Cambridge University widely condemned for hosting genocide denier Judi Rever

The debate about the decision by the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Geopolitics to host a zoom conference involving a notorious genocide deniers and revisionists; Canadian journalist Judi Rever, and Belgian Professor, Filip Reyntjens of Antwerp University, on April 21 continues.

For a renowned institution of high learning like the University of Cambridge to give a platform to such deplorable people, at the time Rwandans and friends of Rwanda are commemorating, for the 27th time, the genocide against  the Tutsi which claimed more than one million innocent lives, is a stab in the still fresh wounds of survivors.

It is also a mark of double standards because Cambridge University will never dare invite Holocaust deniers like David Irving.

One wonders; why fiddle with the Genocide against the Tutsi!? Is it because it is less important, or because of the skin color of Rwandans, or that the victims are not worthy of the same dignity and respect because they hail from a poor African country that matters less?  Only the organizers, mainly Vice-Chancellor Stephen Toope, could give an appropriate response.

Despite outrage from more than 160 scholars, journalists, and historians, the University kept a deaf ear and went ahead to host the event. The University lied. In an interview with Independent Students’ Newspaper for the University of Cambridge on April 18, a one Christopher Dorell falsely defended the act, saying that “the panel discussion seeks to answer, what geopolitical dynamics are driving conflict in the (Democratic Republic of the Congo), why peace is so elusive, and how the Responsibility to Protect can be enforced in this volatile region”.

What is incensing too is the way they blame all the current woes in the DRC on the Rwandan Patriotic Army’s intervention in this country to free thousands and thousands of refugees from the shackles of the genocidal army which was holding them hostages.

The event's organisers know very well that Rever peddles a double genocide theory, claiming that the official narrative cancels another portion of history “that needs to be revised.” More troubling too is the composition of the  panel discussants. In addition to Rever, were other genocide revisionist and trivializers;  Professor Reyntjens who formerly advised the extremist Hutu regime of President Habyarimana to abstain from some sections of the Geneva UN Convention on the Punishment of genocide and crimes against humanity, and Jason Stearns, a well-known Rwanda hater and genocide revisionist.

The more than 160 scholars who took a stand and protested this event have been applauded for their determination to fight against Rever and her harmful double genocide theory.

One of the petition's signatories, Professor Phil Clark from SOAS University, London, changed his mind a couple of days earlier, and declared his intention to participate in the debate.

Using his Twitter account, he wrote: “I am removing my name from the petition calling for her (Judi Rever) no-platforming at Cambridge & will attend the event. This book peddles dangerous narratives about the genocide & its aftermath, which have fuelled denial in various spheres. Wednesday is a chance to counter this.”

Clark’s change of heart met a serious backlash from a well-known Jew, Dr James Smith, Founder & CEO of Aegis Trust, who said that debating genocide deniers is inacceptable. He wrote in his tweeter account: “Cambridge Centre for Geopolitics @CamGeopolitics” is rightly criticised for holding an event tomorrow, which follows a pattern of genocide denier.” He noted that “many question the veracity of Judi Rever’s book in Praise of Blood, including British authors not invited as panelists to this British event, Linda Melvern and Andrew Wallis.”

Dr Smith reminded noted that ultra-nationalists in Europe continue to peddle anti-Jewish narratives such as;  Nazis were liberators, that focus on crimes committed by Jewish partisans, and downplay anti-Jewish Nazi ideology.

Dr Smith noted that “relativisation through such “double genocide” narrative is widely accepted by scholars to be a form of Holocaust denial. It also perversely infers the victims are to blame for their own mass murder.” He indicated that “similarly, the radical Hutu government stoked fear of RPF crimes and Tutsi traitors, convincing many Hutu that they were under an existential threat and that extermination of Tutsi was justified”.

He said that “equally, focusing on RPF war crimes alongside commemoration of the genocide against the Tutsi plays in the hands of deniers by relativizing the genocide- and is extremely hurtful to Tutsi genocide survivors.” He concluded that the university's claim of hosting the event in the interest of freedom of speech, in the month wihlen Tutsi survivors are grieving for their loved ones is ignorant and heartless.

Genocide survivors also continued to show their disgust about the hosting of the event. John Mudahusha tweeted about Clark’s intention to debate Rever: “You can’t debate with someone who wants to kill the memory of our loved ones. Remember genocide denial is the last stage of the genocide. As Linda Melvern put it: all revisionists like @JudiRever are using the same argument used by the genocidaire government after 1994.”

In another tweet, genocide researcher, Tom Ndahiro, reminded Clark that “this Judi Rever isn’t a revisionist. Her book on Rwanda brings forward a supporter of genocidaires. Using the word REVISIONISM is in reference to her work in which she advocates genocide was an act of self defence.”