More cowardice about Islam in a UK university

November 13, 2014 • 6:50 am

For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States. Perhaps readers can explain this to me, but it seems to me that the U.S., being far more religious than the UK, should also be more protective about criticizing religion. After all, faith often enables other brands of faith.

Yet instance after instance of religion-osculation emanates from the UK. The latest, reported on the Lawyers’ Secular Society website, is the cancellation of an event at the University of West London—an event that was supposed to take place yesterday but was cancelled on Tuesday.

The subject? The suppression of free speech and gender equality—and the promotion of anti-Semitism—by extremist Islam. And it was supposed to be the presentation of a report, not a debate. As the LSS reports:

At the event, Anne Marie Waters of Sharia Watch UK (SWUK) was due to present the findings of a forthcoming SWUK report about radicalisation in universities called “Learning Jihad”, and LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian was also due to speak.

The event had kindly been organised by UWL’s Law Society, whose President Jay Marshall was also scheduled to talk.

The report, which is due to be published on Thursday 13 November, covers:

•    Jihadist speakers
•    Gender segregation
•    Censorship
•    The role of student unions
•    Funding of British universities
•    Anti-Semitism
•    The Prevent Strategy

The University decided to cancel the event. As usual, the reasons given aren’t the real reasons, which were undoubtedly fear of demonstrations and threats from Muslims, as well as the fear of the label “Islamophobia.” In other words, political correctness.

The University’s interim secretary, Hugh Jones, gave two explanations for the cancellation in an email to Jay Marshall, head of the UWL Law Society. The first was a technical one: the “Student Law Society,” which was in charge of the proposed presentation, supposedly did not have the right to book rooms at the University as it wasn’t affliated with the Students’ Union. Marshall said that this is incorrect and that they did have the requisite affiliation, as well as having booked rooms through the approved procedure.

But here, disguised in University Speak, is UWL’s real reason for the cancellation:

The University has a duty under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 s43(1) to promote freedom of speech within the law on campus for members, students, and employees and visiting speakers.  In particular (s42(2) of the Act) we have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with the beliefs or views of that individual or any member of that body or the policy or objectives of that body.

We also have a duty of care to ensure the safety and wellbeing of people on the campus.  A considerable interest has been generated by the meeting, giving me cause for concern that attendance will be considerably larger than has been allowed for; that stewarding arrangements will not be sufficient; and generally that we can safely host the meeting.

Note the lip-service to free speech, but then the explanation that on this occasion free speech unfortunately couldn’t be allowed  because the “safety and wellbeing” of attendees couldn’t be guaranteed.

Now why would that be? If there were too many people, they would either have booked a larger room or do what we often do in the U.S.: have closed circuit video broadcasts to other and larger rooms as well.  But no, the safety hear has nothing to do with the size of the audience, and everything to do with the problems of criticizing Islam.  As Marshall noted,

“If booking the event has taught me one thing, it is how to draw out a university’s inner coward. Frankly, I don’t know what’s more offensive – the hypocrisy or the wasting of my time and that of the team.”

And I’ll reproduce part of the response by Charlie Klendjian, secretary of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, who was scheduled to speak:

“The LSS is very grateful to Jay Marshall and his team at the UWL Law Society for their valiant efforts. Sadly, they simply weren’t to know that a discussion of Islam in a British university in the 21st century is forbidden.

“The irony meter appears to be firmly within the red section of the dial. The forthcoming SWUK report lays out some disturbing examples of censorship that have taken place on campus, but rather than give SWUK and the LSS the opportunity to present these findings about censorship – not to mention all the other concerns in the report – the University of West London has chosen to apply more censorship. In terms of intelligence levels, this is like attempting to extinguish a fire with a gigantic bucket of petrol.

“The report also highlights some of the extremist speakers who have spoken on British campuses, but unfortunately it is not possible to come to a British university to talk about that.

“UWL’s hyper-sensitive approach is symptomatic of a highly dysfunctional relationship between Islam and British universities. No matter what people’s concerns are about Islam, universities seem intent on pressing a self-destruct button. They will stop at nothing to avoid an open discussion about Islam. If we can’t discuss ideas in a place of learning, where can we discuss them?

“What is particularly disturbing about this instance of censorship is that the report specifically talks about the problem of censorship on campus and how those who wish to criticise Islam or merely have an open discussion about it are being increasingly side-lined.

