freedom of speech
I had an interesting experience today over at Why Evolution is True. I should say that I don’t know much about the site, apart from reading a handful posts that express furious disapproval at actions designed to take the experiences of individuals from minority groups into consideration (or actions of the ‘regressive left’ as they call it).
The post I was directed to by my blogging acquaintance, Tildeb, discussed a controversial incident at a university when an ex-Muslim was invited to share her thoughts on Islam. The speaker in question has gained some notoriety as an alleged Islamophobe, and concerned groups in the university succeeded in securing 5000 signatures for a petition that convinced the university to revoke her invitation to speak. [Edit: error, petition was to allow her to speak.]
This action caused a furor of indignant responses about free speech, about protecting religions from criticism and about the predictability of special interest pressure groups counter-intuitively supporting each other e.g. feminists supporting Muslims.
For the readers of Evolution is True, it was another example of the ‘these free-speech opposers and professional “I’m offended-ites,”’ killing off liberalism.
I just can’t agree. For all I’d like to see the population of the world conclude that religions are fabricated, and for all having now read some of Maryam Namazie, I think she is doing great work, I also understand that the people who follow religions need to be respected and need to be listened to. No-one is ‘right’ in this world, and the only way we can protect our own freedom of expression, is to ensure that we protect the freedom of expression of everyone else.
CONTRADICTION, you scream. Not at all. Freedom of expression doesn’t end at allowing everyone to talk, it also involves actually listening to the opinions of other people, especially those who experience discrimination and oppression.
CONTRADICTION, you scream. Indeed. There are many individuals who experience discrimination and oppression, and at some point an analysis of the good/harm caused by actions needs to be undertaken – for each individual situation.
Removing a speaking invitation from someone who could encourage a demonised group within a society to be further discriminated against is common sense consideration. Muslims in British society are already subject to unacceptable levels of discrimination – it’s in the workplace and from the police: I think it’s safe to assume it’s endemic. In London, where the university is based, hate crimes against Muslims are soaring.
Freedom of expression is not lost to the ex-Muslim wanting to convey her understanding of how Islam has harmed her or society. She has many other options to choose from. But losing one speaking engagement because individuals in that area judged her opinion to be potentially harmful in one place, at that point in time, is not an attack on freedom of speech. It was in all likelihood an attempt to stop the flames of hatred being further fanned. An attempt that clearly failed.
Hmm…largely the point of my next post. Listening. Not just so you can make your counter-point but actually listening to gain some understanding.
LikeLike
Nice idea. I think we’re all guilty of it (well, maybe not you) on forums like this.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that Ms. Namazie’s talk that she delivered was Islamophobic? Or are you suggesting that her talk would risk inciting Islamophobes to violence or further discrimination against Muslims?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m saying her reputation is Islamophobic, whether that is strictly accurate or not, and she does equate Islam generally with Islamism, which must be incredibly frustrating for people trying to practice their religion peacefully. And in an atmosphere of increased violent attacks against Muslims, particular in London as linked to in the post, it’s understandable that people objected to her being offered a platform. The subsequent disruption is not acceptable, but I see that as a separate issue to the initial hoo ha.
LikeLike
Is that a yes to both questions, VW?
LikeLike
I really appear to be wading through mud on every front here. 🙂
To your first two questions:
1. No. Didn’t say that anywhere. She has said on previous occasions that Islam is as dangerous as Islamism, which goes against the mediating voices within Islam itself and is considered Islamophobic by others.
2. Perhaps, through the trickled-down effect, but I doubt directly as a result of the talk.
My point is that I can understand why in the current climate especially Muslims attending a specific university would be uncomfortable/ concerned/angry about their university hosting someone who suggests that all of Islam is under something like an inquisition, and that “‘Islamic feminism,’ ‘liberal and humanitarian Islam,’ ‘Islamic reformism,’ ‘Islamic democracy,’ ‘Islamic human rights,’ and moderate interpretations of Islam are impossible.” – denying that Muslims have agency to make change within their own religion/culture.
I’m happy for her to have her opinion and express this opinion, but why should she assume that everyone would welcome someone who makes such extreme statements, especially if they are moderate Muslims?
