We’ve dealt with overreaction to muslim “extremism” at Nottingham University. It turns into racist stasi-like monitoring of student activities.

“We have to accept that extremism – positive and negative – is part of the human condition, just as stress and anger are also part of being human. You can’t eradicate these things but, by understanding them, you can learn to manage them.” – do we really need researches to serve up platitudes like this?

“By understanding them, you can manage them” – how do you ‘manage’ somebody prepared to walk into a crowded room weighed down with explosives before blowing themselves and everybody else up?

Toleration of “extremism” seldom extends to presenting an argued critique of Islamic theology – or its orthodox prescription of theocracy – in Islamic countries.

There is a manifest asymmetry between tolerance as practised in the the western liberal democracies and Islamic countries. Nor does tolerance extend in much of western Europe to holocaust deniers.

Britain is unusual in Europe in not having laws which specifically make holocaust denial a criminal offence – rightly so IMO although I regard holocaust denial as offensive as well as ludicrous in the face of the overwhelming evidence of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and the thousand or so other death camps of the Third Reich.

As a small boy, I can recall being taken to a newsreel film theatre in the early summer of 1945 shortly after the war in Europe had ended. As part of the programme of cartoons and slapstick comedy movies, there was the regular newsreel feature, which in this case included a horrifying report of British troops in Germany liberating the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The terrible images of that have remained engraved in my mind since:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hLYavpMSFs&feature=related

Compare: “The Iranian president’s latest denial of the Nazi Holocaust has drawn strong condemnation from Western powers. Speaking in the capital, Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was ‘a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8264111.stm

Regarding point 1 – There is not enough free speech in UK universities. This guidance all but gives license for any slighted member of the university to shut debate and criticism down – “which has the purpose or effect of violating another’s dignity or creating a hostile, intimidating, offensive, or humiliating environment.” I’d like to see less restriction of free speech.

Point 2 – Why should there be a high standard of behaviour? Providing the behaviour is lawful then the university shouldn’t be imposing additional expectations on free expression. Personally I think the UK already has too many restrictions on free speech inacted in law. The last thing we need is Universities adding to them. As for David Irving – I don’t agree in any way with his holocaust denial views – but that episode is an embarassment for the Austrian state alone.

I also find Shafqat’s quote a bit sunstanceless. There are many things that are equally part of the human condition and equally ineradicable – many theft, rape, farting in public, etc. But that doesn’t mean that there should be no attempt to erradicate it, to minimise it, to minimise the effects of it. It seems natural to me that where there is a group that has a history of its fringe members engaging in violent activity – that it will be subject to surveillance and interest from the authorities – whether that be the police or university staff. Far right wing and left wing groups, some relilgious groups, animal welfare groups, environmentalists etc. I’d extend that to any class of organization which has a demonstratable history of using unlawful violence to further their aims or ideology.

As for the headline of this article. I suppose I don’t really have a quibble with it. We should be careful not to over-react and from what i’ve heard of the situation on the Nottingham University campus it seems that that clearly was an unhelpful overreaction.

@3

And in some parts of Afghanistan women have their hands cut off for attending school. In some parts of Africa female circumcision is routine. In some parts of the US evolution isn’t mentioned in the standard text books.

Just because other countries do things a certain way doesn’t mean that we must also do them the same way.

Your entire argument is just a pointless example of “whataboutery”.

What about Conservative extremism? Are there plans to get tough on the Bullingdon Club, for example – a notorious drinking society with a penchant for violence, drug abuse, and alcohol-fuelled rampages – most famous for having David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson as its former members? After all, these types of people are the ones going on to vandalise the country and destory its culture far more than some conspiratorial loons with an interest in bizarre theories of history.

The A&E Charge Nurse: Shahzad Shafqat was not referring to the political definition of extremism in that quote, but extremes in behaviour that lead people to commit both positive and negative acts. Here is the link to his research, FYI: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2010110404

@5: “Your entire argument is just a pointless example of “whataboutery”.”