“The task of holding Islam to account is becoming all but impossible, just when it is becoming absolutely essential. The timing of this report, and UWL’s decision to cancel the event, could not be more salient. British Muslims, including university students, are travelling abroad to fight for ISIS, an organisation of the utmost barbarism even by the standards of jihadist groups. It is imperative that we be allowed to have these discussions otherwise we will sink deeper and deeper into an abyss.

Of course the “extremist speakers” (I suspect extremist Muslims) should also be allowed to speak. You can’t allow them to be criticized without allowing them to present their case as well. If, on the other hand, they want to call for Muslims to perpetrate violence, or to travel abroad to join ISIS, that case becomes a bit more difficult.  I suspect that’s illegal under UK law, but since it causes no immediate harm, just a delayed a long-term harm, I can’t immediately say that it should be censored, even if it’s a call to engage in a far-off war that kills innocent people. On the other hand, Muslims, if they have the right affiliations, are perfectly within their rights to give talks about oppressing women, obeying the Qur’an, cutting the hands off of thieves, and so on. They just can’t give those talks to gender-segregated audiences.

UK universities seem to be becoming notable foci of cowardice. Out of fear of acquiring the “Islamophobia” label, they are inhibiting discussion of one of the most serious issues of our time.

 

82 thoughts on “More cowardice about Islam in a UK university”

  2. I think compared to the US, we in the UK tie ourselves more in knots over our right or duty to criticise Islam because of some lingering post-colonial guilt: we spent centuries telling other cultures – some Muslim and some not – that they were inferior. We’re nervous about striking the same tone these days. Also, I wonder if the social context here is different, in that we have areas which are predominantly Muslim and which have often been targeted by violent right-wing trouble-makers. None of this excuses the cowardice though.

    1. It’s also a ‘resist by any means/I refuse to accept it’ effort to offset the rise of the hard right in the UK, promoted by the bulk of UK newspapers and manifested in UKIP – who would have us believe that all foreigners are wicked invaders, especially those with brown skin, all of whom are all intent on destroying the’indigenous'(whatever that is) population and culture. Britain is becoming an increasingly unpleasant place to live and I really do fear for the future. The fact that a few naive student lefties won’t condemn a few Muslim nutters is, in my view, the least of our worries.

      1. It seems inevitable that the censorship of people who are criticizing Muslims is just helping to make the xenophobic crazies look like they are ‘on to something’.

      2. I’m not sure I agree with you, Ian. The hard right is not particularly thriving in the UK, compared for example with other European countries. And UKIP has arguably diluted or deflected the far right’s traditional constituency. But this is perhaps getting a bit parochial for the WEIT forum …

      3. The problem with that line of thinking is that in always reacting to counter the hard right, liberals allow the hard right to define the narrative. This is a mistake that progressives have made over and over again in the US. This, when conspiring with the influence of money in politics, is why we’re so polarized in terms of narrative, but so uniform in approach to policy.

        1. I think that fear of the hard right is a complete red herring.
          The BNP is a bankrupt and reviled groupuscule with no political support. So far as I am aware there are no BNP members decapitating journalists and aid workers.
          It suits those politicians and others on the left who want to close down any discussion of Islam to cite the threat from the far right but it is a deeply dishonest tactic. If anything, suppressing an open debate fuels support for fascists.
          The real reasons for the left’s refusal to face up to Islam are probably a mix of political correctness and a straightforward desire for votes.
          The effect however is deeply depressing and damaging to democracy. The ideas peddled by the likes of Anjem Choudhary and his ilk are those that liberal politicians should be attacking not appeasing.

          1. “The ideas peddled by the likes of Anjem Choudhary and his ilk are those that liberal politicians should be attacking not appeasing.”

            I couldn’t agree more. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if, instead of referring to Sam Harris as a genocidal maniac, the Greenwald’s and Uygur’s of the world had some criticism for Anjem Choudhary an actual genocidal manic.
            I made a comment once that if Choudhary so despises the west, he is free to move out of England. At which point I was castigated by most of my liberal friends for “behaving like a Republican.” The left has tied itself to adopting the polar opposite position of the right to such an extent that my friends can no longer be bothered to differentiate between a right-wing politician scoring cheap votes by saying liberals hate America and should just leave the country if we don’t agree with the Tea Party agenda, and the truly genocidal screeds of a man whom makes his intentions to infect the UK like a virus with radical islam.
            I wasn’t the least bit surprised by the shellacking democrats took in the mid-term elections and it wasn’t just about midterms trending more conservative either. domestic policy is pretty much the only thing liberals are doing right. Everything else, we are f–king up by the numbers.