LikeLike
Well, VW, I’m just trying to pin down what you’re trying to say in your post. You’re touching on a bunch of different stuff here, namely freedom of speech, Islamophobia, violence against Muslims, scholarly discussion of controversial issues, and where the limits of speech ought to be.
So, taking into account your answers above, do you think it would be permissible for a school to prohibit a similar talk by a person who has been labeled Islamophobic by some people, and where there is violence perpetrated against Muslims?
Would you think it would not only be permissible, but desirable for schools to do that?
What if student groups figure out that they can silence other groups by threatening violence or pointing to histories of attenuated connections to violence?
I understand these are a lot of questions, but you’ve opened the can of worms.
LikeLike
My only point was that a group of individuals asking for her speaking engagement to be revoked is not an attack on freedom of speech. I believe they had genuine concerns that justified the request. It’s part of the wider discussion with Tideb about ‘sensitive snowflakes’ and the ‘regressive left’.
As to your other scenarios, it would depend completely on the circumstances and the opinions of the people who would be affected. I wouldn’t generalise on what I think is the best course of action in variations on the theme.
LikeLike
I’m confused.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, well, I didn’t expect you’d agree. I said to someone back on the original post that if I lived in a country where atheists were regularly subject to discrimination and hate crimes because of the acts of Chairman Mao or someone like that, and my university invited someone to speak who said all atheists are the same, equally dangerous, I would request they be de-platformed as well.
LikeLike
I didn’t say I didn’t agree. I said i was confused about what actually your point was. I think I get it now.
The thing about free speech is that it must be lorded over by commonsense.
LikeLike
Oooh, another twister. Free speech is being allowed by your governing authorities to express your views without fear of repression.
Being selected to speak to a particular group of people, at a particular point in time, is at the discretion of the organisation. They can take any factors they deem relevant into consideration and are under no obligation in the name of free speech, or anything else, to extend the invitation to everyone.
LikeLike
Of course the organisation (be it public or private) should have the final say on who they want to speak.
I’m confused as to what’s your point here.
LikeLike
You’d maybe have to read the other post then. They say that retracting her invitation, responding to requests from Muslim groups at the university, is an attack on free speech by the regressive left protecting sensitive snowflakes. You surely know a bit of the background with Tildeb’s arguments…
LikeLike
Honestly, I have no idea what any of this is about.
LikeLike
Well it’s too late to catch up now. It goes back to Arch being banned and Tildeb commencing his indignant crusade to save the Victims of PC, by posting links to articles he thought supported his case. But they only made me more sure he was donning empathy blinkers. Clear now? 😀
LikeLike
Nope, but that’s OK. I’m going to walk my dogs 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aw, lucky you!
LikeLike
“…the only way we can protect our own freedom of expression, is to ensure that we protect the freedom of expression of everyone else.”
Reading that, coming from you, has given me my laugh of the day – thanks!
LikeLike
Fair enough. Please don’t comment here. I’m not bothered by your views but I don’t want anyone else to suffer from the kind of harmful personal insults you issue. If you comment again, you’ll be spammed.
LikeLike
I rest my case —
LikeLike
Firstly, it’s WEIT: Why Evolution Is True.
Secondly, there is no “right” to having an opinion respected. Some people opine cancer can be cured by killing a chicken at an intersection. That opinion does not merit respect as there is no evidence to support that position. There actually ARE people who are right in this world. All opinions are not equal. Their value rests on the evidence and verifiability of the arguments that support the evidence.
That’s why some people are doctors and treat disease, others are chefs and cook, and others yet do neither of those things; because they have no education, training, capabilities or abilities of any kind in those fields.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“That opinion does not merit respect as there is no evidence to support that position. ” That can be a very dangerous position to take, there are several instances in the last 200 years where the same was said about things like continental drift and the extraterrestrial source of meteors and meteorites to name two. In fact, I was already out of college when continental drift started to be considered a possibility.
I do have to agree with you that not all opinions are equal, this is the fallacy that the ID folks and Creationists are trying to use to get their opinions into science classrooms. Expose the children to all the opinions and let them decide for themselves. I hope that doesn’t make it into the chemistry classroom/lab!
Oh, and it has to be a three way intersection or it won’t work….