It’s hardly pointless in the present context to examine the boundaries of tolerance IMO, including official tolerance of criticism of Islamic theology and theocracy in Islamic states for comparison with the scope of tolerance in Britain’s academia. I introduced holocaust denial to show how this has been made a criminal offence in many west European countries.

We need to recognise that the (understandable) claims made by western political leaders that Islam is a “peaceful religion” are demonstrably false.

To describe the internecine rivalry between Sunni and Sharia muslims as “peaceful” is a manifest abuse of language. The historic fact is that Islam was spread by the sword and through invasions – the Moors invaded Spain in 711, more than three centuries before the first Christian Crusade was called in 1095. Buddhism in China was suppressed by Islamic invaders.

People need to talk.

“People need to talk.”

I’m a profound believer in the therapy of debating – and for the record was President of the Debating Union at the University of Nottingham more than half a century ago.

But a significant part of tensions on these issues arises because Islamic states ban evangelism by other religions and prohibit criticism of Islamic theology and its theocratic prescriptions – such as the Universal Caliphate.

Well, it’s at least arguable that Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism) can only be practised in a country that Muslims (or Christians, or Jews) have conquered. This is what distinguishes the three Semitic monotheisms from Eastern spiritualities and pre-literate pantheisms.

And since – I hope this at least won’t be controversial – Islam is what Muslims do we are left with the problem of finding out who a Muslim is. I notice that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a trustee of “Muslims for Secular Democracy”. I thought she was an ex-Muslim, and I suspect most Muslims in Britain think of her as an apostate too – or, if they don’t, it’s because they don’t want to believe they have a duty to kill her because they want to believe (against all the evidence) that Sharia and UK law are not only compatible to-day but will continue to be no matter what new laws Parliament passes.

I daresay that Ms Kazi would join me, and the overwhelmingly majority of white Conspirators, in retorting that “two wrongs don’t make a right” to those Muslims in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere who hope to replace immigration with conquest as the favoured method for people of subcontinental origin to come to England (their justification being of course that the English conquered Bengal and the Punjab). But neither she nor we expect that to cut the slightest mustard.

Self-respect, for most people, presupposes that you live in a place which your ancestors conquered. (Why did Gandhi return to India from South Africa?) In truth, whites in England expect Muslims, blacks and other non-European minorities to practise a degree of spiritual humility of which we ourselves are largely incapable. “British Muslims for Secular Democracy” are simply a bunch of stooges supporting this process.

“Secondly, the same standards must apply to all campus stakeholders, no matter which religion or ideology they represent (or claim to represent). Reciprocity should be the main guiding principle here; it is crucial that different groups on campus should apply the same high standard of behaviour to their own representatives as they do to others.

Therefore, it is puzzling that the November 2007 Oxford Union debate between BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving (who served a prison sentence in Austria after being convicted of Holocaust denial) was allowed to go ahead.”

- I opposed the invitation of Griffin and Irving to speak at the Union but I’m not sure the same thing was going on. The Oxford Union is only very loosely affiliated to the University (if at all, I don’t know the details), it’s not on the same level as say, the Oxford University Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. As a private club with its own premises and so on, I’m not sure the same rules apply. It’s not the same as if the BNP were invited to speak on University premises by Oxford University Student Union.

The difference between David Irving holding forth at an event on free speech and, say, Saleh Patel telling his ISoc that apostates are fair game for execution should be obvious. If Mr Irving was addressing, say, the Revisionist Historians Club I’d see your point.

This is pretty straightforward.

Free speech is inviolate up to the point at which the speaker incites violence or other criminal activity. So the radical Islamic preacher is perfectly entitled to suggest to the gullible that they are in line for plenty of virgins in the afterlife but not to suggest that they should blow up tube trains to get there.

Incidentally.

