rightly not last 5 secs. And of course, if it was ‘a bit of nonsense’ it might encouraged others. Charlie Kirk scenario.
So free speech – yes, different ideas – yes, calling for the death of your opponents – no all day long.
He has not been charged with calling for people’s deaths as there is no specific law against that. He has been arrested for “stirring up racial hatred”, a bit like that woman who was jailed whose name escapes me.
Short version of you text: But he shouted something I really disapprove of!!
To which I’d answer: Well, then shout something else to make it a nice shouting competition!
[Or be intelligent enough to leave the idiot shouting as no amount of shouting in the UK will have any real-world influence in Gaza.]
As I’ve written a couple of times in the past already: People who smeared Kirk as Nazi have endorsed his politically motivated murder. But they didn’t cause it to happen. I think this endorsement is already enough of an accusations as it basically means “I’d kill the guy myself if I only had the balls for that!”
But this example doesn’t fit here at all because the ‘war’ in Gaza is over, at least for now, and Hamas paramilitaries will gladly kill people they consider their enemies without encouragement or endorsement by anyone.
In almost every sphere of human interaction a ‘line has’ to be drawn. It was much easier post WW2 when there were greater shared values and a recognition that society fared better if everyone took/displayed some personal responsibility.
Nowadays everyone wants to contest ‘that line’, especially when it the Left talking about their ‘rights’. With 24/7 news coverage and social media etc it doesn’t seem unreasonable to remind this little nobody what the line is. If he receives no censure he’ll push the line harder next time, just like children always do.
The proper response to words is other words, different words. Not violence. And that goes both ways.
Another thing is if violence was committed. Was violence committed that could be attributed directly to his words?
If there was, then he could be charged for being complicit to a violent crime. If not, he is being arrested because someone thought his word might have caused violence (but didn’t). And if you are talking about lines that should not be crossed, that is definitely one.
My opinion on this is: With regards to public speech, there should be a crime incitement of violence which would occur if a speaker was trying to turn a crowd into a mob which would then proceed to attack some readily available target. In this case, this sheepish young man is obviously not trying to do that and there’s also no target which could be attacked and hence, no crime.
That’s something I copied from a British politician of the 19th century whose name I’ve forgotten because it seems sensible to me.
I absolutely agree with you.
Actual Incitement to Mass Murder an entire group of people for belonging to another group is NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or “nonsense”.
It’s Incitement to Mass Murder.
Was mass murder committed as a result of his words?
No. In which case he hasn’t incited anything. The only thing that he seems to have incited is people’s imagination.
IF mass murder could be attributed directly to his words, then he can be arrested and charged for being complicit in mass murder.
But you can’t arrest someone just because he said something that COULD have resulted in mass murder…. but didn’t. What the hell is that? Do you not see what a dangerous slippery slope that is?
The idea behind right-minded censorship is always that the right people censor the wrong people and that everything’s fine because of that and that the other guys also think they’re the right people and seeking to censor the wrong people just shows how important it is that the real right people censor them.
To paraphrase Ernst Jünger on a slightly different topic (condemnation of pacifists out of cowardice): Some people say But killing is terrible!, however, what they really mean is It’s terrible to be killed!
They’re not really opposed to killing per se, just afraid that it might not be them doing it.
What a nonsensical argument.
It’s nonsense for the simple reasons that the war in Gaza is over, that shouting anything in London has no effect in Gaza and because a war is not some kind of football match where fans shout from the sidelines to cheer on their team. The very idea highlights just how clueless and thoughtless this guy is. And I don’t think people should be prosecuted for thoroughly making a fool of themselves in public. Rather ridiculed, which is more likely to stop them from repeating this than making them feel like some kind of martyr for a worthy cause, anyway.
I just don’t really buy the idea that the kinds of maniacs who carry out violence based on their political views are inspired to do so by some twat of a student spouting utter nonsense.
The real issue is of course that there are countless examples of similar statements from those on the right resulting in criminal charges and prison sentences. The solution to that latter issue is not prosecuting far left speech, even if it is reckless and uses violent rhetoric; it’s to stop prosecuting speech at all.
It’s not so much the leftist rhetoric that led to Charlie Kirk’s murder as it is the normalization of an entirely skewed media narrative, one in which the far left were able to indulge their fantasies with the tacit and sometimes explicit endorsement of those in control of the media and large corporations.
I genuinely can’t think of recent examples when the ‘right’ are doing this (in an organised march). I would have thought the police would have been on to that ‘tout suite’. Happy to be corrected though.
I don’t think there are examples of marches, but there are certainly plenty of pretty objectionable things said online by both left and right. Neither should be prosecuted, but to date the majority of prosecutions have been for people posting things categorized as right wing.
We literally have no clue what led to the murder of Charlie Kirk. What words, what thoughts, what ideas. We just don’t know and can’t ever know. It’s all pure speculation.
It’s not “pure speculation.” There is plenty of evidence many people hated him because of his religion, views on the trans issue, support for Trump, etc. And he was the most visible presence for these views on many US campuses, so by extension a pretty easy target. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that he wouldn’t have been shot had he been going to college campuses to support abortion, gun control and Bernie Sanders.