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the clarification on the name, I’ll make the change. I agree there’s no ‘right’ to having an opinion respected, but is a ‘right’ to be respected, regardless of how others view your opinions. Pink, I’m surprised you’re bothering to comment, but just to say your comments are welcome as long as they stick to the post, like above. If you deteriorate into giving me daily nasty and personal critiques, I will ask you to go play elsewhere.
LikeLike
The ‘right’ to be respected is a very vague concept; in that sense it’s not actually a right. Legal codes have attempted to translate the concept into legislation and have basically narrowed respect down to the right not to be slandered/libelled. Nothing else.
The reason for this is that the notion of respect can be twisted to suit the needs of whichever group happens to be in power. A muslim man could say he feels disrespected by a woman who doesn’t wear a veil. An extremist christian can say he feels disrespected if a gay couple holds hands in public.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink, “A muslim man could say he feels disrespected by a woman who doesn’t wear a veil. An extremist christian can say he feels disrespected if a gay couple holds hands in public.”
I totally agree with you. They can certainly feel that way and that is where the whole idea of tolerance come in. We are never going to agree with every other persons point of view or their lifestyle choices. Yet, that doesn’t mean we silence their views. We agree to disagree. That is much better than forcing people to not share their views.
You guys disagree with her view of Islam? Go ahead and disagree, but don’t demand that she can’t share her views with others on a college campus because it offends you. That is censorship, not tolerance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abso-effing-lutely. Simply put: Good arguments and ideas withstand scrutiny, and bad arguments and ideas do not. The process of hashing it all out (rough as it often is) has been essential to all the progress we’ve made as a civilization thus far.
Whether we’re speaking of William Garrow and the presumption of innocence or women’s rights in Napoleonic law- it all happened through harsh debate. Debates which have actually transformed society in the past 200 years. And that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
“You guys disagree with her view of Islam? Go ahead and disagree, but don’t demand that she can’t share her views with others on a college campus because it offends you. That is censorship, not tolerance.”
I don’t think you got it either. No-one here has disagreed with her view of Islam, and no-one here has demanded she can’t share her views with other because it offends them.
I’m on my own here (maybe with Clare) suggesting that we should listen to the students at that university who, in a climate of hate and with surging levels of hate crimes, did not want their own university hosting someone who says that Islam generally is as dangerous as Islamism, or that moderate interpretations are impossible. I think the Muslim students who attend that university have a right to ask for her platform to be cancelled, and I can understand their concerns.
No censorship. She can talk wherever wants her and she can publish her views in any format.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, I was using “You guys disagree” to talk about the Muslims who opposed her, not you.
LikeLike
Ah, I see, that makes sense. 🙂
LikeLike
With Clare, yes, because we are not just rational Enlightenment beings, but social animals, primates, who find our idiocies difficult to jettison- “I am a woman”; “God exists”. I cling on to my idiocies even harder when I feel threatened. Loyalty is important, and Love, and that positive sum game, feelings and empathy and understanding and not calling people fuckwits if we can possibly avoid it and…
LikeLike
No she can’t talk wherever she wants. You have just said that. She was invited by ASH. Who informed ISOC who opposed it.
Why Violet, do you think that Muslim students should be able to ban Namazie? When Muslim women students turned up to listen to her?
Let’s look at it this way: the London University Gourmet Society invites Jamie Oliver to speak. The London University Vegan Society objects because he cooks with dead animals.
It’s about on a par with the level of idiocy.
You are undermining feminism by supporting Islam first.
LikeLike
I don’t agree. I’m supporting individuals in a specific situation, in a climate of hate. Feminism isn’t a hobby horse that tramples over every other consideration. It’s about equality of treatment too, the right not to be hated or mistreated because of gender is a right I extend to religion. In this specific situation, in this place, in this climate, Muslims could be more negatively affected than women. If the judgement had been made that women’s lives would be saved because of this one speaking opportunity, it would be different. But scoffing at the concerns of the Muslims who objected, purely under the guise of free speech, makes no sense to me.