Between May 2009 and March 2011, I acted as a consultant and facilitator for the Citizenship Foundation’s “Young Muslim Leadership Network” which featured three groups of Muslim students, all aged 16 to 21. One of the groups came up with a good practice guide, entitled “How can University Islamic Societies be more inclusive?”

I note that the bulk of the Citizenship Foundation’s grants and donations come from public funds.

The leaflet you link to is utterly banal, full of stock photography and interminable hand wringing over whether or not females should have to sit at the back or be allowed to speak at Islamic Society meetings.

I have no objection to your producing it but I do object to having helped to pay for it.

Geoffff:

1. Most of us would like to see more free speech, but a line has to be drawn in relation to speech that incites hatred and / or violence. In my opinion, the Universities UK report has given a useful definition here.

2. Why shouldn’t there be a high standard of behaviour? There is much talk of the invitees’ individual rights, including freedom of speech, but less emphasis on their concomitant responsibilities. There is a Qur’anic injunction that refers to “wisdom and beautiful preaching” – it would be nice to see more of this vis-a-vis some of the Muslim speakers that are invited to university campuses!

3. Refer to the link I posted earlier on Shahzad Shafqat’s research – it will contextualise his quote. How far do you think surveillance of particular groups should go?

4. I agree with you on the Nottingham University example.

[15] “How far do you think surveillance of particular groups should go” – I am not an intelligence expert and have no idea to what extent, if any, students represent a meaningful (physical) threat to others.

The fear of terrorism has enabled all sorts of coercive measures to flourish in the UK, and now it sounds like the poor old students are under the spotlight, presumably because of a perceived threat (real or imagined) associated with certain extreme points of view – in the main I agree with pagar [14]

By the way I think it was scandalous that a jew hating revisionist like David Irving was jailed simply for uttering ideas that are unpalatable to the masses – as far as I know no historian, not even anti-semites like Irving, have ever strapped explosives to themselves in order to terrify those who have yet to embrace certain fundamentalist messages.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gfSkYqb7CYg/TZ5JNz47IuI/AAAAAAAAAE8/RLZNneMuQDI/s1600/bomber3.png

@ 15 Tehmina

“Most of us would like to see more free speech, but a line has to be drawn in relation to speech that incites hatred and / or violence. In my opinion, the Universities UK report has given a useful definition here.”

It’s defined a totally different concept: one that outlaws anything “offensive”, “humiliating” or “violating another’s dignity”.

These concepts, as Geofffff rightly points out, can be applied to anything you dislike. Person A is offended by the views of people who worship a different god. If someone beats Person B in an argument, they consider that humiliation. Person C is a racist and considers having to share a classroom with black people an affront to their dignity.

If applied literally, the rules you’ve quoted would basically mean expressing any view or behaving in any fashion would leave you open to penalties. Reastically, those rules are more likely to be used to allow whoever’s in charge to silence people they dislike.

That is a LONG way from banning hate speech and incitement to violence.

It’s defined a totally different concept: one that outlaws anything “offensive”, “humiliating” or “violating another’s dignity” – I assume there special committees to adjudicate on complaints about what is offensive, humiliating, or violation of another’s dignity?

I do hope Stephen Fry of Christopher Hitchens are on the panel;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02dXAkxbyQg

Oh here we go again. The Right elevating a handful of hot heads into a major problem.

Chaise Guevara: My original article mentioned the protected equality characteristics i.e. gender, race, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation and age – the Universities UK definition applied to those in particular.

Pagar: I’m sorry you feel that way; others found the leaflet very useful. Here is more information about the Citizenship Foundation project, and the other two outcomes: http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/page.php?406#dress

My own group made a documentary on the headscarf, and how to deconstruct stereotypes surrounding women who wear it: http://vimeo.com/21314070

Peter:

From the Oxford Union website: “Oxford University’s collegiate nature produces a real need for a central student venue, and the Oxford Union is the institution which meets this need. Our buildings in the city centre houses not only high-profile speakers, but also the largest university wide lending library, one of the cheapest bars, a nightclub and many of the year’s major social events. The Oxford Union is the definative place for students to meet and socialise.

