Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Pick a country with a military junta in its recent past

    Chris Clarke at Pharyngula quotes a comment:

    As an Argentinian I can confirm your “rumours” and add that this guy was a collaborator with the military during the last coup d’etat during the 70′s : Among many things, he informed to the military that two monks that were working in a low income neighbourhood were no longer protected by the catholic church, facilitating their detention and posterior disappearance.

    Mind you, to “dissapear” at that time meant to be detained by the military, held without rights or trial, possibly (and often) tortured under suspicions of being a Marxist/ “terrorist”, being completely incomunicated with your family and finally be killed and buried on an unmarked grave, or thrown form a plane into the river.

    Thrown.

    From a fucking plane.

    Into the river. (Known as “deathflights”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights )

    Argentina maybe not such a great choice after all, eh?

     

  • Oh gee the cardinals made a booboo

    Ok here we go. Stewart posted the link to a piece from January 2011 in the Guardian, on what the high-ups in the Catholic church in Argentina did to help the miliatary dictatorship get away with crimes against humanity. Is the new pope there? Does a bear shit in the woods?

    The extent of the church’s complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina’s most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence). He recounts how the Argentinian navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship’s political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate.  The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio’s name was  allowed  to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.

    Oh.

    Oops!

  • “We’ll follow whatever the church says”

    So maybe the new pope will be a little less ruthlessly murderous about condoms. Or maybe he won’t; at any rate we know he won’t be any less convinced that he gets to tell everyone what to do.

    While the new pope is reportedly orthodox on matters of sexual morality, “he takes a slightly more pragmatic view on contraception, believing that it can be permissible to prevent the spread of disease,” according to a report in The Guardian.

    What that might mean for groups like Catholic Relief Services, a humanitarian organization based in Baltimore that works to stem the spread of communicable diseases, isn’t clear. But the pope has an enormous power to shape the doctrine followed by millions of Catholics around the world.

    “We’ll follow whatever the church says,” said John Rivera, director of communications for the organization, which works in 10 countries around the globe and has reached 300,000 people.

    What an appalling thing to say. What an appalling institution the church is, to have that kind of power. How terrible it is that an institution like that is allowed to meddle in humanitarian work.

    When it comes to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS, the group follows an improvised version of what is known as the ABC approach. They endorse abstinence (“A”) and being faithful (“B”), but they don’t support the “C” part of prevention — condoms.

    “We’ve found that this AB approach has been effective,” said Rivera.

    They might as well support staying home (“A”) and washing hands often (“B”) but not support vaccination to prevent measles.

    Murderous bastards.

  • Plus ça change

    So, it’s a guy from Argentina, and he’s calling himself Francis 1.

    It’s still the Catholic church though. Still the Vatican. Still a ridiculous archaic intrusive institution.

  • Yemisi Ilesanmi on “other grounds”

    Yemisi Ilesanmi commented on Peter Tatchell’s Huffington Post article yesterday about the inadequacy of the queen’s putative “support” for LGBT rights in the Commonwealth. Her comment is a valuable short article in itself.

    There is a reason many government officials especially politicians prefer the ‘other grounds’ clause to a more specific mention of sexual orientation, it gives them a leeway to squeeze out of any obligation not to discriminate, jail or kill on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    Speaking as a Lawyer, Advocate and solicitor, I know from experience that  ‘Other grounds’ clause could be held to mean so many things and also held to exclude so many things by government not willing to respect the rights of others. New International human right treaties now explicitly mentioning sexual orientation, this new Commonwealth charter should not be an exception.

    As someone who was part of the team that made an input into the draft Commonwealth charter, our suggestion of including sexual orientation as an explicitly mentioned ground was ignored because it made commonwealth members that want to keep discriminating and persecuting LGBTs in their countries, uncomfortable. This also means if we ever decided to use the charter as a defense of LGBT rights, we have to waste precious time proving that ‘Other grounds’ includes sexual orientation; this could have been avoided if it was explicitly mentioned.

    Needless to say, in many African countries that already signed on to international treaties with the ‘Other grounds’ clause, affirming that sexual orientation is included in the ‘other grounds’ clause has been tedious for LGBT advocates. This new charter has not in any way simplified the burden borne by many LGBTs in many African Commonwealth nations.

    It is good to have knowledgeable people on the case.

  • Leo in London

    You people in and near London are in luck – you have a chance to go to a talk by Leo Igwe. Grab it!