LikeLike
Then drop your pretence at feminism Violet.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, when I swore my vow to the Religion of Feminism, I crossed my fingers at rule 23: I will support equality for women to the detriment of every other individual on the planet. And rule 345: Roughseas holds membership tickets for this club and can revoke yours at any time. (We won’t mention rule 645 here: I will ignore physical differences between men and women and insist that any generalising about behaviour based on gender is misguided social construct)
LikeLike
Sorry I forgot to reply to this. In your link to The Grauniad about hate crimes, the majority are against women, some 60%. How would a female speaker, who speaks out against Sharia law, as did another woman in the presentation with a law background, and the treatment of women under fundamentalist regimes, cause a situation that would further incite hate crimes? Similarly another Muslim student said that Sharia law was not, in fact Islam. Why would a feminist society not want these women to have this discussion? I didn’t see any disruptive behaviour by women. The disruption came from Muslim men, who were persistently aggressive, rude and abusive. The women apologised for their behaviour. I would have thought this would have been exactly the sort of speaker a feminist society would want to hear from. I am still puzzled why you think Muslim women should be denied the opportunity to hear a different perspective. And clearly some were interested or they wouldn’t have turned up.
LikeLike
I want to reconcile this one. I note that the Goldsmiths feminist society issued a statement after the talk, supporting the Islamic Society. That was one of the things that wound up WEIT.
And I note that the Islamic Society had invited a speaker supporting execution of apostates.
I note also DP’s point that these Muslims have agency, not merely reacting.
What I see is people trying to do the right thing. The feminist society is supporting the underdog as they see it. Here it is. They might have the hope that in a calmer, friendlier atmosphere, the Muslims might respond in a calmer way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think everyone over-reacted and went into angry corners. I’m not convinced the speaker is an Islamaphobe, but I still think her presence at a time like this was an understandable concern. People are so furious with subsequent actions and statements, that the initial point has been missed.
LikeLike
Sorry, chipping in here too (I did warn my sweet blogpals I may be stalking).
IMNSHO: Respect is not a human right. Respect must be earned. However, I do teach my children that giving a person respect (even if they do not deserve it) is a gift and shows good upbringing, reflecting more on the giver of the respect than the receiver. By showing someone respect regardless if they deserved it, you may in fact change their entire outlook on life.
Sometimes however disrespect is a social duty. I could not bring myself by law or otherwise to show a paedophile respect, for instance. I’d be destroying my own integrity if I tried.
When people are disrespectful of each other because they have differing viewpoints, this in itself is not a bad thing; only a social phenomenon. Upsetting to some, sure. If one wants to be respected by everyone, one needs to act in a way that generates respect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I could not bring myself by law or otherwise to show a paedophile respect, for instance.”
I disagree in principle. Every person has been through their own personal set of experiences, people do vile things but we have to understand why, if we want to build societies that avoid creating harmful individuals. We can’t do that if we don’t respect the person in some sense, if we simply label them as a subhuman monster. I think logic has to over-rule our natural response. Protect children at all costs, but not by refusing to see the person that commits the crimes, hear their story and learn from it. (This is all in theory, I have no personal experience of being able to do this.)
LikeLike
Wow Pink, you read my cancer post? 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well now you’ve gone and done it, Violet. If you’re going to advocate for free speech and actually listening to others people’s views, you’re at grave risk of having your feminist, atheist, and liberal credentials revoked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure I follow your logic, but thanks for commenting. 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLike
Is that a serious confusion? No-one holds all the correct on opinions on everything. Does that makes sense?
LikeLike
Yes. You didn’t say “on everything”, so it seemed to me like it was saying no one is right “about anything”, IOW there’s no such thing as right – or truth.
LikeLike
“there’s no such thing as right – or truth” – yes, that’s what I meant.
LikeLike
Is that a true statement?
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s definitely correct. 🙂
LikeLike
What’s the difference between truth and correctness?
LikeLike
Or between a statement being true, vs. being correct, rather.
LikeLike
Or being right? You should ask Pink, I think he considers these matters in more detail than I ever will.
LikeLike
You’re the one making the distinction.
LikeLike
It can be true without being kind. A hymn:
We are pilgrims on a journey.
We are brothers on the road.
We are here to help each other
Walk the mile and bear the load.
1977, just before inclusive language.
LikeLike
If by “it” you mean any statement in general, then I agree. Whether we can “know” that something is true, or how confident we can be that something is true, is another matter. And it is also good to keep kindness in mind when discussing things.
It seems Violet disagrees with even the first part of your statement, “It can be true”.
