The hypocrisy in your article is astounding. Firstly this was not just a student protest there were obviously staff such as Jake Lynch protesting (.i.e acting like animals in a rage) and you happened to be there, apparently not part of the group, although I find it hard to believe that.

In the interest of full disclosure do you care to disclose your relationship with Jake Lynch and your views on the Israel Palestine conflict? Because I think the reader needs to understand your agenda and your motives for writing this...

It is shocking that Jake Lynch is the head of a department in which it is so critical for all views to be expressed and students to not just be given a one-sided and bias perspective. Instead he stifles freedom of expression, puts out his own views and violently interjects when a view he doesn't agree with is presented.

OMG. I read about 2/3 of the first page of this article and as far as I can tell it's pretty much a load of lies.

The melee lasted some 30 minutes by all accounts.
The Australian Jewish News DID GET CLARIFICATION from Lynch.

The students protestors claimed that they weren't permitted their freedom of speech rights last year when a speaker from Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned from speaking at the university,yet they were denying Col Kemp his rights. What hypocrites.

Lynch tried to stop the security guards evicting the protestors.

If you go to the FB pages of his fellow academics leftists, they clearly know what he is like and are slamming him for his behaviour.

Jake Lynch is no stranger to controversy. In November 2012, Lynch declined a request by an Israeli academic, Professor Dan Avnon, to name him as a University of Sydney contact on his application for a Sir Zelman Cowen fellowship, which underwrites exchanges between the University of Sydney and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, citing that he believes in the BDS and therefore was boycotting Israeli universities and academics.

In an exclusive interview, Professor Avnon broke his silence to tell ‘The Australian’ he believed Professor Lynch deserves a “red card” for refusing to sponsor him because the Sydney academic supported the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel.

“The fact that academics at the University of Sydney have rallied to my cause doesn’t diminish the severity of Lynch’s attempt to boycott me as a Jewish Israeli academic,” Professor Avnon said.

He was offered positions by two far superior faculties

The points made by Aron22 stand out pretty clearly. It's hard to take this article at face value.

Richard Kemp was also present, and this is his account (The Australian 17.03.15):

"The protesters occupied the lecture theatre, intimidated members of the audience and were intent on preventing the exchange of views my lecture was intended to facilitate. Two of the academics then joined them, one of whom I saw badgering an elderly woman who objected to him photographing her on his iPhone. When she tried to push the iPhone out of her face he grabbed her arm forcibly, and appeared to hurt her. When she retaliated physically, the academic — an associate professor — waved a $5 note in her face and the face of a Jewish student."

As a supporter of the Gazan Palestinian Armed Military Forces known as HAMAS, addressing Australians, it is clear why Paul omitted to mention key facts:
1. HAMAS, according to its Charter, is committed to using military / terrorist means to obliterate the state of Israel,and to commit genocide on all Jews. They say it.
2. Hamas had been rocketing Israel indiscriminately for years with thousands of missiles.
This had made life unbearable for a large part of Israel's population. Having only 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter is no fun for a toddler.
3. Having appealed to the UN, futilely, to act to stop the missiles, Israel attacked Hamas's infrastructure of command and control centres, arms depots, firing positions, ALL of which Hamas had placed IN DENSELY POPULATED RESIDENTIAL suburbs deliberately as human sacrifices, knowing that the Pauls of the world would exploit the inevitable human toll of "collateral victims" for propaganda.It worked.
4. The Israel Defence Forces used a variety of means to forewarn civilians about impending attacks, with the aim of avoiding civilian casualties. These included leaflets dropped from the air, telephone calls SMS's etc.
5. The UN's figures of casualties were provided by HAMAS.
6. The UN today consists of mainly authoritarian regimes, with a preponderance of Arab and other Islamic states, so naturally the UN is unbalanced and distorted with respect to Israel.
7. The Pauls were silent when Israeli babies were being butchered by Hamas, when Hamas was rocketing Israeli kindergartens, hospitals etc, but suddnely became a humanitarian when Israel said, "enough!"

9 The Pauls of the world would have us believe that when non-Jews fight wars, civilians are spared, but when Jews fight wars, they target civilians.
10. And most of all, the Pauls of this world hate to hear the vow, "Never again."
It drives them mad.
.

I'd just like to add that not only is Richard Kemp's eyewitness observation wildly at variance with Paul's version here, the most damning thing has to be the issue of the $5 note.

Most people have immediately understood the aggressive thrusting of the money in the face of people who are most likely to be Jewish to be a crude anti-Semitic gesture. But here's Lynch's version:

"Eventually I had the idea of showing her the banknotes I was carrying in my pocket to emphasise the point I then made to her, that she would leave me with no choice but to take out a private prosecution for assault, and that this could cost her a lot of money.”

Sure. In the heat of the moment, while he is being brutally attacked by a middle-aged woman, Lynch has the presence of mind to play charades. A less sophisticated person would have shouted out the unambiguous "Stop it or I'll sue", but Lynch goes for a gesture that only he and his diehard supporters could possibly interpret in the way he claims. It is frankly ludicrous.

Finally, in correspondence with Gerard Henderson that appeared in the Weekend Australian, Lynch doesn't mention the kick to the private parts, only the water, and he acknowledges that he "emerged without injury". Why, then, was he threatening to sue?