Tag: LSE

  • “We would not condone that at all”

    The LSE Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society is not impressed by the way the SU has reacted to the gender segregation controversy. It explains on the SU website.

    We are disappointed by the LSESU General Secretary Jay Stoll’s statement that the threat of forced gender segregation is “practically non-existent” (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and his accusation that anti-segregation campaigners are ‘Islamophobic’. We also have good reason to distrust LSESU Community and Welfare Officer Anneessa Mahmood’s defence that only “voluntarily segregated” meetings are taking place on the LSE campus, and that there have been “no meetings at LSE where segregation has been enforced upon people“, even if she states that “as an organisation we would not condone that at all, we would break up the meeting.”

    They do have good reason. Anneessa Mahmood is the one who first accosted Chris and Abhishek at the Freshers’ Fair and started grabbing their materials off their table. They reported back in October:

    On Thursday 3rd of October, we (Abishek Phadnis and Chris Moos) were at the LSESU Freshers’ Fair, manning the stall of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society to meet other non-believing students. At around noon, we were approached by LSESU Community and Welfare Officer Anneessa Mahmood, Anti-Racism Officer Rayhan Uddin, and Deputy Chief Executive Jarlath O’Hara and several others who identified as LSESU staff.

    Without explanation, Anneessa Mahmood started removing material from the stall. When challenged, she claimed that it was “offensive”.

    “Community and Welfare” indeed.

    Back to the current post:

    Chris Moos, Secretary of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, points out: “It is disingenuous of Anneessa Mahmood to claim there has never been forced segregation. She cannot deny, as a former officer of the LSESU Islamic Society, that that Society regularly conducts“brothers circle” and “sisters circle” events on campus. This is in direct contravention of the LSESU’s policy on inclusivity, which requires that all society events be accessible to all students, no matter what their belief, race or gender is.”

    Abhishek Phadnis, President of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, added: “I am saddened, though not entirely surprised, by Mr. Stoll’s reckless and unfounded accusations. His irresponsible statement is emblematic of the flippant manner in which university officials have deliberately ignored the misbehaviour of religious organisations on campus, and have allowed this sordid practice to balloon into a serious menace to gender equality. Mr. Stoll’s allegation of ‘Islamophobia’ is a crude attempt to smear principled opposition to the imposition of religious mores on universities as bigotry, so as to enable him and his fellow officials to continue to abdicate their duty to address the legitimate concerns of students”.

    It’s discouraging, seeing officers of the LSE Student Union supporting theocracy and demonizing secularism.

    At the end of the piece is a long and useful list of links to media coverage, including one to Maryam on the World Service, which I didn’t know about.

  • Designs by a wonderfully acid British cartoonist

    Nick Cohen has a piece in the Observer on censorship at UK universities. He starts, as he should, with Chris and Abhishek.

    On the morning of 3 October, Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis put on joke T-shirts, of the kind students wear the world over, and went to man the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society stall at the London School of Economics freshers’ fair. The bullying the university authorities visited upon them for the next 36 hours should provoke the most important free speech court case to hit British universities in years. It certainly deserves to.

    Damn right.

    Both the left and the right complain about censorship, both engage in it, Nick points out.

    The Moos and Phadnis case cuts through the hubbub of charge and counter-charge. It shows that  authoritarians of all stripes share the same vices, and not just because you know without needing to wait for their careers to “progress” that today’s repressive student union politicians will be tomorrow’s repressive human resources managers and Labour home secretaries.

    The students wore Jesus and Mo T-shirts with designs by a wonderfully acid British cartoonist, who wisely never discloses his real name. Jesus and Mo are holding a banner that says:  “Stop drawing holy prophets in a disrespectful manner NOW!” Mo also has a placard that reads: “Religion is NOT funny” and is saying: “If this doesn’t work, I say we start BURNING stuff.”

    Are you offended? Really? Oh dear that’s a pity, because if you cannot take a satirical reference to real religious censorship, your fragile sensibilities should be your problem and no one else’s.