LikeLike
Sorry ratmacue0, I don’t enjoy philosophical discussions about truth. I thought you were playing a friendly word game, didn’t realise you genuinely wanted to discuss what truth is. I think when it comes to understanding our existence, no human has the ‘truth’. My point was that we have to acknowledge that whatever our understanding is, it’s likely to be mocked in 200 years or 1000 years or whatever (hopefully not 5 years…). Apart from general respect for other beliefs, it’s another reason we should be cautious about our own certainty and extend everyone the courtesy to find an appropriate (not harmful) way to express their beliefs. Hope that makes more sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is my impression that Violet seeks kindness and understanding without rejecting truth. Truth must be communicated in a way in which it may be heard.
LikeLike
Sorry, you lost me too, now. What would be the difference (in your definition Violetwisp) between “true”, “right” and “correct”?
LikeLike
“Sorry, you lost me too, now. What would be the difference (in your definition Violetwisp) between “true”, “right” and “correct”?”
Sorry, just catching up with comments on this post. I’m sloppily bunching them all together. Is there objective truth? Probably, but what’s the point in worrying about something so difficult to pin down? I mean that nobody’s general understanding of life (in terms of probability, given the variables) could ever be right or correct, and therefore true. There is so much that humans don’t understand, and each century brings a completely new outlook on life, even for things with rules, like Christianity.
LikeLike
I honestly see points from both sides on this issue and ones like it. As soon as I’ve talked myself into one opinion, I start again on the other side. I don’t want any voices shut down, even the hateful ones, ever, because once we start policing speech it is all fair game with very few exceptions. Yet, I do think there should be safe spaces. But just because something is uncomfortable or triggering, does that mean it should be disallowed in the public forum? I don’t think it should. People should just not go or set up a protest outside or whatever, but to disallow the speaker misses the point of the free exchange of ideas. We have to have the conversations to see compassion and empathy, not shut one another up.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Words to live by – for most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do agree with you completely. I think I’m just reacting to the overwhelming pressure from the anti-religious side of things to suggest that we can trample all over all religions, regardless of the how the individuals who are unavoidably caught in their cultural religious traps feel about it. Also, I think that attitude undermines valuable work within the religion itself.
I used to follow a feminist who wrote great posts, really thought provoking. After a few months, it came up that she was a Muslim. I did choke slightly with the shock. But I think the various cultures that follow Islam need people like her to stay and influence those around her, without necessarily abandoning the whole faith – because that is a much more difficult step for everyone.
And, once again, we can’t corner ‘correct’ and assume it belongs to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These are complex issues, however I must say that in regard to Islam I do wonder if at times our problem is that we are failing to accept the reality. It seems virtually impossible to have a discussion about Islam. Why are there so many more Islamic terrorist than those of other faiths? Why is it that in every majority Muslim country non Muslims are systematically discriminated against?
LikeLike
I agree with you on a lot of this Peter. I’m not saying anything in support of any religion here, I’m suggesting that we have to remember those who are caught up in religions are people living lives. Yes, I know it sounds trite. But again, your comment here is whitewashing all Muslims. There are clearly a lot of problems, but I’m sure there are a lot of good Muslims being silenced and shouted down by both sides – religious extremists and atheists.
LikeLike
And, change always, without question, comes most effectively from within.
LikeLike
I find it somewhat amusing that you have now gone and confused some people, Violet.
George Orwell gave a good description of free speech that I rather like. He said, “freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” That is the cultural struggle we are having in the US right now. There are some who wish to exchange freedom for political correctness, who believe in patrolling and regulating not only speech, but thought and ideas too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, and the fact that you and Tom Quiner agree with Tildeb and Why Evolution is True in this general area, should be a warning light to them that there is a flaw is their argument. 🙂
I always confuse people, my gift of expression is a bit muddled. I see you’ve done a post on Evil Zande and look forward to catching up.
LikeLike
Let me try speaking plainly, Violet. You seem to be advocating shutting up and silencing Maryam Namazie, so no “demonized and persecuted Muslims” have to suffer from the feel- bad. You have just aligned yourself against feminism, against liberalism, and in favor of honoring a far right conservative religious position, called Islam.