  3. For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States. Perhaps readers can explain this to me, …

    It’s because there has been far more recent Islamic immigration into the UK than into the US. About 5% of the UK population is now from from Islamic backgrounds (cf. ~ 1% in the US?).

    Thus there is a feeling that discussing the evils of Islam (extreme or not) would be to demonise and alienate a significant sector of the UK population.

    1. I think nationwide about 0.6% of the US population is muslim. We have a number of native black muslim groups, so the percent of the population that is first generation mideast muslims is going to be lower than that.

      However, we also have a number of major population centers where the percent is much much higher. Dearborn, MI boasts a population of 40,000 Arab Americans, which is between a third and a half of the town’s total population. And ironically the biggest sectarian conflicts that make the news from Dearborn are when right-wing Christian fundies roll into the town to protest the annual Arab culture festival.

      So I would say that while we certainly don’t have the same demographics as the UK, our experience has been that more free speech tends to normalize the population rather than radicalize it.

      Now here’s some food for thought: we’re a very big country and we do in fact have a number of sizeable communities that are based on radical, restrictive, religious principles. Examples may include the protestant Quakers in PA, jewish Hasidim in NY, and catholic Ave Maria in FL. Heck, even our libertarians and neonazis have consciously attempted to construct self-contained communities based on their ‘ideal’ community standard (though they’ve failed so far – and that’s two separate groups, I’m not saying they are the same thing). So groups do try it. But irony of ironies, look what religion is missing from that list. 🙂

    2. “Thus there is a feeling that discussing the evils of Islam (extreme or not) would be to demonise and alienate a significant sector of the UK population.”

      And I think this feeling is to a large extent justified. I can agree with Jerry that we should be free to criticise religious and cultural practices, but there’s an all too common tendency to tar all Muslims with the same brush

    3. The climate is much less fearful here. There are many Muslims in the US, but not much confrontation or violence. Those that I encounter seem the think of themselves as Americans who are Muslim (not unlike most mainstream religious persons).

      UK seems to have a much stronger string of radical violence, and the country (or at least the politicians) are downright fearful.

    1. has anyone yet coined the expression ‘Islamophobiaphobia’? If not I just did.

      I like it, bit of a tongue twister though. May I add Islamoffendophobia (fear of offending Muslims) to the list.

    2. Yes, there are several Google hits for that. I’m sure I’ve seen it here before, too. And didn’t Heather Hastie write about it at her site? (Too lazy to check, sorry!)

      Good term, though, and one that could use wider exposure, so–nice to see it again.

        1. Ah, yes, I remember it well.

          😉

          Actually I do now–would have retrieved that link myself, but my hard drive’s acting up and I try to do as little as possible with it, just check in now & then.

  5. “For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States.”

    It’s because there is a culture of never causing offense in public circles. The way the BBC handles complaints is emblematic: Overly sensitive and eager to apologise for the least offense, even a handful of complaints can trigger censure or punitive action against a speaker.

    1. I think the reasons can be more than one, but your suggestion strikes me as part of it. That and the ideologies of liberals, which, d*g love ’em, means islamophobiaphobia (to use the term invented by Peter up thar).

  6. If, on the other hand, they want to call for Muslims to perpetrate violence, or to travel abroad to join ISIS, that case becomes a bit more difficult. I suspect that’s illegal under UK law, but since it causes no immediate harm, just a delayed a long-term harm, I can’t immediately say that it should be censored, even if it’s a call to engage in a far-off war that kills innocent people.

    I think foreign wars is one area where you have to be fairly libertarian about speech. After all, the government is going to have an opinion about who it wants to win, and if it has the power to say that calls to engage in a foreign war (on one particular side) are a home threat, then it can pretty much censor any support for any foreign cause, anywhere, that doesn’t align with the government’s interests.