Unlike other student unions, the Oxford Union holds no political views…”

http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us

#15 Tehmina: 1. The guidance as I read it protects more than simply incitement of hatred and violence. Additionally, I’m no fan of hate-speech laws in general, but I certainly don’t value their extension of religions or beliefs. I don’t understand the rationale for protecting religious or cultural beliefs and practices over any others. Should we be condemning speakers that incite hatred against right wing conservatives? What about trade unionists?

2. Becuase the notion of ‘high standard of behavior’ is so hard to define and not practical to implement. I struggle to see how it is possible to have honest debate, academic or otherwise about the practices and beliefs of a certain group without ‘humiliating’ or causing them to feel ‘hostility’ or loss of ‘dignity’. In principle this might be possible, but in my experience some people identify so strongly with the group in question that it is impossible for them to seperate criticism of beliefs (which are fair game for the strongest possible attack) and attacks on them as a person.

3. I looked at the link. I see the distinction between extremism and terrorism. The point is that the legimate use of unsnactioned violence to achieve political objectives is much smaller than it was in the time of Gandhi or Mandela. If a state is operating under a liberal democratic model and respecting inalienable rights then there is no place for unlawful violence. The examples of ‘good’ extremism he gives were all accompanied by violence – but that may be excused because those people were (although I might quibble) seeking to establish the rights respecting mode of governance mentioned above. That ‘excuse’ no longer exists for extremists operating in the UK – their violence is illegitimate and therefore groups that have the potential to cause harm through violence need to be proportionatly monitored. I wouldn’t advocate what level that should take. Clearly different Islamist groups need differing levels of monitoring – in some cases, none at all.

Tehmina

Your post seems to lack any kind of self criticism of Islamic Societies and Muslims in University?

Do you think they have done no wrong?

You call for no specific action on the part of ISocs and Muslims?

You fail to mention any tricky issues in this area: Islams’ view of non-Muslims: or that Apostates deserve to die: which makes it very hard for Muslims in university to feel free to explore their faith and drop it if they so wish.

Instead you engage in whataboutery and bring up Irving!

What is your view on the fact that ISocs are distributing literature written by those who incite violence and terrorism – such as Zakir Naik?

Do you know that speakers at ISocs running Islamic Aawreness events such as Adam Deen (Muslim Apologist) – when asked about Apostasy: are quite willing to lie about it. I heard of an event at a university in February on Deen’s tour, where his answer was that apostates should only be killed if they are a threat to the nation: on a treason argument.

He was asked why there was no global campaiagn by Muslims to make this more widely known – because ex-Muslims are being killed and attacked daily round the world.
Deen had no answer.
He promised to put up a page on his own prominent website within 7 days: to explain this point.

He never put up that page!

He was exercising the well known Islamic principle of Taqqiya – which says it’s basically it’s OKs for Muslims to lie if it furthers the ends of Islam!

Your whole post – rather smacks of Taqqiya…

From link above, http://www.oxford-union.org/about_us “The Oxford Union is the definative place for students to meet and socialise.”

Definitive.

@OP, Tehmina Kazi: “Firstly, there needs to be a consensus as to what constitutes unacceptable speech and behaviour on campus. The Universities UK report, “Freedom of Speech on campus: rights and responsibilities in UK universities” (February 2011) draws the line at behaviour “which has the purpose or effect of violating another’s dignity or creating a hostile, intimidating, offensive, or humiliating environment.”

Well that job is done, defined in your second sentence. Universities have drawn up broad guidelines that permit free speech, imposing limits on hostility (the rest is verbiage) on campus (university premises). Universities do not impose an absolute limit to free speech (nutballs can make speeches elsewhere) and university members can challenge events that they consider to be hostile.

Broad definitions, lightly enforced, intelligently enforced will work better than tight definitions of what is acceptable. For example, a tight definition excluding former HuT members from speaking on campus may or may not be helpful: it depends on who the ex HuT member is and the nature of the address.