Do we know the true motivations of the killer? No, obviously not. But to say we “have no clue” why it happened is just not the case
I understood free speech to mean you could say what you want as long as it didn’t incite violence. Calling for the death of Jews is inciting genocide which fits the bill of inciting violence. ‘From the river to the sea’ also incites violence. Openly supporting Hamas is like openly supporting Fred West, which is condoning the most barbaric violence.
Openly saying you want mass immigration reversed is not inciting violence.
People shouldn’t be arrested for incitement to violence if no violence is committed. That path leads to bad things.
It’s the seed of Minority Report style pre-crime policing. It requires a judgement call of whether someone’s words can be interpreted and seen as sufficient to be considered a call to violence. It requires assessing nuance such as did the person really mean it or was it just an angry throw away line meant only to convey one’s anger (like that lady who got banged up for tweeting that migrant housing should be burned down).
The reason “incitement” allows for all this subjective judgement is because in the absence of an actual violent crime, you are left with plenty of scope to say something MIGHT have led to violence. Impossible to prove it might, impossible to prove it might not. So you are left with a crime that is literally impossible to prove.
The kind of thing our lovely English system thrives on. Lots of nebulousness and “common sense” and assumed reasonableness and all that kind of thing that we all thought was good and sensible but is being turned around and used against us by those who wield power.
The problem is, words matter. Every lawyer will tell you that. There can be no escaping that his words had the definite and exact meaning that he wished the death of every Israeli citizen. This wasn’t even a spur of the moment thing, it was planned in a workshop, where many ideas must have been discussed. It was therefore a distilled, deliberate, intentional and purposeful incitement to not just hatred, but genocide.
Exactly. Lucy Connolly and other keyboard warriors were jailed for way less. You don’t go yelling in public about killing people and expect no consequences. This dickhead needs taught a lesson or what message does that send out?
Explain why Lucy Connolly should not have been arrested but this man should.
Lucy should neither have been arrested nor imprisoned. This hateful, rabid lunatic should not go to prison but certainly deserved to be arrested. For inciting violence/murder, but also he was clearly in breach of the Public Order Acts, in which the police are entitled to intervene to prevent a breach of the peace. I’ll bet such a thing would’ve resulted if he’d instead been shouting: ” Allah, who the fk is Allah?” or: “Mohammed was a paedo!” I can well imagine the reaction of any Muslims within earshot, if their behaviour at Speakers Corner is anything to go by.
How does any of that pertain to Lucy and the other keyboard warriors? These scenarios are not remotely similar.
Planned in a workshop for what purpose? To actually precipitate the death of every Israeli citizen (the Zionists ones, actually, if you’re going to pay that much attention to his words)? Maybe. Or perhaps to drive forward his ambitions in politics and convince those around him of his political leadership skills? More likely.
In any case, a moot point, because precisely zero Israelis were killed as a direct result of his words. Zero.
Yes, just like the Evil Marxist politician Ricky Jones. He got away with inciting mass murder of patriots because he is a Third World Ethnic.
Well said. You have described it very clearly and succinctly.
No, I don’t think Speaker’s Corner was ever intended to exhort people to Mass Murder others just for belonging to a religious group.
Actually urging people to kill others just for belonging to another group is NOT FREE SPEECH, but INCITEMENT TO MURDER.
Speakers Corner was a symbol of absolute free speech.
Back in the day someone standing there saying what that Oxford student was saying would have resulted in exactly zero arrests. Because back then it was perfectly well understood that some rando standing around calling for something doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
Ditto Lucy Connolly…
Exactly!
Except some of the same people who think the treatment of Lucy Connolly was a travesty are in favour of that idiot Oxford student’s arrest.
I despair.
There’s never been nor ever will be laws that protect “absolute free speech”. People have always been moved along or arrested for making public nuisances of themselves.
I wonder how many people would have got away with standing on the streets of London in the 1940s and chanting: “Churchill is a fascist!”, waving their “We ❤ Hitler” placards.
England was still a democracy back then, wasn’t it? Though I don’t know what the laws around free speech or ‘freedom to protest’ looked like in those days, I fully suspect the public would deal with such traitors long before the police could get to them because this shit wouldn’t have been tolerated back in the day. But now we’re expected to give everybody a free pass because “anything goes”, all falls under the umbrella term of ‘freedom of speech’ and is thus protected?🤦♀️
As somebody who prefers to live in a civilised society where basic respect for others is the norm and good manners are a given, I’ve never heard anything so naive in my life.
Even then you could not stand at Speaker’s Corner and incite mass murder.
He’s got a great career ahead of him, in Jeremy’s new party, whatever it’s called.
In any case, this type of approved hate crime only comes with the lightest of penalties. I will be surprised if he even gets a fine.
“Deform” isn’t it
Jezbollah
Obviously making good use of his PPE studies
Somehow brings to mind how back in 1970 Cambridge University students were jailed for rioting at the Garden House Hotel in protest against the Greek military junta, with the judge commenting that sentences would have been longer “but for the evil influence of some senior members of the university.”