The truth of the matter is that your position is hypocritical, totalitarian, and followed to it’s logical and consistent conclusion will result in us all being silenced, ironically you the most of all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeez Insanity. I never thought I’d agree with you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. The idea made my skin crawl.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh go on. Say it. I dare you!
LikeLike
NE-VER.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You seem to be advocating shutting up and silencing Maryam Namazie”
Where?? When I said she is doing great work? When I said she is free to talk in any organisation that wants to host her?
“You have just aligned yourself against feminism, against liberalism, and in favor of honoring a far right conservative religious position, called Islam.”
I’ve aligned myself with individuals in a specific situation, not any -isms.
“The truth of the matter is that your position is hypocritical, totalitarian, and followed to it’s logical and consistent conclusion will result in us all being silenced, ironically you the most of all.”
I disagreed. Followed to its logical conclusion it will make us all more considerate and thoughtful about the lives of other people. And hopefully avoid getting tangled up in -isms.
LikeLike
I’m joining the ranks of the confused here.
So, Namazie’s presentation was deemed as ‘potentially harmful’ before she’s even made it? Because she’s an ex-Muslim? And speaks out against Islamism? And that’s violating ‘safe space’ for the brothers of ISOC?
She’s a ‘renowned islamophobic’. Is she? Because she speaks out about Islamic repression of women and Islamism?
Surely the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASH) who invited her have some rights too? No? And it should be said that ASH notified ISOC out of courtesy, whereupon ISOC decided they didn’t want Namazie to speak.
The Race Relations Act 1976, superceded by the Equality Act 2010, makes provision for incitement of hatred. Is talking about ‘apostasy, blasphemy, free expression in the age of ISIS’ at a university really likely to trigger off hate crimes in wider London? It’s hardly as though Namazie got a sell-out for her presentation. And a percentage of those turned up to disrupt her. And let’s be honest, watching the video, they were rude, discourteous, childish, and Namazie’s body language was nervous.
Muslims may well be a minority disadvantaged group, although where I come from, it’s a rather different story.
But there’s another oppressed minority group too. They are called women. Some of them are Muslim. They turned up to listen to Namazie, and apologised for the behaviour of the Muslim men. Would you deny those women the opportunity to listen to an advocate for women’s rights? I admire them for attending. If you had your way, they would be denied that opportunity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What can I say? You make a great case. I think there’s a case for the Muslims living in this country to be listened to, however much I personally disagree with religion. I picked a difficult example to make my point though.
LikeLike
But Muslims have been listened to. For years. That’s why we have Muslim MPs, councillors and Sharia Courts that ignore British law. Do you agree with that?
Anyway, you maybe didn’t see this one, do click on the link and read the free bit of his book, at least:
I’ve lived in severe race riot places. It’s not pretty.
LikeLike
I think I’ll just read …
LikeLike
“CONTRADICTION, you scream. Not at all. Freedom of expression doesn’t end at allowing everyone to talk, it also involves actually listening to the opinions of other people, especially those who experience discrimination and oppression.”
Freedom of speech is a different thing that the freedom to listen or not listen. Freedom of speech is a law precisely because some speech will be offensive to some people. When that speech is offensive to a governmental power, we don’t want to live in a world that can silence that speech just because they don’t like it.
Now, you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded building, so there are some limits to this. I don’t think the scenario you are describing is one of them. It is a college campus after all.
In the US, we had those crazy people from a Kanas church that would show up at military funerals with signs that said “God Hates Fags” and other cruel slogans. Man, was that offensive to everybody! We all wanted to stop them somehow. BUT, we have freedom of speech here, and if we prohibited that speech, we would have prohibit other type of speech. We found other ways to shield the families from that abuse, but the government let them spew their hatred.
“She has many other options to choose from. But losing one speaking engagement because individuals in that area judged her opinion to be potentially harmful in one place, at that point in time, is not an attack on freedom of speech.”
True, but what better place is there to share your views than on college campus full of young impressionable people?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m putting myself in the shoes of the average young moderate Muslim, in a city with soaring hate crimes, paying for their education at university, and feeling dismayed that their university is hosting a speaker, in this climate, who encourages the view that all Islam is dangerous. I don’t know exactly how that feels, but I believe asking the university to revoke the invitation is understandable.
