How do you FEEL
The theocrats are still trying to silence Maryam.
When I spoke at an event organised by the LSE Human Rights Society on 27 January, the restrictions imposed were absurd. Initially I was meant to debate “whether human rights is possible under Sharia/Islamic Law” but those approached refused to debate me or pulled out at the last minute. One of those approached, Omer El Hamdoon, the president of the Muslim Association of Britain, asked to do a solo talk instead, which he did in November 2016. The stark difference in the way he and I were treated at LSE speaks volumes. Despite speaking on the very same topic (making the usual response of “what can you expect when you discuss Sharia” irrelevant), Hamdoon came and went without any concerns being raised nor any restrictions placed on his talk.
In contrast, my talk, which was initially meant to be a public event, was restricted to LSE students and staff due to “security concerns”, LSE followed “special procedures”, referred it to the “Communications Division” and imposed a chair whilst none of these were demanded of Hamdoon. When I arrived at the LSE on the night in question with a number of colleagues, the security told me I had to enter alone – instructions from the “very top” (the university eventually allowed me to enter with two of my colleagues).
It does make one wonder how I am the “security concern” (with instructions issued from the “very top”) whilst Hamdoon who has defended the shunning of ex-Muslims and death by stoning in an ideal Islamic state (audio available here) faces no restrictions whatsoever?
I think it’s probably the way black people are “security concerns” at Trump rallies – because the racists might attack them. Maryam’s a “concern” because Islamists might attack her or tear the place up. That kind of “security concern.”
She’s scheduled Tariq Modood on Secularism and Diversity at Westminster University on 24 February. The university hasn’t told her to stay away; instead it has invited the theocrats to do so:
The Islamic Society of Westminster is aware of the number of students who got in contact with us, expressing their frustration regarding Maryam Namazie being allowed to speak at our university for a ‘debate’.
Their frustration – that Maryam is allowed to speak. That’s theocracy for you. It thinks only theocrats should be allowed to speak.
There may well be people who will attempt to equate Maryam Namazie with Milo Yamalamadingdong, and those who object to her appearances as being just the same as those who object to his.
Those people are full of fucking shit.
If you ever have an opportunity to watch Maryam speak – or better still, debate – don’t hesitate. You’ll regret it if you hesitate.
I wouldn’t want to debate Maryam either. She’d wipe the floor with me.
A few years ago the University of Westminster had an Islamist as Student Union president. An Islamist group (not the main Islamic Society) hosted a debate with a speaker from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. A Jewish student who questioned an article on Hizb’s website that stated that Jews should be wiped out was jeered out of the room. It was nasty stuff.
Islamists are sprinkled with the same freezepeach pixie dust that Milo had until yesterday.
The no-platforming and harassment of Mariam, or Smurthwaite, or Hirsi Ali, really IS ‘PC gone mad.’ And it is insane that supposed progressives seem to have some sort of Hitler/Stalin Pact ‘thing’ with Islamic fascism. Does anyone expect the Black Block to show up when Hamas or Hisb ut Tarhir send speakers to Cal?
Here are two very different situations:
1 – Credible reports come in of students saying they feel endangered by the calls to action of a given speaker; that they expect to be shouted down and harassed after such an event; that the speaker will encourage the audience to harm them.
2 – Credible reports come in of students saying they are sharpening their machetes to lop parts off the speaker and the audience or that they will insist on shouting down the speaker, audience, and promoters.
If the school is getting the first type, this is a speaker that may reasonably be denied a platform. They’re there to start a riot.
If the school is getting the second type, they’ve got a student body in need of intense supervision and possibly arrest. The speaker is not the problem.
Now, let’s hear LSE’s case that Maryam Namazie is calling for a genocidal non-holy war and the Muslim students are rightfully terrified of being the victims of violence as a result.
I’m going to get very comfy while we wait.
Jeff, right on the nose. The problem is, most universities seem to have it backwards, thinking (1) Milo is justifiable as a free speech issue, and (2) Maryam is too dangerous to have speak.
Where did we get so far away from reality that we can’t see this?
iknclast, I think it may be that the violent right’s use of “free speech” and identity politics language may be just a figleaf that gives the authorities some cover, when what they are really doing is capitulating in the face of that implicit threat of violence. They’d rather have the truly dangerous sorts allowed their platforms to be truly dangerous, when the danger is directed at women, atheists, transgendered people, etc., instead of at the administration, their property, their funding, etc.
If it’s confusion at all, it’s something they encourage in themselves because the results are so convenient.
(Which is not to say that you can’t have the same on the violent left, or violent off-the-spectrum sorts – it’s a matter of where the people making the decisions really fear directing possible violence if any. But when it’s directed as someone on a margin, it’s not likely directed at anyone favored by the right.)