    Breaking the Taboo of Atheism in Black Communities

    Monday, March 25, 2013 6:30 PM to

    The Hackney Picture House  

    270 Mare Street, E8 1HE London, London

    Leo Igwe, Nigeria’s most prominent humanist, and a human rights activist, will be giving a ground-breaking talk on ‘Breaking the Taboo of Atheism in Black Communities’ during a short visit to London to attend the NSS Secularist of the Year Award event before returning to Africa to continue his research into witchcraft.

    People ‘of all hues’ who are sceptical of religion are encouraged to show their interest and support for this event as black non-believers, in London and elsewhere, start to become more confident and active in openly challenging the over-bearing presence of religion within their families and communities and its negative social, financial and educational consequences.

    This talk is part of increasing efforts to encourage black non-believers to ‘come out’, to find a supportive environment when dealing with family and social reactions, to voice their opinions and be more proactive in the humanist, secularist and atheist movements. To paraphrase the African saying “It takes a village to raise a child. It takes all of us to change this religious BS”.
    It is organised by London Black Atheists (http://www.meetup.com/London-Black-Atheists/ and https://twitter.com/LdnBlkAtheists) and supported by Central London Humanists (http://www.meetup.com/Central-London-Humanists/).

    You are so lucky!

  • Backward and in high heels

    My friend Mary Ellen Foley – who blogs at M E Foley’s Anglo-American Experience Blog – shared a story with me.

    So I went to a Tai Chi class today, taught by an Englishwoman who has studied Tai Chi for years, including various stints in China (one as long as 6 months), and she told some stories, including the one about how she went over there to study with a particular master and found that he didn’t like her, didn’t like women, probably didn’t like foreigners — he clearly could teach her a lot of stuff, but she wasn’t welcome and he made sure she knew it.  But she was determined to win him over, so one day she came early, picked up a bamboo broom (bundle of bamboo sticks tied together with the leaves left on at one end of the stalks), and started to sweep the leaves from the courtyard where they were going to be practicing.  The master came up, clearly unhappy with this, said something in Chinese that she didn’t understand, and took away the broom.  Hmmm.  Then here he came with a different broom, with a very short handle, and indicated that she should sweep the courtyard with that, which was a lot harder, because you had to bend over so far to do the work, but she did it.

    When the translator showed up, he told her that the problem was that the long-handled broom was only for men; the short-handled one was a woman’s broom.

    Wo.

  • I agree with this sentiment

    Oh hai, I found that photoshop of me – the one that Michael Nugent reported on last week in his post Slymepit members struggle with the ethics of removing photoshopped naked image. I wasn’t looking for it, I was looking for something else, but the location of the something else was the location of the photoshop. I had vaguely thought it was gone, but no, it’s just that it’s not embedded there any more. That was clear from Michael’s post, but I had read it somewhat hastily.

    Members of the Slymepit website have spent the last few hours struggling with the ethics of whether to remove a photograph, newly posted, of an identifiable person’s face photoshopped onto the body of a naked woman.

    The Site Administrator’s decision: “I have deleted the tags which embed the image, but left the link. Note: this is a picture of a naked old lady’s body onto which the head of [named person] was photoshopped. Feel free to visit the link and see for yourself, but there is nothing useful to be gained by doing so.”

    Oh, sure there is. There’s the pleasure of feeling contempt and loathing for a woman you hate. Totally useful!

    What I was looking for was the origin of a cryptically quoted phrase in a tweet.

    blackford2Now that’s what I call feminism. Also guts. Find somebody calling me despicable, then quote it without attribution on Twitter. Free speech at its finest. Philosophy on the front lines.

    So I was curious, so I googled the phrase, and it went to a page at the slime pit where they were discussing the photoshop, so I found the photoshop.

    Trigger warning, if the body of an old women is the most disgusting thing you can think of. The photoshop.

    I apologize to whoever the woman is in that picture. I don’t actually find her body disgusting, believe it or not. What I find disgusting is this kind of shaming.

    [Note: don’t run to the tip jar. You’ve been doing that lately as it is, so treat this one as off the record, or something.]

     

  • LGBT rights are not un-African

    Peter Tatchell says no, the new Commonwealth Charter is not a big victory for LGBT rights.

    Not surprisingly, the Commonwealth Charter does not include any specific rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This was vetoed by the homophobic majority of member states. They blocked its inclusion.

    This makes the Queen’s charter signing even less of a big deal. It is certainly not the breakthrough for LGBT rights that some people are claiming.

    Yemisi Ilesanmi says the same thing on her Facebook page Freedom to Love for ALL: Homosexuality is not un-African.