LikeLike
In the way we have Moderate Christians is the same reason we have maniacs who will shoot up the local family planning clinic. And The average young moderate Muslim is why we have not quite so average suicide bombers.
The days of afternoon tea with the vicar on the church lawn are pretty much over.
When it comes to religion, it’s time to stand up and put the metaphoric boot in.
I would have backed this women to the hilt to allow her to speak and the arseholes who were heckling her would have been out on their frakking ears.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not a surprise.
LikeLike
Which part?
LikeLike
The part where religion gets blamed for everything, and any religious person can commit any foul deed because Religion Is Evil.
LikeLike
No, that’s not what I am saying.
But religious extremism develops in the same seed tray and when it germinates sometimes you have run of the mill sometimes you have humongous.
The thing is, it is ALL garbage; all weeds and strangling vines.
There is no long term beneficial fruit, irrespective of which religion and even less so with Islam, whcxih has all the social benefits of an STD that one is commanded to spread by the NHS.
Once one accepts this then you can see behind the dross.
As it is, one in four adults in the UK currently consider Jesus to be a fictional character/myth.
If people like this woman are not supported with every means possible there is likely to be a massive societal polarization.
As Europeans gradually move away from god belief the Muslims will be left on their own and a radical Muslim is a dangerous Muslim, especially when he sees his power base slipping away.
Oh, and I dont believe in evil but I do recognise stupidity, and any attempt to shut people like this woman down is rank stupidity of the first degree.
If one bears in mind the patriarchal nature of Islam, you can see it through this woman’s eyes and stop trying to apply Western Standards of liberal minded tolerance to those who consider her worth is less than half that of a man.
Remember, a multi-religious culture can only flourish in a secular democracy, which won’t last very long if Fuckwits like Muslim extremists have their say.
LikeLike
“There is no long term beneficial fruit” I disagree, some interesting and useful thoughts have spread through human societies as a result of religious beliefs.
“any attempt to shut people like this woman down is rank stupidity of the first degree”
I disagree that it was an attempt to ‘shut her up’. It was a request not to host in a particular place at a particular time. Did you read the initial statement I posted below?
LikeLike
Beneficial fruit? None that could not and are not spread by secular humanism.
I was referring to the Muslim hecklers.
As for hosting. Good! I am all for pissing on the cornflakes of such extremists.
They won’t tolerate you when they run the councils/
Tell me, how many districts in the UK now have a Sharia court?
Guestimate, I am not asking for an exact figure and I can’t b e bothered to Google.
LikeLike
>an analysis of the good/harm caused by actions needs to be undertaken – for each individual situation.
I agree.
I need safe spaces.
LikeLike
Claire, I understand the need for people to feel safe. However, it seems to me that those who were threatened by this speaking engagement were those who were offended that their religion was going to be discussed in a negative way. In that case, the safe space is somewhere other than where the talk was taking place. If their goal is to never have anyone speak negatively against Islam, that isn’t a “I need safe space” type of argument, It is a “we are not going to allow you to say that” argument.
I think giving in to that type of demand stifles discourse, encroaches on free speech, and should always be resisted, at least in the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Goldsmiths is in England…
The Canadian written constitution permits free speech to be restricted by hate-speech rules.
I find it a matter of power. Speech can be used to oppress the weak. The Muslims, here, are in the minority. We need also to protect the apostates.
In the same way, my own minority poses sharp questions. Some women find my presence in women’s space threatening. I want there to be more than a zero-sum game. But I don’t think that simple rational arguments- Y chromosome means Man, parts of the Koran are illiberal- can be the whole answer. Human beings are so much more than merely rational.
I have done my post for midnight GMT.
LikeLike
Thank you Clare, I’m so pleased that someone at least agrees with half a sentence on this post. Did you see me being ripped to shreds on that other post? I chose a bad post to confront the Victims of PC. 🙂
LikeLike
I just commented without a point. I see you were tiresome, dishonest, vaporous, and unbecomingly ignorant…
Take That, Wisp! In pile the commenters! I just love Rationalists!
LikeLike
Well, I was poorly informed, I know very little about the background or about her work. I was annoyed at another attack on this imaginary ‘regressive left’. But my lack of preparation probably gave ‘us’ a worse reputation. 🙂 *Violet hangs head in shame*
LikeLike
You derided my post where I suggested we shouldn’t comment or write about subjects we don’t know about. But now, your excuse is you are poorly informed? Seriously?