@OP, Tehmina Kazi: “Secondly, the same standards must apply to all campus stakeholders…”

Please pause whilst I swirl my brains holding a fork, an implement used to transport steak from plate to mouth. “Campus stakeholders” are called “members of the university”; members of the university are academic staff, non-academic staff, undergraduates, multi-flavours of postgrads, honorary bigwigs, contractors et al.

“Much of the media focus has been on Muslim extremism, but the forty universities who responded to the Universities UK survey stated that the most common type of challenge they faced was “in connection with animal rights.” It is staggering that this finding has not received greater coverage in the mainstream media.”

I think that is an excellent point. But it simply reflects that universities who conduct bio/med research using animals are conscious of the direct threat from animal rights activists. Universities do not imagine a direct threat to them from Islamic extremists and, rightly in my opinion, have not assumed the role of policemen.

Justvisiting: I’m astonished that you can accuse someone like me of taqqiya. Have you not seen the website of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the organisation I run? http://www.bmsd.org.uk

I have spent YEARS criticising Muslim extremists, and my organisation was the first to protest against the group Islam4UK. You can find more information on the protest here: http://www.seculardemocracy.org/

Going back to the article, the third point specifically requests action on the part of Muslims. WHO got together to make that good practice manual in the first place?

I wrote a Guardian piece on Zakir Naik last year, supporting his exclusion from the UK. You can find it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/22/zakir-naik-preacher-free-speech

Why don’t you address your question about the apostasy issue directly to Adam Deen?

The funny thing is that some Muslims accuse me of not being Muslim enough, while you and others have accused me of practising taqqiya. It means that I must be doing something right…

Tehmina

> I’m astonished that you can accuse someone like me of taqqiya.

I wasn’t commenting on what you may have done elsewhere – just on what you posted here.

I didn’t see any recognition that Islamic activity in universities has to answer for the extremism that has occured there.

No statistics about it. No recognition that it’s a problem. No facts. No sense of apology.

Instead I saw:
i) David irving gets a mention -that’s standard What-aboutery
ii) you mention some anecdotal evdience – that one chap was deemed to be an extremist, but wasn’t. Evidence of one chap is neither here nor there.
iii) you pull out of the University report – that animal rights pose ‘more challenegs to universities’. That is a red herring: the problem of Islamic societies has been their promotion, often behind closed doors, of homophobia and violence etc.

If you’d be more honest in quoting that university report, maybe this would have been better:

“animal rights… the level of activity has reduced in recent years… In the 1990s ..animal rights campaigning were particularly visible. The last decade has been marked by conflicts relating to religious faith and in particular violent extremism linked to Islam…. The nature of this terrorism is different to previous manifestations in its capacity to cause mass fatalities with the perpetrators willing to die in the process.”

Tehmina

But looking beyond your LC posting: at your website I see you quote with support:

> Islam is not about demanding this and that. It is about serving your community – and that means everyone, regardless of what their beliefs are.

That is a such a bland statement of apple pie and motherhood.

It ignores the elephants in the room regards Islam:
* Islam’s view of homosexuals
* punishment of apostates in Islam (death penalty)
* Sharia law : and a women’s voice counting half that of a man.

What are your views on these issues?

Much of the media focus has been on Muslim extremism, but the forty universities who responded to the Universities UK survey stated that the most common type of challenge they faced was “in connection with animal rights.” It is staggering that this finding has not received greater coverage in the mainstream media.

That is because academics are the main victims of animal rights protests. Islamists tend to focus on non-academics. You know, what they call slags. And “Zionists”.

So they don’t care.

@31. So Much For Subtlety: “That is because academics are the main victims of animal rights protests.”

I don’t follow your argument directly, nor do I wish to tread where your arguments imply that I should place my feet.

Campus security is typically provided by ex-police officers. By definition there is a limitation: ex-coppers. Ex-coppers are pretty good at managing animal rights activists; it is normal coppering; they advise the planning authority that some building plans should not be publicly available. At which point they have done a good job.

