A couple of weeks ago I mentioned I'd been invited to take part in a debate at the Oxford Union next month.
The motion – ‘This House believes that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’ – is designed to generate a heated discussion about whether the tobacco companies should be treated as pariahs.
When I was approached in March I was told I'd be speaking alongside a senior tobacco industry executive but I wasn't told who we'd be debating against.
Two weeks ago I found out, via Twitter, that the Union's first choice speakers were Simon Chapman, Australia's leading anti-tobacco campaigner, and fellow Aussie Mike Daube.
For various reasons Chapman couldn't do it but what irked him, after he had already turned down the invitation, was the discovery that the debate was being 'supported' by Imperial Tobacco. (See Simon Chapman and the Oxford Union.)
After his outburst I wondered if the debate would go ahead and who would propose the motion. Last night I found out.
Speaking for the proposition are Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative medicine and a member of House of Lords, and our old friend Professor Gerard Hastings, founder of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and a "special government adviser" on tobacco control.
I also discovered that I will no longer be joined by a representative of the tobacco industry but by Mark Littlewood, director general of the IEA.
Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted Mark is taking part. It will be good fun and Mark is a top, top debater. He's also an Oxford graduate, prefers a leather jacket to a suit, and smokes like a chimney so our chances of winning the debate have improved enormously!
It does beg the question, though, why is the tobacco industry not represented? Surely they have a right to defend themselves against the proposition that they are "morally reprehensible"?
My guess is that in order for the debate to go ahead they've had to bow out. Perhaps (and this is pure speculation) the Oxford Union found it impossible to persuade a senior tobacco control campaigner to share a platform with a representative of a "morally reprehensible" industry.
If that's the case a legitimate industry has effectively been 'no platformed'. So much for free speech.
I'll check the facts but I'm tempted to mention it in my speech.
Simon Clark
Here are the facts according to Cherwell, the Oxford student newspaper:
Union tarred by Imperial Tobacco sponsorship dealings (Cherwell)