Funnily enough, in 1973 I was taught about Piaget by a supervisor who had helped organise the Garden House riots. He’d since become a born-again Christian and renounced the New Left. Truly people go mad in crowds, but recover one by one.
“Police said ‘put them in the ground’ can have many meanings. He may well have been encouraging them to put down their roots in the Promised Land and flourish…”
Just like the police claimed that Jihad has more than one meaning.
Technically this is true as there’s an inner Jihad which is the struggle to obey Allah but it’s blindingly obvious that terrorist supporting flag wavers aren’t referring to this Jihad.
The anti-Semitic/pro Hamas down ticker is back.
Shame this person doesn’t even have the courage to leave a reply and identify themself.
I never downtick, nor am I anti semitic or pro Hamas, but I don’t think people should be arrested for speech.
I never downtick either. And I agree, this is a silly child masquerading in a party outfit, convinced that he is important. He isn’t. Unfortunately, doing the course he is doing at the college he is attending, means that he is likely to have a job that is important at some point. Hopefully he will have got a modicum of self awareness by then.
He may well be much worse than silly, but they are still words and I still think it’s best for us to hear what people think, and that every law that can be used against people we disagree with can and will be used against us.
Don’t be a snowflake, afraid to downvote something you don’t like or disapprove of. This is not the Spanish Inquisition here.
Absolute free speech, even though it would include the vilest, most offensive things imaginable, is almost certainly better limits on free speech as these will always be open to interpretation, bias application etc. However since there are anti free speech laws in this country that are far more often used against non woke speech it’s good to see a loony leftie getting arrested for once even though it’s highly unlikely he’ll get more than a police caution.
I agree with most of what you say but I don’t think it’s good to see him getting arrested because it just perpetuates the whole sorry business
I’m quite happy to downtick a comment on a forum where my downtick is identified by my name. Otherwise, as on here, never. It’s just cowardly.
Agreed
Don’t be a Wimp, Transmission.
Hear, hear. And it reeks of pettiness.
“Bunny Boiler Mogwai..” And yet it’s yourself that obsessively trolls me around the comments sections, like a poisonous shadow. You’ve been warned by the mods but you still can’t help yourself, can you, Mr Stalker? See how that projection is second nature to you now?🤡
You are free to downvote anything without being forced to explain, or being afraid of downvoting for fear of criticism.
Sure, though I prefer to try and argue my point because I might persuade others or find better ways to make my point
That’s fine, but just don’t try to be an INQUISITOR, denying our right to Freedom of Speech & Votes.
Oh don’t start that again, like Mogwai! Only insecure, narcissistic people act like JESUIT INQUISITORS, incensed that anyone dare to downvote their “sainted comments”.
Never once did I complain when dozens, once even over a hundred, I think, used to regularly downvote my own comments, before the DS restricted voting to members only, and I still never complain about it, though I still get more downvotes than most commenters.
NO ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTES, either up or down!
Freedom of Speech & Thought & Downvotes!
Over one hundred down votes? When was that? I certainly don’t remember and I have no recollection of you being on DS from the very early days. Perhaps you could help us all and prove me wrong?
Ask the moderator.
100% what Dr Philip said;
”Ban the marches, ban the flags, ban the keffiyahs. Custodial sentences for incitement.
This has nothing to do with free speech. You’re a useful idiot if you think it does.
Lucy Connolly went to prison for a tweet that expressed indifference. Oxford Nazi screamed in the street for the death of Jews. If he doesn’t go down for incitement, we’re in real trouble. Why? Because it will be a green light for every Islamist goon. Intimidation, threats, terror attacks, hell on earth.
You think the situation is bad now? You really ain’t seen nothing yet. No exaggeration, no hysteria. It’s plain just common sense.
The Palestinian flag has nothing to do with the Middle East. It is a banner under which they march against Britain and the West. When it was first raised in anger (in this context), on October 8 2023, it was a declaration of war.
That war is about to enter its next phase.”
https://x.com/KiszelyPhilip/status/1978000410796347423
He’ll be advised not to plead guilty.
He was “arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred”. NO!
That is completely the WRONG CHARGE, because it is so broad and ill-defined that it could apply to anyone even criticizing another group.
He should be charged with “INCITEMENT TO MASS MURDER”, urging people to actually murder and bury other people merely for belonging to a religious group.
That’s not Free Speech. It’s Inciting People to Commit Mass Murder of people from another group, for no reason except that they belong to another group.
And arrest all those that joined in. And now arrest Bob Vylan.
What does this idiot think that Zionist means?
A fairly broad definition is the belief that Jews have the right to live in their ancestral homeland.
Using this definition I’m a Zionist, although I have no Jewish heritage going back as far as I can trace my family tree, and so are millions, hopefully tens of millions, of British people plus tens or hundreds of millions of people in other countries.
If there is no place for bigoted anti-semites in Oxford Uni, then this obviously bigoted Jew-hating, anti-semite should be kicked out.
Today would be a good day to do it.
The last thing we need is a piece of sh!t like this clutching a PPE from Oxford and getting a gravy-train “job” in politics.