They can’t control the vice-chancellor from publishing an exploded building diagram, which s/he will do.

Ex-coppers at universities cannot entirely stop bicycle thieves. Respect what they have to do in their jobs — deal with drunks and sober fools, collect the numbers for petty theft, helpful advice to the distance learner and family who are visiting for the first time.

In a couple of weeks, UK universities will be packed out with proud distance learners and their families; for most, it will be the first time in the UK. And I have spent time in the past looking after visitors, just as others have looked after me in their countries.

32. Charlieman – “I don’t follow your argument directly, nor do I wish to tread where your arguments imply that I should place my feet.”

Really? Why? I know half a dozen of so academics who have been targeted by animal rights activists. They are a major disruption to many campuses. I don’t know of (much less know) any academics who have been targeted by Islamists. Naturally their response is different.

“Campus security is typically provided by ex-police officers. By definition there is a limitation: ex-coppers. Ex-coppers are pretty good at managing animal rights activists; it is normal coppering; they advise the planning authority that some building plans should not be publicly available. At which point they have done a good job.”

No one has proven pretty good at managing animal rights protesters except perhaps MI6. I think that ex-policemen might be pretty good at policing Islamist groups on campus too – if they were given a chance. But British Universities protect Islamists in a way they do not with other groups. Except maybe the Communists. They will not allow the BNP to call for violence on campus. But they will look the other way when their local Islamic Society invites speakers who do so. I am sure the ex-policemen who provide their security could give them some really good advice about that.

“They can’t control the vice-chancellor from publishing an exploded building diagram, which s/he will do.”

Indeed. Not relevant, but true. In fact most of this is not relevant.

Tehmina Kazi – “A student at a college in northern England who attended a Palestine meeting was reported by one lecturer as a “potential extremist” (it turned out that he was not).”

I am curious. How do you tell if someone is not a potential terrorist?

1. Stuart Neyton – “We’ve dealt with overreaction to muslim “extremism” at Nottingham University. It turns into racist stasi-like monitoring of student activities.”

When was this then? I have no doubts about the stupidity of Nottingham’s senior management, but there was no monitoring of students. A routine examination of a teaching fellow’s computer found material relating to terrorist operations – that is bomb making. He had no valid work-related reason to be viewing such material. The University did the only thing open to it and called the police.

There was no overreaction except from their critics. There was no racism. There was nothing remotely like the Stasi. There has been no monitoring of student activities – although there should be of course.

14. pagar – “This is pretty straightforward. Free speech is inviolate up to the point at which the speaker incites violence or other criminal activity. So the radical Islamic preacher is perfectly entitled to suggest to the gullible that they are in line for plenty of virgins in the afterlife but not to suggest that they should blow up tube trains to get there.”

Really? The BNP is allowed to suggest that we might like to think about dealing with terrorism and the grooming of children for sex work by deporting all non-Whites? Someone is allowed to suggest that the Jews secretly control the world and are conspiring against all good Christians?

LC does not accept this and I doubt many British Universities (which generally speaking are the least tolerant work places in Britain and are ideologically fairly uniform because of it) would either.

@34: “A routine examination of a teaching fellow’s computer found material relating to terrorist operations – that is bomb making. He had no valid work-related reason to be viewing such material. The University did the only thing open to it and called the police.”

As a general prescription, this is nonsense. Years ago, out of curiosity, I went searching the web for the design of atom bombs – when I was not employed in their construction or use. Very likely, some long-retired PC has files on its hardisk of relating webpages.

I expect students go looking for all sorts of information on the web motivated by the very researching curiosity that a higher education is intended to encourage. What likely aroused acute suspicions in this case was the conjunction of bomb-making files and al-Qaeda.

It probably didn’t occur to those who made this sartling discovery to look to see whether the same material was available for purchase from Amazon or on loan from the university library – which tells us something illuminating about those university administrators tasked to monitor computer use.