    OTOH, I don’t have too much of a problem saying that serious and direct calls to attack British troops in a war in the mideast counts as incitement. The location of the victim shouldn’t matter: if it would be incitement to tell someone to shoot Bob in Islington when he’s home on leave, then its incitement to tell someone to shoot Bob in Iraq when he’s not on leave.

  7. I agree that the information Coel posts in #2 is a factor. In the U.K. Muslims are a much larger constituency.

  8. Is islamophobia still a relevant word? Surely in this day and age, a fear of Islam is hardly irrational.

    1. Was it ever relevant outside its current tactical usage?

      It’s just a label used to marginalize people and depict them as irrational. The goal of course being to shut down conversation.

  9. I don’t know if speaking about ISIS recruiting or encouraging people to join ISIS would necessarily be illegal in the UK. I’m not sure of the terrorist laws for recruiting people to join a terrorist organization. Since the UK is de facto at war with ISIS, however, you could almost see recruiting people to join ISIS as treason.

    I suspect, as others have mentioned, that this is a reaction to guilt over colonialism but I think the ideals of multiculturalism is also at play as multiculturalism teaches that one person’s culture is as equally valid as another’s. Going against this is a hard thing to do if you’ve been brought up in a multicultural society (I’m speaking from my perspective as a Canadian).

    It may be, however, that the university feels there is a real threat to the safety of the students. If I were them, I’d look at beefing up security (how to pass on the cost, I’m not sure) and limiting the size of the event.

    2. Ah yes -did not read your comment Diana before I wrote mine, but as you & others say that is my hunch.

    3. I think a genuine fear for safety might be the major issue, and not having the money for the enormous cost of increasing security. The problem with criticizing radical Islam, especially in a city like London, is that the risk is big and real. I think they’re genuinely scared, and who can blame them?

      Thus Islam gets to keep arresting and killing people for heresy in countries where Sharia Law has been instituted, and they are effectively forcing an anti-Islamic heresy law on the rest of the world too as they continue to get such a measure through the UN.

      2. The problem with criticizing radical Islam, especially in a city like London, is that the risk is big and real. I think they’re genuinely scared, and who can blame them?

        Thing is…these are the children and grandchildren (and perhaps some great-grandchildren) of the same Londoners who stood steadfast and unyielding in the face of frikkin’ Nazi rocket bombs raining down on London. I’m not sure I have much sympathy for fears that a small minority might start shouting loudly enough for somebody to think about calling the Bobbies.

        b&

        1. “I’m not sure I have much sympathy for fears that a small minority might start shouting loudly enough for somebody to think about calling the Bobbies.”

          I suspect they were worrying about things far worse than that.

          1. Yes, but Nazi rocket bomb invasion worse?

            They want the terrorist threat to stop, they need to stop instantly catering to every whim of the terrorists. Instead, make clear that they’re a civilized people who value their freedom dearly, and they will expect all within their borders to behave accordingly. Those who fail to do so will be treated as the boorish thugs they demonstrate themselves to be — and would-be members of organized crime syndicates (as these violence-threatening Islamist organizations can only be considered to be) would be well advised to stay the fuck away for their own protection.

            If the Brits can make peace with the Irish and push back and defeat the Nazis, they bloody well shouldn’t be afraid of a few Muslim pikers.

            Or have they finally forgotten how to keep the upper lip stiff after all these years?

            b&

          3. Such a shame. Anything you can do to help your countrymen remember where in the closet they left their spines would be much appreciated by the rest of the Western world.

            …because maybe that’ll inspire us to look for ours….

            b&

          4. And in exchange we might be able to do something to stop imposing insane climate change non-policies (to say nothing of other craziness) on the rest of the world.

            If only. 🙁

          5. At least the US is moving in the right direction wrt climate change. Canada used the excuse that they would not honour any treaties, etc. wrt climate change until the US did something. Now Canada has no excuse.

          6. You haven’t been paying to the news from here of late, have you? Republicans have taken control of the Senate and are pledging to roll back everything about pollution controls, and the Democrats in Congress in the lame-duck session where they still have the Senate majority are suddenly all gung-ho about shoving through the Keystone Pipeline even against Obama’s stated reluctance.