    Members of Commonwealth nations include UK, Australia, Canada, Uganda, Nigeria (my home country), Ghana, India etc, I can assure you that the ‘Other grounds’ clause is not new to many of commonwealth member nations and they are not novice to the term ‘Sexual orientation’.

    Nope, it is not about confusing them or the issue, it is also not about “They are not there yet and so we must be patient in them getting to the place where they can comfortably say Gays and lesbians and Trans etc”. It is about their refusal to accept LGBTs as persons deserving of human rights.

    As a Nigerian openly Bisexual woman, I do not think in this age and day, I must cower in a corner waiting patiently for my government to accept I am a human being entitled to all inalienable fundamental human right. As it is, Nigeria lawmakers are almost sailing through to pass a law that would put me in jail for 14 years for my sexual orientation. I do not wish to be a refugee or asylum seeker; therefore I must put pressure on all ‘democratic’ organizations that my country belongs to and encourage such organizations to speak out against such blatant violations of human rights. Commonwealth is one of these organizations and its failure to condemn the blatant violations of human rights by many of its member nations is something that deserves an outcry, not praise, not patience, not media contortions, but an outright outrage.

    Yes!! That’s speaking out.

  • Imagine it was Mitt Romney

    Via Dana who found it via Kylie, a Facebook note by Harriet Page. I know, not everyone is on Facebook. But that’s where it is!

    She introduced it with

    This week I wrote a response to the several occasions on which I had been challenged on my feminism by men and women who felt that I was misguided, wrong, aggressive or unhelpful in my responses to what I viewed as sexist behaviour.

    Been there. Many times. I can remember heavy sighs back in the early 70s when I pointed out some (to me obvious, indeed blatant) bit of everyday sexism. And of course have been there again just lately, with people who consider themselves feminists nevertheless going into Full Outrage mode because I had the gall to criticize something sexist that Michael Shermer said.

    (Really. Imagine it wasn’t Michael Shermer who said it. Imagine it was Mitt Romney. Imagine Mitt Romney was on a talk show and the conversation turned to the scarcity of women in politics. Imagine Mitt Romney said: “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.” Imagine I did a blog post saying that was a sexist stereotype, and a particularly damaging one at that. Would there have been the same kind of outrage from the same people?

    I don’t know the answer, of course, but I think it’s extremely unlikely.

    Notice by the way how plausible it sounds as a thing Mitt Romney would say. Notice how well the clueless smug “that’s just how things are”ism fits Mitt Romney. Notice how many other clueless smug prosperous dudes one could slot in there and notice how unsurprising that remark would still be.

    So why is it so hard to see it that way when it’s Michael Shermer who said it?)

    Back to Harriet Page.

    …what I want to talk about is not the obvious misogyny that we can all agree to despise, but rather the unconscious behaviours and attitudes that go unchallenged because in this country there is a taboo about breaking the silence on the wearying, everyday grind of normal, legitimized sexism. And so I want to talk about the men who claim to stand on the side of equality but, through their words, actions and inaction, perpetuate the culture of sexism. I want to talk about feminism’s false allies; the men I call the sleepwalking sexists.

    Sleepwalking because sleepwalkers can get aggressive if you wake them up suddenly.

    And, in a way, this is exactly what happens when nice, reasonable men who call themselves feminists are called out on their unconsciously sexist behaviour and attitudes. These men have sleepwalked contentedly through the minefield of gender relations without ever having cause to question what they’re doing and then BAM. Some crazy feminist with no regard for how scary and disorienting it’s going to be comes along and wakes them up with the rude news that, actually, they have unintentionally been engaging in some pretty sexist behaviour.

    BAM. Some crazy feminist who isn’t a big Name in Skepticismolandia comes along and says “that was a sexist stereotype.” And the world comes to an end.

    In the case of sleepwalking sexists, the responses are more varied. It might be immediate, unhinged abuse – ‘Crazy bitch, you must be on your period or something’. It might be icy politeness and contempt – ‘I’d thank you not to be so aggressive, it’s completely unnecessary’. It might be fake concern – ‘You maybe don’t realise it, but when you attack men like me who are only trying to help, it hurts the whole cause of feminism’. Whatever the method used, the result is the same; instead of reflecting on their own behaviour and attitudes, these men will retreat into an impenetrable defensive fortress.

    Here’s the hard and unwelcome truth. You are a sleepwalking sexist if:

    -You think jokes about rape and domestic abuse can be funny.