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve learned a lot and the discussion has been interesting. My point exactly.
LikeLike
No. My point.
LikeLike
No. My point. 😉
LikeLike
😜
LikeLike
If I’d mastered emoticons, that would be right back at you. As it is I can only remember 😎 , which I think says it all.
LikeLike
Just as well you didn’t write 8 on its own …
LikeLike
Why? What would that mean?
LikeLike
As someone on WEIT said to you, you have Google
LikeLike
I’ve got a special present for you. I haven’t read it yet:
LikeLike
Oh. Her. I think not. Although thank you for thinking of me. Please pass it on to someone who may appreciate it more than me.
LikeLike
Here is the initial statement from the Muslim Student Union at the university. It’s a reasonable request:
LikeLike
I have posted on this, on my own need for safe space and the conflicts that can cause
LikeLike
Pingback: the difference between ‘thought control’ and ‘being considerate’ | violetwisp
What Islamic society? Is that lie a Train Spotters Society or Philatelist Society or is he alluding to an Islamic Society a la the society he/we you live in?
Islamaphobic is a term coined by fuckwits who wish to control women and convert the world to Islam – one way or another.
Consideration?
Well, yes, I will hold the door as they leave. No probs.
LikeLike
TYPO: ”Is that like ….”
LikeLike
Here is an interesting article written post the event, and a link to the entire video of the event.
http://quillette.com/2015/12/06/the-shame-and-the-disgrace-of-the-pro-islamist-left/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just by the title I can tell it’s entirely unbiased! 😉
LikeLike
Naturally. I’m no extremist.
LikeLike
Pingback: Safe Spaces II | Clare Flourish
I am having trouble understanding why so many intelligent people are confused by your post. My skills in understanding English may be limited, but it is as if people reacted without reading through what you actually wrote. Or have you edited the post since the initial comments? I agree with you totally and feel a bit sorry, that I have to disagree with so many good guys who seem to find it difficult to dissect between Islam and islamism, that clearly are separated like Christianity and crusades, or for example seventh day adventism. Quoting from my own national mythology: “All that is steel is iron, but not all that is iron is steel.” How about some situational ethics, everybody?
Freedom of speech requires also responsibility for what has been said. It is a completely separate issue wether one critizises something, or wether if one becomes engaged in hate-speech.
Should spewing lies and hatred be allowed? Who gets to define what are lies and what are true statements? Facts are a rather different thing from opinions, but it seems very few people understand the difference. Hatred is not so easy to conceal, is it? But it can be, in a tangled web of lies. Lies should be met with exposing any such, not by trying to ban them. Yet, there are billions of people who run into cognitive dissonance when the lies they have believed are exposed and simply refuse to let go of what has become a part of their identity and on what they have built their sense of security. It is not at all like this was a simple issue, but still I am a bit disappointed at how people reacted to what you wrote.
I am also a bit appalled, by how Insanitybytes22 is trying to capitalize by the fact, that some atheists have mixed emotions and views on this, but not very appalled, because I suppose that could be expected. Wether if she understood what you said, or just pretends, that she did not is a nother matter…
LikeLike
“it is as if people reacted without reading through what you actually wrote”
I feel the same. I guess when you’re blogging you quite often do just skim through posts and comment on the bits that stick out for you. I can’t complain though, I quite often comment on posts when I’m not sure exactly what the author is trying to say. Also, I’m more interested in the discussion than my initial thoughts. I do feel a bit dismayed that I generally convince precisely no-one to even slightly reconsider their stance, hehe.
I should clarify that the speaker referred to in the post doesn’t as far as I know ‘spew lies or hatred’, but some comments she’d made in the past have conflated Islam generally with Islamism. She seems more careful to separate them now but it’s part of the baggage she brings with her. I think this conversation is all the more relevant now that we see the support for Trump wanting to ban all Muslims (wtf) from the USA – as a general religious group they are facing tremendous pressure and discrimination.
“I have to disagree with so many good guys who seem to find it difficult to dissect between Islam and islamism, that clearly are separated like Christianity and crusades, or for example seventh day adventism.”
Exactly.
LikeLike