            At least for the next couple years, we’re totally fucked. There’s not the slightest chance of hope from the political process at this point; if there is to be hope, it is through the economics of the situation. Notwithstanding current low gasoline prices, petroleum products will continue to get more expensive more rapidly as quality easy-to-exploit reserves continue to dwindle, and clean alternatives will continue to get cheaper with continued research and development. The only question is whether our economy can continue to function at the rather expensive energy prices where those two curves are expected to cross.

            If so…continued recession and / or depression until that point, at least stabilizing then with a long-term bright future. If not, then collapse and chaos and madness and mayhem.

            b&

          7. Oh yes I know Keystone is going to go through now. Obama did make that speech in the UN to do more but we’ll see.

          8. Obama has yet to show even the slightest hint of initiative or resolve on…well…basically anything. I’d be floored if he vetoes a Keystone bill, though I’m sure he’ll wring his hands most dramatically during the signing ceremony.

            b&

          9. Yeah Keystone will go through now. He was all for it until he had backlash from citizens but now with the state of things, he isn’t going to veto it.

          10. What really surprises me is this is happening at a time when the Republicans are bitching and moaning about the price of gasoline is too low. You’d think the Democrats would at least have the decency to wait until people are crying out for something — anything — to be done about the highway robbery at the pump…but the way they’re doing it it’s so painfully transparent it’s because they’ve sold out it’s embarrassing.

            b&

        2. The Brits probably got their bravery after the bombs were already raining. At that point it was either fish or cut bate.
          With Islamists, there is always the chance you can do a bit of Neville Chamberlain until they are absorbed harmlessly into the culture of tea and cricket. They are basically optimistic until all hope is lost.

  10. There are a lot of people who follow that religion in the UK from former colonies than in the USA. Partly it may be liberal post-inperial guilt…

  11. ‘For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States. Perhaps readers can explain this to me’
    Foreign students – i.e a steady income stream. British universities are falling over themselves to offer online courses to near and far eastern students. They don’t want to upset the gravy-train.

  12. The history of free speech and of religion is certainly different in the U.S. than in the U.K. However, today those difference are far less than they were in the America of 1787. The first Amendment has been so misunderstood, particularly on the religion issue that our own Supreme Court has turned it upside down.

    I would not worry so much about what they do over in the U.K. and pay more attention to what has happened here.

  14. I would suggest that the organizers that are trying to get these sorts of public discussions to happen be a little more … stealthy about how they announce the subjects of their discussion. Instead of saying ‘sharia law’, or ‘Islam’, or ‘religious extremists’, say something else that any reasonable person can get behind like ‘repressive regime’, or ‘institutionalized violence’, or something like that.
    One could be very specific and very clear about what the problem really is that way, without triggering a preemptive immune response which will happen when one says the other terms.

  15. As a citizen of a former British Colony who has travelled frequently to other former colonies over the last few decades, I must say that I and other citizens of these countries that I have had a chance to discuss this topic with, feel appreciative of the influence Britain has had on our countries development.

    BTW, I am currently listening to the Audible book T.E.Lawrence’s “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, and it is simply wonderful.

    cheers

    1. Hi Strong,

      Also as a native of a former British colony (the USA), I agree.

      I toured the world about 20 years back and my companion and I after a while noted that we were doing the “Tour of Former British Colonies” as much as a tour of the world — including starting and ending our journey in one!

      Seven Pillars is great; but I always recommend people skip (at least at the first read) his philosophizing at the beginning and just start reading when he first lands in Jeddah (about p. 100 in the reprint hard back I have) — that’s where the real tale begins.

  16. I think there is an element of “post-colonial guilt” contributing to this kind of decision – the feeling that it’s somehow below the belt to criticise a religion held mainly by people with brown(ish) skins.

    However, I think by far the most important reason is sheer cowardice. The University authorities are terrified of the event being besieged by a frothing mob of outraged muslims (and their far-left allies) baying for blood. Unfortunately, given how easy it appears to be to whip large numbers of muslims into a frenzy and the power of social media to mobilise support for protests, the authorities are probably right in thinking that this is what would happen.

    In my view that is no reason to cancel the event. I think this type of protest should be faced down and defeated.

  17. Perhaps readers can explain this to me, but it seems to me that the U.S., being far more religious than the UK, should also be more protective about criticizing religion. After all, faith often enables other brands of faith.