@22: “Unlike other student unions, the Oxford Union holds no political views…”

C’mon. To my recollection, student unions are not routinely affiliated to political parties. Their political sentiments, if any, are reflected in the resolutions carried in student debates, as is the case with the Oxford Union. This notorious debate in 1933 makes my point:

“The King and Country debate was a discussion at the Oxford Union debating society on 9 February 1933 of the resolution: ‘That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country’. It was passed by 275 votes to 153.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate

The international repercussions of that were global and fateful. By reports, the Nazi regime, already installed in Germany, interpreted this as indicating that the potential officer-class in Britain lacked sufficient patriotic commitment to go to war.

@35 Well technically they are allowed to say those things. It’s just that they might get called out on them and denied the chance to appear on Richard and Judy. Free speech doesn’t provide you with an uncritical audience or a stage and microphone, despite what some seem to think.

37. Cylux – “Free speech doesn’t provide you with an uncritical audience or a stage and microphone, despite what some seem to think.”

I agree. Nor should it. But Universities seem to have gone a long way down the route of banning things if they offend people. Not merely if they offend people but because they offend people. Well the right sort of people anyway. Which means no real free speech at all.

What worries me is that in some recent threads here on LC people have said that if speech offends someone else’s honour it ought to be banned.

36. Bob B – “As a general prescription, this is nonsense. Years ago, out of curiosity, I went searching the web for the design of atom bombs – when I was not employed in their construction or use. Very likely, some long-retired PC has files on its hardisk of relating webpages.”

Sure. And if there was a reason to fear you were building a nuclear bomb, then the authorities should have been contacted. As a general prescription it is not nonsense. You think someone ought to have the right to build a nuclear weapon up to the point that they detonate it? Some guy in America did irradiate his whole neighbourhood by building a nuclear reactor in his parents’ shed. However here the situation is different as possession of terrorist-related material is a crime while I am not sure possession of nuclear-bomb-related material is not.

“I expect students go looking for all sorts of information on the web motivated by the very researching curiosity that a higher education is intended to encourage. What likely aroused acute suspicions in this case was the conjunction of bomb-making files and al-Qaeda.”

They did not find these plans on the computer of a student.

“It probably didn’t occur to those who made this sartling discovery to look to see whether the same material was available for purchase from Amazon or on loan from the university library – which tells us something illuminating about those university administrators tasked to monitor computer use.”

Indeed. It was not their job. They did the only thing possible which was to call the police.

The BNP is allowed to suggest that we might like to think about dealing with terrorism and the grooming of children for sex work by deporting all non-Whites? Someone is allowed to suggest that the Jews secretly control the world and are conspiring against all good Christians?

If that is what they believe they should be entitled to say so. Of course there is no obligation on universities to permit them to have a platform on their property or for Sunny to allow them to say such things on his blog.

What worries me is that in some recent threads here on LC people have said that if speech offends someone else’s honour it ought to be banned.

Get used to it. There are quite a number of intellectual totalitarians round these parts.

Getting back to the OP, I actually have a good deal of sympathy with Tehmina.

Because the task he has set himself to try to integrate Muslim principles and practices into our allegedly liberated society is an impossible one. It is particularly intractable around sex related issues which, I seem to remember, was mostly what university was about…..

@ Tehmina

“Chaise Guevara: My original article mentioned the protected equality characteristics i.e. gender, race, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation and age – the Universities UK definition applied to those in particular.”

OK, that’s an improvement over the rules as presented in the OP. But it’s still a charter for misuse in my view. You’ve still got a setup that essentially bans offending a religion: so if I express my view that there is no god, any Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Wiccan/whatever within earshot can complain that I’m breaking the rules. And you’ve got “belief” in there too, so anyone criticising capitialism/Marxism/Humanism/whatever is open to penalties too.