    – You know that victim-blaming is wrong, but you also feel that in purely logical terms, it’s obvious that women who wear provocative clothing are taking stupid risks.

    – You have ever told a woman to ‘get over it’ because she was upset by a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.

    – You have ever felt that a woman’s frustration or anger invalidated the content of her argument.

    – You believe that you have as much right as a woman to determine what does and doesn’t count as offensive material, even though you are not the subject of the material in question.

    – You believe that the world is full of men who are potential-feminists, and that they’d be mobilised to help if only women would be a bit nicer to them.

    – You believe that a woman making a generalisation about men is just as harmful and oppressive as a man making a generalisation about women.

    – You did consider yourself a feminist. Then one upset you when she pointed out some problematic behaviour, and now as far as you’re concerned the feminists are on their own!

    – You believe that it’s counterproductive for feminists to call you out on your accidental sexism when there are men whose behaviour is so much worse than yours.

    Recognized.

    This is the hard truth that must be learned; if you are one of those men who looks for these slip-ups, then you are NOT a feminist. If you are one of those men who believes in equality in some vague and idealistic way, but then turns on a woman the second she says something that remotely implicates you or the people you share a common chromosome with in something you don’t like, you are NOT a feminist. If you believe that a woman has to reward your attempts at feminism with niceness, like a dog getting a treat for a trick, you are NOT a feminist.

    Being a feminist means believing ALL the time, regardless of whether women are nice to you, that the struggle for gender equality is on-going and real and essential. It means condemning all those ‘harmless’ little jokes about nagging women, female drivers and periods because you recognise that from the fertile soil of casual, unconscious sexism sprout the seeds of justification for serious assault. It means making the connection between a joke about a woman who bares her breasts on screen in the portrayal of a rape, and the man who thinks it’s funny to grope a woman in a club because she has cleavage showing and Hollywood tells us that boobs exist purely for sexual entertainment. Being a feminist is not about wanting equality for women because they’re nice to you. It’s about fighting for women every single day because you believe that they are human and that humanity is worth defending regardless of how nice, kind, clever, rude, attractive, funny, accommodating or mean the woman in question is.

    That.

  • Hard times for the bully business

    Sometimes bullying people just doesn’t work out, even if you do it on the internet, and even if all you’re doing is posting pictures of naked girls without their permission.

    The founder of a so-called “revenge porn” website has been ordered to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation.

    Hunter Moore was found to have made false claims about the chief executive of an anti-bullying website.

    Mr Moore used Twitter to falsely claim James McGibney was a paedophile who possessed child pornography.

    Mr Moore’s website used to post naked images of people without their permission. He closed it in 2012.

    But three days later he was at it again.

    Mr Moore used his Twitter account, which has almost 150,000 followers, to make several derogatory comments about Mr McGibney.

    Mr Moore encouraged others to post the claims in return for free clothing – Mr McGibney said he would be taking action against those that did so.

    “‘Internet tough guys’ are also legally accountable for their actions,” Mr McGibney wrote.

    “Hunter and some of his followers now realise this, along with their parents since some of his followers appear to be under the age of 18.”

    The settlement amount was said to be a “conservative estimate” of reputational damage caused by Mr Moore’s comments.

    The money would donated to women’s shelters across the US, Mr McGibney added.

    So you’re not allowed to slander people? Even on the internet? I thought you were.

    In addition to the defamation claim, Mr McGibney has launched a class action lawsuit against the site, and has invited users to come forward to share their complaints.

    “We’re doing this mostly for the completely powerless, under-age women who were verbally harassed after Hunter posted their completely naked, unedited photos on his site.

    “We’ll soon be launching a brand new site for IsAnyoneUp.com that not only shows the history and eventual dismantling of this disturbing website, but also brings valuable information to people who have been wronged by similar behaviour.”

    Jeez, they were only having a little fun, and free speech.

    One Twitter warrior had a strange reaction to the story.

    Interesting libel case. I wonder if this sort of ruling would apply to accusations of “misogyny” & “active racism”?

    Wut?

    The relevant comparison is to accusations of “misogyny” as opposed to, say, accusations of being a smelly ugly cunt?

    Yeh I don’t think so.

  • Takes 2 seconds

    Here’s a little job for you – a tiny one: all you have to do is hit a “Like” button.

    Hit the button under American Atheists to vote for them to get a booth at Netroots Nation and collect more atheists!

  • Hamza Tzortzis three years ago

    A Twitter friend pointed out this post about Hamza Tzortzis from October 2010.