    I think the fact that America is more religious is part of the reason we are less protective about criticizing religion. After all, the “all faiths deserve respect and should never be criticized” is only going to come from cultures which are rather lackadaisical about whether and which religions are actually true. It’s the Identity Smorgasbord — live and let live. Faith is a personal matter.

    Religious people who take their particular religion seriously however don’t take the view that there’s no right or wrong in religion. More important, they don’t share the liberal theist horror of the idea of trying to “convert” other people. It’s not rude or insensitive: it’s a mandate from God. Faith points some people towards the Truth — and false faith leads others astray.

  18. “For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States.”

    Keep in mind that most of the criticism of Islam in the US comes from the Right Wing and is, in fact, rooted more in Islamophobia than in substantive criticism of the doctrine and its the behavior of its believers. It’s quite a dissonance. I see right wingers screeching about Islam, but fail to see the same lunacy in Christian doctrines.

    1. I think the reason there’s not so much criticism in the US is because the criticism has traditionally come from atheists, and now the right-wing. If they say it, they must be wrong and it’s partly about not being associated with a group you abhor in a highly partisan country. I’ve heard Republicans say they ignored what Hitchens had to say about Islam because he was an atheist, and now they wished they’d listened. I bet there are many liberals in America that assume all anti-Muslim feeling is Islamophobia and should be dismissed, because it’s coming from a community whose opinions they generally dismiss. Of course, some of it is Islamophobia, but there is much in Islam that needs to be exposed too.

  19. Possibly worrying too much about what goes on in everyone else’s yard could have something to do with the pickle we are in. I understand that “free speech” is the thread in this discussion but we here in this country could spend a bit more energy and money here. Then we would not be spending so much of it cleaning up our own messes in other countries.

      1. If it wasn’t for people in some countries worrying about suffering elsewhere, imagine what an awful world we’d live in. I’m not going to stop caring until everyone has it as good as we do in New Zealand. In the meantime, there are quite a few improvements New Zealand needs too, despite topping the latest world social and economic indicator survey.

  21. Hi Jerry,

    Not defending this move by the Uni of West London, but I would mention a bit of context (I live in the London and know the groups involved).

    Sharia Watch UK is dubiously-linked to far right groups in Europe and the US (incl Robert Spencer and Pamella Geller’s group in the US). The spokesperson Anne Marie Waters you mention used to be a member of the UK Labour Party and an activist for Maryam Namazie’s group One Law for All OLFA).

    Waters disagreed with OLFA on forming alliances with right-wing groups in opposition to Islamist groups (OLFA refused) so Waters resigned and, in addition, resigned as a Labour Party member. She’s now a candidate for the far right UK party UKIP.

    Maryam Namazie and OLFA have officially opposed Sharia Watch UK as a right-wing group.

    Whilst I’m not a fan of shutting down debate – for free speech reasons – I shall not shed any tears for the far-right.

      1. Are you saying that they shouldn’t have had a right to speak? If not, what’s the relevance to my point that everyone who doesn’t espouse immediate violence should be able to express their opinions. Granted Sharia Watch may not be the most wholesome organization, but there’s still little doubt that they were prevented from speaking because they were dealing with Islam.

        2. Hi Jerry.

          No – not at all. And I mean no disrespect (big fan of the bl- err, website). I think you’re right re free speech (and I agree with John Stuart Mill’s harm principle).

          And I further don’t doubt for a second that fear of ‘offending’ Muslims is probably the driving reason here. I certainly don’t defend Uni of West London. Many people in the UK do love to capitulate to Islamists – much to my annoyance. In the UK, nasty right-wing white-supremacist groups like the EDL, BNP, etc get no such breaks from the Left (nor should they), but it’s happy to indulge Islamists and then slap itself on the back about how ‘inclusive’/non-‘racist’ it is. Hitchens was right about this being a form of slow, cultural suicide.

          I just wanted to give a bit of background on the group in question, not to disagree with the thrust of your article.

          1. The group could be a bunch of neo-nazi holocaust deniers and I’d still vigorously support their right to speak their views.

            You should shed a tear over their denial, because an administration with that censorship power and armed with the public’s assent to use a heckler’s veto to shut down speech, can turn those things on any group and any ideology they want.

            In the US, the legal group FIRE has documented numerous cases of administrations using their schools ostensily “good” speech codes (intended to prevent conflict) to punish students indiscriminantly. If you think I’m joking, you should look up the case of Keith Sampson. Indiana University expelled him for reading the book “Notre Dame vs. the Klan.” In a double dose of irony, Sampson had checked it out of the IU library, and the book is about fighting against racism on campus.