Or what about gender/sexuality? A group of feminists say that it’s offensive to their gender that some men have posters in their living rooms of women in their underwear. So the men are ordered to take down the posters, at which point some of them claim that this order insults their sexuality and is therefore illegal under the rules…

Basically, trying to outlaw things perceived as offensive, regardless of how good your motives, is a really bad idea. By all means outlaw incitement to violence, harrassment and personal abuse – all within sensible limits of course – but making a blanket rule forbidding anything that someone can claim is offensive to their demographic is both shortsighted and horribly illiberal.

Never mind the Muslim extremists on campus, what about the right wing extremists?
http://www.ybf.org.uk/

@39: “Indeed. It was not their job. They did the only thing possible which was to call the police.”

I can only describe that as pathetic for a university.

@ 42 buddyhell

“Never mind the Muslim extremists on campus, what about the right wing extremists?”

Surely we should be concerned about both (or neither)? It’s not a game of extremism top trumps.

By reports, the most regular trouble on university campuses comes from animal rights activists. The special worry about Islamic jihadists is that their expressed intentions are inclined to be homicidal.

Basically, trying to outlaw things perceived as offensive, regardless of how good your motives, is a really bad idea. By all means outlaw incitement to violence, harrassment and personal abuse – all within sensible limits of course – but making a blanket rule forbidding anything that someone can claim is offensive to their demographic is both shortsighted and horribly illiberal.

I think such a rule is offensive…

“I think such a rule is offensive…”

Disco. Basically, “That offends me!” becomes a fully general counterargument to be levelled at anyone and anything you dislike. Screw that.

“Secondly…·” dear God, moral relativism rules again. Use the BNP to justify the actions of nasty Islamists, that makes sense.

Dear Critics,

I am appalled by the absence of manners in conducting this discussion on Muslim campus extremism, apart from Ms Kazi’s own contributions which were very polite and professional.

In this example there is a challenge to uphold civilisation, highlighted here very well, in that an authority cannot uphold freedom and democracy by repressing the democratic and liberal rights of others – unless those others represent a significant risk to the democracy itself. While I am assured that some Muslim extremists fall into this category, their existence has to be moderated by the authorities with some care because history has shown that the state’s repression of extremist groups only enhances their profile and power while it simultaneously erodes the very liberal tenets of the society it set out to preserve!

Therefore I see the real role of the state as one of containing these threats without violating the rights of innocent Muslims, i.e. the overwhelming majority. Does it not occur to you that these Mephistophelian “Muslims” want you to repress them so that they can spur the peaceful majority into war in pursuit of their political aims? This is a tactic of “Muslims” who have lost all sense of Islam entirely and who the Qur’an condemns as “hypocrites”. They would use the decontextualised excerpts of the Islamic scripture to fuel their violent ambitions. I would ask any Truthseeker to discern between the false Islam of the extremists and the genuine Islam of antiquity. You will find that most of the burning issues you have against contemporary “Islam” are in fact political revisions made long after Islam was introduced, i.e. the punishment of death for apostasy was a political invention of a certain ruler among the Muslims in the medieval period in order to increase his control over his subjects. The misogyny in contemporary “Islam” has no basis in the religion and is based on a divorce between contemporary Muslims and the path of love and peace (and reverence for the feminine) that Muslims were and are called towards. As for homosexuality, it holds challenges for very conservative versions of the religion but versions of the faith that are based on the original tenets of tolerance and respect of difference find no real problem in giving gay people their rights. Indeed Ms Kazi’s argument would be quite odd if she failed to give gay people their rights while expecting Muslims to get theirs.

Overall most of the outrage against Islam describe a straw-man who has been simultaneously erected by both anti-Muslim extremists and Islamist extremists who use it to agree on the terms upon which both will go to war with each other. It does not describe Islam itself.

I hope that Truthseekers perceive beyond the walls of ignorance, deception, and hatred which dominates these issues to know that the combatants involved in this divide are Fascist and Counter-Fascist, rather than democrats and Muslims – I would certainly hope…