    The Q&A session started with the announcement that whilst the Brothers in the audience were allowed to address the speaker directly, the Sisters had to write their question on a slip of paper which was then passed down to the front and vetted before being answered. Unbelievable. Perhaps what is more unbelievable is that the practice is being defended, and not labelled the outright misogynistic behaviour that it is. This was posted on the Islamic Society group page on Facebook.

    Just one side-note regarding the point which one of the atheists (I don’t know who) raised regarding our sisters etc. The reason why sisters write questions on paper is because many of them feel shy, its called “hayaa”. Its not because they’re less than us!!! And also, there were so many brothers sitting on the floor, can we say: Muslims disrespect men because they had to sit on the floor?? If he didnt know, thats ok, but he should have asked. Isnt asking the cure to the disease of ignorance?

    For a start, ALL the sisters were told to write their questions on paper, not just the shy ones. I can’t imagine that none of the 40-odd women in the room were so shy they couldn’t put their hand up. And surely a room full of fellow, sympathetic Muslims is the best place to overcome your shyness? Yes, asking is the cure to the disease of ignorance. It’s just a shame that the Brothers seems to be keeping the cure for themselves. Around 10 bits of paper were passed to the front and not a single question from them was answered. In fact he actually chastised one woman for ’‘writing an essay’.

    Oh good grief. They feel shy, it’s called “hayaa”. Speaking about it, being intellectually active about it, it’s more of a guy thing. Same old same old same old.

    Via that post, there’s a long, informative one at Harry’s Place, which concludes by warning people not to debate Tzortzis.

    In conclusion – do not give Tzortzis credibility by offering him a platform or sharing one with him

    While the writer hopes that this post will prevent all UK university Islamic societies from giving Tzortzis a platform ever again, this is highly unlikely.  More realistically, student unions can now be warned about the man’s true political intentions in order for action to be taken the higher levels and overrule the Islamic societies.  Readers are asked to forward the link to this post to their local universities, humanist groups and another other potentially interested parties.

    Moreover, the main purpose of this post is to warn all atheist, secularist and humanist speakers of the dangers of sharing a platform with Tzortzis.  While it is stressed that there is no evidence of a direct physical risk to person or property, speakers should err on the side of caution and bear this possibility in mind.  The greatest risk is that if humanist speakers are willing to share a platform with Tzortzis in a discussion or a debate, this will only give him further credibility and further opportunity to spread the ideology of HTB.

    I guess the warning needs to be spread around a little more widely.

     

  • A round-up of commentary on the UCL fiasco

    Naturally Maryam is all over the UCL dustup.

    Sex segregation not miscommunication

    Sexual segregation at a UCL event is a scandal

    Institutional incompetence or moral cowardice?

    That one is a statement by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

    The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was horrified to learn of sex segregation at an Islamist-organised event in University College London last weekend.

    Whilst the behaviour of the organisers is wholly predictable (it has since come to light that UCL were repeatedly informed of their intention to segregate the audience beforehand), the university’s failure to uphold such a fundamental principle of equality as non-segregation is staggering.

    UCL was the first university in England to be founded on an entirely secular basis and to treat women and men equally in admissions. At this point in time it is unclear whether the university’s complicity in enforcing a gender segregation policy was the result of institutional incompetence or moral cowardice. Regardless, UCL must realise that their reputation as pioneers of equality in academia now risks being reduced to tatters unless action is taken immediately to ensure that this is never allowed to happen again.

    For more information, contact:

    Maryam Namazie Spokesperson Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

    BM Box 1919,

    London WC1N 3XX, UK

    tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

    +44 (0) 7719166731

    email: exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
    web: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

    Islamist group banned from UCL for gender apartheid

    Margaret Soltan at University Diaries also comments.

    When people cave that easily – some American atheist waltzes in and gets pissed off, and the organizers act, well, like a bunch of women – they make it harder for everyone else to make the case that stashing females in the backs of rooms and making them shut their faces is an affirmation of their dignity.

    I know, right? Sissies! But actually they didn’t cave, they only pretended to.

    And Skeptical Science.

    Who won the debate?

    Clearly, without saying a single word, even before it had started, Hamza Tzortzis did not. The topic under debate was ”Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?”, so in just that context, when one side demonstrates that they are intolerant misogynists and willing to impose that by force upon others in the public space then they have instantly lost, because none of that makes any sense at all in the 21st century.

    Just because they don’t want girl cooties? Where’s the misogyny in that?