    To fill out the claim a bit more: there is such a thing as religious censorship; it’s active and widespread in the world right now; the cartoon skewers it neatly and economically; it’s a thing worth skewering, and skewering it causes real harm to no one. (What about religious censors?! Spare a thought for them. The cartoon might convince some people that what they do is not a good thing to do. Yes, it might. That form of “harm” is a risk of doing things that are not good things to do.)

    The political hacks of LSE’s student union, who are studying at a university that Sidney and Beatrice Webb founded in 1894 to promote “modern” education on “socialist lines,” knew nothing of basic principles. They decided that the modern and socialist thing to do was silence freethinkers.

    Student union officials told them to “lose the T-shirts” and pulled atheist literature from the stall. When the young atheists asked why they should submit to this impertinent demand, the hacks replied that the T-shirts were “of course, offensive”. They did not say why. The LSE’s security guards arrived and threatened to expel the atheists. Wearing the T-shirts was an act of “harassment” that could “offend others”, they said.

    Student union officials and security guards teaming up against the atheists. Heart-warming, ain’t it.

  • Tragic failure of education

    Via the LSESU ASH Facebook page and later via Alex Gabriel, a poster advertising an event put on by the LSE Socialist Worker Student Society. It reads:

    Religious discrimination is irrefutably on the rise at LSE. Both the Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims, and the ‘Nazi themed’ drinking games serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.

    What does really lie behind the claim that religious communities cannot be the target of racists?

    Is atheism the road to social progress?

    Why do Marxists defend religion?

    That’s illiterate. “Religious discrimination” is somehow related to Nazism, and then it turns out to be a matter of racism, but then whoops it’s back to religion again – and all the wheels fall off with a resounding clatter.

    But more to the point, notice the vicious language about the LSE ASH. Note the “efforts to publish” when the site of “publication” was the group’s Facebook page. Note the malevolent paranoia of “inflammatory.” Note above all the (one could say “inflammatory”) accusation that that was a “deliberate attempt to offend Muslims.” Note, in short, the frothing hatred of secularism, free speech and discussion, and failure to grovel before religious taboos.

    In the next paragraph, note the “religious communities,” which sweeps all Muslims into the group “invariably outraged by even the most anodyne criticism of or jokes about their religion.”

    Note it all, and hope they learn to think better soon.

  • “Open to all” does not mean “pleasing to all”

    The LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society issued a statement yesterday.

    It starts with thanks for support from various groups (including One Law for All) and a chronology of the exciting events of the last couple of weeks, the first being an invitation from the SU to come in for a chat.

    Friday 20th

    In the meeting, the LSESU advanced that we were not providing a safe space for Muslim students to interact, as the pictures on our Facebook page were offending Muslims.

    But again – why is an Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society expected to provide a safe space for Muslim students to interact? Why is that an issue? Are all student societies expected to provide a safe space for their own opposites to interact? Wouldn’t such an expectation render all student societies utterly meaningless and void? Or is it only the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society that is expected to do that? But in that case…why the fuck?

    On the 25th the SU clarified this point somewhat:

    When activity comes under the banner of the Student’s Union it should be open to all members…….. The images which are posted there present a clear barrier to entry for a large number of students at LSE……. the cartoons has caused not only reflects negatively on the LSE SU brand but more importantly has caused significance offence to our members.

    So there we have the fundamental confusion: the confusion of being open with having no “barriers” when barriers are understood as “anything some students might dislike.” The activity is open to all members, but that doesn’t require it to be attractive to all members. At that rate there could be no musical society, because some people dislike music; there could be no socialist society, because socialism would “present a clear barrier” to free-market libertarians; there could be no feminist society, for reasons which there’s no need to spell out.

    ASH made the same point crisply in response to the SU:

    Disagreeing and even being offended by some of the contents of a social space do not represent a barrier to entry.

    It must be dispiriting to be at university with people who have to be told that.

    January 30th

    We asked the SU to “cite the relevant literature that shows conclusively that “Muslim students cannot look at pictures of the prophet Muhammad”.” No answers received.

    The LSESU Socialist Workers Society posted the posters on campus that included the following statement:

    “The Atheist Society’s efforts to publish inflammatory “satirical” cartoons in a deliberate attempt to offend Muslims serve to highlight a festering undercurrent of racism.”

    Budding George Galloways, all of them.

