My name is Seb and I am a first-year student at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN). If you follow any alternative media sites you may have heard about my recent suspension from UCLAN for having a viewpoint that they did not agree with.

This suspension has not only prevented me from attending current classes but also a teaching work placement. This is likely to have a lasting effect on my future career and hopes of working in child protection. They said:

"It is likely to be of concern that Sebastian is on a course that could facilitate a career with children, young people and/or vulnerable adults."

Please help me save my career and make sure Universities are a place for open discussion! I need to raise at least £20,000 to fight this in court.

I have taken expert legal advice from a barrister and planning to issue a Judicial Review of The University of Central Lancashire's decision to suspend me for expressing a viewpoint that is contrary to what they consider appropriate.

Here’s what happened:

In a discussion during a class I said:

"The UK is being islamified"

"Halal meat is violent and barbaric"

"Anyone who doesn't have legal status in the UK should not be given free handouts of our services"

As a result of this, some students, including ones who were not even there, filed complaints about me. They claimed that they had been made to feel unsafe and were harassed by my words which were used in the context of a discussion.

I believe myself to be a polite and thoughtful person whose views are informed by fact and reason. I didn’t say anything criminal or threatening but I have shown well-researched concern with the fairness of the benefits system and the practice of ritual slaughter. This has led to the end of my formal education and the beginning of the end of my career in the social care sector.

Universities are supposed to be an environment where young adults can respectfully express their viewpoints and be challenged by the views of others. However, as a result of the above, I was the subject of 3 disciplinary hearings. In those hearings, I attempted to get the faculty to see my point of view but they were determined to tell me my views were unacceptable without further discussion. It was written in my report that:

"A tutor says that she has already had discussions with Sebastian about keeping his personal and political beliefs to himself and about setting appropriate boundaries"

Instead of getting a fair hearing, I was accused of harassment. They determine harassment on this following basis:

“It is not the intention of the alleged harasser that determines whether harassment has occurred, but whether it is considered unacceptable to the complainant”.

So even though I can rationally and calmly defend each point I made on the grounds of statistics and animal welfare, since some students complained, my opinion and intention is irrelevant. Furthermore, the Universities definition of harassment is not the same as the one used in the law.

Even so, the report at my second tier hearing concluded:

"It is clear to me that the students who have complained have all been offended by what Sebastian has said and that student C has experienced this as harassment. I, therefore, conclude that Sebastian has also breached regulation C1.4 and C1.9 also."

What happens next?

My barrister says I have a very strong case to pursue but I'll need intial funding to start the claim and see it through. If I am successful with the Judicial Review, I will be readmitted to the university with a cleared record but I know the fight for fair and open discussion won’t end there.

While I know this is very important to my future, it is bigger than just me. Across the country universities will continue their campaign of censorship, de-platforming and vilification. If this is allowed to stand then only one type of view will be heard: Theirs. A civilised society cannot allow its academic institutions to determine what is acceptable discourse, that is a matter for the law and the students of today are the lawmakers of tomorrow.

Freedom of speech does not and must not come with the provision that others cannot be offended by what you say. 60 years ago it was considered ‘offensive’ to suggest that women were equal! If we didn't say things that may be considered offensive to some then women wouldn't even have the vote! This is only one of many examples of progress through questioning the status quo.

Pandering to offence is a race to the bottom because no matter what you say, someone will always find offence in it. The cure to extreme views is not suppressing them, it is challenging them and discussing them.

Please help me save my education and stand up for freedom of speech when no-one else will.

I may not agree with what everyone says but I will always defend their right to say it. Please help defend mine.

Every little helps so please support me in any way you can.