  • This was not the first time

    Student Rights tells us about several university events in London that have been promoted as “fully segregated.”

    This even includes events featuring Tzortzis at UCL, with the audience at an event attended by our researcher Rupert Sutton at the School of Pharmacy in October 2012 seating women at the back of the hall and men at the front.

    During 2012 Student Rights also logged several events which were advertised in this way, with a speech given by Dr Khalid Fikry at London Metropolitan University in June pronounced “FULLY SEGREGATED!!!

    In January the same was true at London South Bank University, where an event encouraging non-Muslims to attend was advertised as “100 Per Cent Segregated”.

    Promotional material for November’s talk by Abu Usamah At-Thahabi at Brunel, which saw protests from students after Thahabi’s views were exposed by Student Rights, also declared “all our events are always segregated to the best of our ability”.

    Clearly it’s time to pay more attention to this.

    To suggest that what happened at UCL this weekend is a one-off therefore ignores the consistent use of segregation by student Islamic Societies around the country.

    Whilst this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the social pressure put on female students to conform to obey these rules should not be underestimated.

    One student who attended stated on Saturday highlighted this, saying “I regret not joining my male friends in openly opposing this violation of gender equality in public premises. However, I was genuinely fearful of the repercussions“.

    Here at Student Rights we would like to see universities coming clean about why they allow such practices in public spaces, and are glad to see that despite its claims of ignorance, UCL has issued a robust response, barring IERA from campus in future.

    Time to push back, people.

  • A large container of assorted girls

    Well there’s one good thing about gender segregation, as Maureen pointed out in linking us to this news item about three men arrested on suspicion of sexual assault and false imprisonment at an Islamic girls’ school in Lancaster – it’s a handy way to collect all the girls in one place for ease of access.

    Officers are investigating a single alleged incident last Tuesday involving a small number of girls at Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster.

    A 40-year-old from Bolton and two men from Blackburn, aged 30 and 53, are in police custody.

    So was it halal?

     

  • UCL on iERA event

    From UCL News.

    An organisation known as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) booked a room at UCL for a debate on Saturday evening (9 March). UCL was notified during Friday by some individuals planning to attend the event that the organisers intended to segregate the audience by gender.

    This was directly contrary to UCL policy. We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus. We immediately made clear to the organisers that the event would be cancelled if there were any attempt to enforce such segregation. We also required the organisers to make it explicit to attendees that seating arrangements were optional, and guests were welcome to sit wherever they felt comfortable. We also arranged for additional security staff to be present to ensure that people were not seated against their wishes.

    It now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting. We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.

  • Guest post on the “debate” at UCL

    Guest post by Abishek N. Phadnis

    The Missionary Position

    Six weeks ago, Student Rights published its findings on the infestation of rabble-rousing Islamic preachers in British universities over the past year. Topping the charts was trash-talking noisemaker Hamza Tzortzis, with his hit single “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom”. That he has alchemised this rather exotic view into a career as a self-styled ‘intellectual activist’ is the least of his many contradictions.

    Mr. Tzortzis is an alumnus of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a global Sunni extremist movement against the evils of homosexuality, Jewishness, women, democracy, freedom and probably happiness itself. He is a champion of such worthy causes as the criminalisation of homosexuality , the dragging of Britain into the Islamic Caliphate and the amputation of limbs for minor crimes. His brand of rabble-rousing, however, eschews violent radicalisation for a more insidious form of reactionary preaching that sexes up a dark and twisted interpretation of Islam as the ideal.

    It is almost received wisdom now that intellectual honesty isn’t one of Mr. Tzortzis’s strongest suits. During his invasion of Sheffield Hallam University last month, his acolytes in the Islamic Society secured him a debate with the Atheist Society who, until the very eve, were given the impression that the opponent would be an Islamic Society student. This afforded Mr. Tzortzis the opportunity to alternate his gormless pseudo-profundity with some self-indulgent whingeing about the reluctance of high-profile unbelievers to debate him.

    This bag of squalid tricks resurfaced in the run-up to Mr. Tzortzis’s debate with the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss at University College London. The London heathen audience’s preparations for the debate, focused largely on devising rude puns of Mr. Tzortzis’s name, were thrown into disarray when it emerged that the organiser, Big Debates, was a front for the missionary Islamic Education and Research Academy , which counts among its ‘Permanent Staff’ one Hamza Tzortzis.