          2. Thanks for the Sampson reference. I had somehow missed that affair first time around. Certainly worth the Googling.

  22. The key is: “we have a duty to ensure…that the use of any premises…is not denied to any individual…on any ground connected with [their] beliefs or…policy or objectives”.

    Why does criticising someone’s beliefs or policy preferences deny them use of the premises? The people who are being criticized are no doubt free (perhaps even encouraged) to attend.

    Surely UWL don’t mean that such criticism would make them feel so uncomfortable/unwelcome that it would deny them use of the premises in practice? This would mean that any discussion of ideas that made anyone feel uncomfortable would be prohibited. What a seat of learning UWL must be!

  23. As noted above, the situation is very different in the UK than in the US. Immigration from the Indian subcontinent (the upside of Colonialism, surely) means we have had a high indigenous level of Muslims in parts of the country for many years – for example some schools in places like Leicester are almost 100% Muslim.
    This hasn’t been much of a problem, except for the 15+.year-olds who are particularly susceptible to radicalisation, and a few terror attacks, including the public stabbing-to-death of a guardsman last year. These, and other events, have led to some public islamophobia, in the sense of being afraid of the religion.
    The authorities, wary of islamophobia in the sense of     hatred of Muslims, has reacted to this by nervously trying to uphold their right to free speech, while also trying to ban its excesses. It is illegal, for example, to call for the death of indidels, or soldiers.
    I think, in this context, that you are doing UWL a slight mis-service. They are worried that the event may turn into a violent demonstration, with those arse-hole radical Islamists bringing unwelcome pro- and anti- demonstrations to the university campus.
    So although the cancellation is very regrettable, the fear behind it is even more so.
    But please understand, Britain has had a far more successful integration of ethnic minorities into it than almost any other European country, and if this makes us over- sensitive to accusations of ethniphobia, then so be it.
    I also hope, of course, that this, and many other similar meetings will be held, just don’t be surprised if venues are wary of the emotions and actions they may generate.
    AnthonyK

    1. They are worried that the event may turn into a violent demonstration

      Ah, the heckler’s veto. So if I threaten to fling rocks at my neighborhood squirrel unless you stop posting to Jerry’s website, Jerry would be fully, ethically, in the right to ban you – not me – from posting here? IMO that policy is so obviously wrong that noboby should need to point out how wrong it is. If I made such a theat, the proper response from Jerry would be to ban me, not you. The violence threatener is the person who needs to be punished – not their target.

      Likewise, the proper UWL response to a threat of violent demonstration is to tell the threateners that the police will be watching and that any violent attempt to prevent the talk from going forward will be met with the full force of the law. You defend the victim of the violent threat, you don’t punish them.

  24. If I may interject a note about another subject of interest. There are interesting developments on the lander that touched down on the comet the other day. The link provided earlier now takes you to a press conference, and the 1st images from the lander on the surface.
    There were complications, and solutions are being looked at.

  25. Since universities are clearly no longer the bastions of free speech that they historically have been, it would seem to be incumbent upon those who would speak freely to seek alternate venues when shut out in a manner such as this.

    And the proverbial town square is likely the best place. SWUK should go ahead and present the lecture in the nearest public park (or whatever) to the university, with even more advertisement (and hopefully bigger crowds) than before. Might have to ditch any PowerPoint visuals for a bullhorn, but that’s no biggie.

    b&

      2. Well, of course, if they were smart, they’d be Parisians in April rather than Londoners in November. But that’s their own damned fault. The should have thought of it before they made that decision….

        b&

  27. I say old boy, it is all rather tiresome this ruckus, shows us up in a bad light. No good will come of it I’m sure and the board will be very displeased.
    Damn them all, call it off Reinsfield and issue a statement, something like… due to unforeseen circumstances, you know old chap, the usual”
    Cup of tea Sir Wilfred? shrewbury biscuit?
    Don’t mind if I do, thank you.

    Perhaps they don’t give a rats about free speech or otherwise but care more about their furniture staying intact for tomorrows lectures, no one is going to give them a medal for a riot so.. why bother, someone else can pay the cost.

Comments are closed.