    Intrigued by this subterfuge, they dug further and discovered that an iERA functionary was to moderate the event, that questions had to be submitted in advance and had to include a mention of the questioner’s religious belief, that the organisers’ insistence on knowing the religious inclination of each ticket-holder at the time of registration was ostensibly to guide the allocation of tickets and that, in the heart of Bloomsbury, a supposedly serious debate was to be conducted before a gender-segregated audience. Meanwhile, a number of closeted ex-Muslims were distraught to discover that they had been hoodwinked into handing over their personal details to an Islamic organisation.

    A spirited volley of e-mails ensued, as the agitated atheists petitioned UCL to reassert first principles of equality. Britain’s original mixed-gender university issued a swift, firm and decisive statement the same afternoon affirming that no gender-segregated seating arrangement would be permitted.

    By then, the LSE atheists had discovered the typical iERA debate to be a raucously self-congratulatory affair with an audience ten parts Muslim to one part unbeliever, where every mention of He-Who-Must-not-be-Named is prefaced with a chorus of superstitious Arabic gobbledygook, every mention of homosexuality is greeted by sneering catcalls and crowing videos spring up not long afterwards, with titles like like LOL Brother Muslim speaker CRUSHES/DESTROYS/OWNS atheist opponent.

    It became amply clear that iERA had pulled a textbook bait-and-switch on Professor Krauss and his supporters, who, resigned to an evening with Mr. Tzortzis, would now be subjected to the further indignity of doing so amidst an audience so unashamedly stacked against Professor Krauss, he might as well have saved himself the airfare and delivered his address to a cactus in his native Arizona.

    In the event, UCL’s assurance wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, as its Equality and Diversity Policy was roundly trashed in a brazen display of religious chauvinism that will rankle long in the memory of those who attended. The evening turned sour right at the outset, as attendees were herded through segregated entrances into ‘Ladies’ and ‘Gentlemen’ sections. Five minutes of remonstration yielded a slender two-row mixed section for the debauched, with the remaining twenty devoted to good old-fashioned chastity. The five rows with the worst views comprised the Ladies’ Area.

    Matters came to a head when two male attendees were forced out of a section of the auditorium which turned out to be part of the Ladies’ Area. Incensed, they raised the matter with the organisers but were staggered to see the organisers set the guards on them instead, this time with the express intention of evicting them from the auditorium itself for “unruly behaviour”. Verily this behaviour cited consisted of little more than the temerity to occupy a vacant seat in a public auditorium and to protest one’s unjust eviction, without recourse to raised voices or physical contact.

    By then, Professor Krauss had been informed of this scandal, and hurried upstairs to intercede on our behalf. He insisted that the two seemed dignified and restrained, and did not appear to pose the slightest threat to the peace of the gathering. Undeterred, the guards piled falsehood upon falsehood, levelling slanderous allegations of harassment and intimidation, though it eluded many why any man without a Dementor fetish would choose such a gathering for sexual mischief. That the objectors were outnumbered seven to one by the guards indicates how laughable this allegation was. Professor Krauss, unable to unable to bear this pious farce any longer, issued a terse ultimatum – he would leave in protest unless the evictees were returned, unscathed, to the auditorium.

    This nuclear option concentrated the organisers’ minds and they sought refuge in one last petty trick, emptying out a row of the Ladies’ Section for the pair by scattering its previous inhabitants to upper reaches of that section.

    It is difficult to express fully how disillusioning it was to see UCL’s staff openly siding with scripture-sodden prudes bent on simulating the social mores of 7th-century Arabia. A Dr. Rehman, reportedly of the UCL Chemistry Department, staunchly defended the His ‘n’ Hers farce as being endorsed by UCL. The UCL guards refused to intercede on the pair’s behalf, claiming that their brief was to follow the organisers’ instructions.

    To complete the infamy, only one of the ten or so questioners in the Q&A session at the end of the debate was a ‘sister’. Her pathetic contribution was to exhume the carcass of the seating issue. Professor Krauss shot back that women so viscerally offended by unthreatening male company in a public space would do well to stay home and spare others their sanctimonious conservatism.

    Organisations like iERA find visceral joy in the blood-sport of bringing down a giant of the opposition, like Lilliputians downing Gulliver, in the rigged travesty of a format they call a debate. One finds increasingly that this lack of scruple is visited upon dissenting members of the audience too. To the extent that Mr. Tzortzis is currently on an Islamic Awareness Tour, we’re delighted he’s raising awareness of the sinister strain of Islam that’s peddled on Britain’s university campuses, a spiteful and bigoted thing that appeals to the base instincts of the hot-headed and the impetuous. That the unapologetic crookedness of his cabal caught us unawares suggests we could all do with a little more awareness.

  • Press release on gender segregation at UCL event

    The following is a statement by concerned students.

    Sexual segregation at a UCL event is a scandal

    A policy of sexual segregation was enforced at an event at University College London on Saturday, with the organisers’ security trying to physically remove members of the audience who would not comply.

    Seating at the event was segregated between men and women, with a small ‘mixed’ space allocated for couples.

    Separate entrances were in place for women and men, although ‘couples’ were allowed to enter via the men’s door. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door.

    The event “Islam vs Atheism” on Saturday 9th was organised by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA), and pitted writer Hamza Tzortzis against Professor Laurence Krauss in a debate.

    A policy of segregation was suggested by IERA in a statement before the event, which said: “As for seating, it is according to when the ticket was booked and gender.” This was raised by students with UCL, who gave assurances that no segregation would be allowed.

    Fiona McClement, UCL equalities and diversities adviser, said on 8th March: “We have been in contact with the event organisers and made it clear that UCL will not permit enforced gender segregated seating. All attendees are free to sit wherever they feel comfortable.”

    Sarah Guise, head of equalities and diversity, deans of students Mike Ewing (academic) and Ruth Siddall (welfare), as well as UCL gender champions Professor Mary Collins and Baroness Diana Warwick of Undercliffe, were also informed of the plans of the organisers to breach UCL’s Equality and Diversity policy.

    Ms McClement and Rob de Bruin, co-chair of the 50:50 Gender Equality Group, said: “The UCL security team will be in attendance to ensure compliance with this. If the event organisers do not comply, the event will not be permitted to go ahead.”

    Despite these assurances, segregation was enforced on the night.

    At the entrance to the UCL building audience members were separated into male and female only queues by the organisers’ security staff.

    The policy of segregation was strictly enforced inside the building. Male attendees were refused entry via the women’s door to the lecture theatre. When asked if the event was segregated, one of the security staff said: “It’s slightly segregated.” Dr Aisha Rahman said she was an organiser and that the room had been booked on behalf of UCL Chemistry. She said the segregation had been agreed with the University and suggested more than once that the men should be refused entry.

    Several attendees approached UCL’s security personnel to alert them to the situation, but found that the staff were unwilling to intervene, and were instructed to comply with the organisers’ policy of segregation.

    After more discussion, three male attendees were told they would be permitted to sit in the women’s section, but were directed to an isolated space on the side of the lecture theatre, away from everyone else.

    One of the students, Christopher Roche, said: “It was clear that the segregation was still in effect as when I sat in the same aisle as female attendees I was immediately instructed by security to exit the theatre. I was taken to a small room with IERA security staff and an organiser named Mohammad who told me that the policy was actually given to IERA by UCL.

    “Shocked, I said that I would like to return to my seat but was told that security would now remove me from the premises for refusing to comply with the gender segregation.”

    The organisers’ security staff then tried to physically remove Mr Roche and Adam Barnett, a journalism student and friend of Mr Roche, from the theatre.

    Professor Krauss intervened and threatened to leave to stop the removal of the two audience members. The organisers then prepared a row near the women’s section at the back of the room where the two men sat quietly for the event. Professor Kraus said he had been told in advance that there would be no segregation, and that people could sit wherever they wanted.

    Adam Barnett said: “What happened on Saturday is a scandal. UCL and the organisers owe an apology to me, my friend, the audience and the general public. For a London University to allow forced segregation by sex in 2013 is disgraceful.

    “The organisers should also apologise for their appalling behaviour if they want to hold any more events on campuses in the future.”

    He added: “It’s insulting to be told that because I’m a man I can’t sit near women in the audience. I’m not in the habit of forcing my presence where it’s unwanted, but the event’s organisers have no business policing social matters of this kind. Furthermore, the women in question were never asked whether they cared where we sat.”

    “In this case the segregation was non-voluntary. But voluntary or not, segregation is wrong, as well as a violation of UCL policy.”

    Chris Moos, a PhD student who sought assurances from UCL before the debate, said: “Having personally attended this event, I cannot tell you how disappointed I and many other attendees are that UCL did not live up to its promise to make sure that its Equality and Diversity policy was enforced.

    “Overall, the atmosphere of the event was intimidating for both male and female students, who were shocked to see that although concerns about the plans to enforce gender segregation had been raised before with UCL, the organisers were able to

    violate its policy and create a threatening and divisive atmosphere that was not inclusive to all attendees.”