    …we have now changed the name of the Facebook group back to “LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society”.

    During the two weeks of the on-going investigation, the LSESU has not been able to justify their request to remove the ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoons from our website and their request to change the name of our Facebook group with reference to the LSESU constitution or bye-laws.

    The SU answered our letter, but was still unable to state explicitly the effective and binding bye-laws on which their request has been based. Therefore, we are back to our old name, and will stay with our name until the SU can prove to us that we are in violation of any of their regulations or bye-laws.

    We await further developments.

     

  • Oh no you don’t

    The LSE Atheists, Secularists and Humanists Facebook page has a new logo.

    There’s more, but I’m not sure they want me quoting them; I’ve asked and I’m waiting to hear back. The logo however is publicly visible.

  • A protection racket

    The LSE student paper reports on the cartoons and free speech and “Islamophobia” and shut-uppery affair. It has details.

    On 20th January, members of ASH Society met with Stanley Ellerby-English, Students’ Union Activities and Development Officer, who explained “the situation, the complaints that had been made and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of the Students’ Union policy on inclusion and the society’s constitution.” The society agreed to certain outcomes, though these have not been disclosed yet; however, the Students’ Union will “now be telling the society that they cannot continue these actions under the brand of the SU.”

    Chriss Moos, President of the LSE’s Students’ Union ASH Society, responded to the formal complaints that had been filed against the society, stating that the issue should not be framed as one pertaining to Islamophobia.

    “We firmly reject the allegation that actions of our members have ‘sought to marginalise’ anyone, have caused ‘harm to the welfare of Muslim students’ or constituted a ‘targeted campaign,’” Moos said. “Although we reserve the right to criticise religious ideas, as humanists we will always oppose any targeted campaign against any community. We strongly oppose any form of anti-Muslim prejudice. The cartoons criticise religion in a satirical way. They do not target or call for the targeting of Muslims or any other religious group.  Framing the criticism of religion as ‘discrimination’ or ‘Islamophobic actions’ is highly misguided and results in the stifling of valid debates. We do not discriminate amongst religions in our criticisms.”

    The Students’ Union sabbatical officers addressed the issue at the UGM held on 19th January and inestigating the claims. An Emergency General Meeting (EGM) is scheduled for Thursday 26 January at 1:00p with two separate motions, one on antisemitism and the other on Islamophobia, to be discussed.

    Ah so the E was for Emergency? Or perhaps the reporter is making the same mistake I did.

    “There will be two separate motions which will lay out what these types of discrimination incorporate and that the SU stands against them,” said Sherelle Davis, Anti-Rascism Officer. “The recent Anti-Semitic incident on the ski trip and the Islamophobic actions taken by certain campus groups have brought these issues to the forefront of race relations at the moment and it’s important the SU take a stance on it.”

    The Students’ Union issued the following statement to further reiterate their stance on religious discrimination on campus: “the LSE community’s values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation are not in accordance with the offensive nature displayed in the recent cases of antisemitism and Islamophobia. We respect the need for freedom of expression and discussion, but believe there must be a balance between respecting freedom of speech and protecting the communities that make up the student body at the LSE.”

    And by “protecting the communities” she means “protecting people we sort into certain groups (and not others) from hearing or reading or seeing anything that might imply that their groups’ ideas and beliefs might be wrong or illiberal or unfortunate in any way.” In other words by “protecting” she means “stultifying and insulating.”

    It’s not just ASH and atheists and secularists who are harmed by this crap, you know. If anything the harm done to the people being “protected” is worse than the harm done to the people who already have access to thinking uninhibited by the proxies for god.

  • One stop shopping

    I’ve done a lot of posts about all this shut-uppery at UCL and Queen Mary U and LSE. I thought it might be useful to collect them all in one place.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/when-certain-muslims-voiced-their-offense/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/jesus-and-mo-and-the-barmaid-resolve-to-say-nothing-offensive/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/remove-that-offensive-image-at-once-please/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/never-anything-more-than-an-informal-request/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/developments/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/they-will-take-more-consideration/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/1-shut-up-2-shut-up-3-shut-up/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/if-i-hear-that-anything-is-said-against-the-holy-prophet-muhammad/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/just-a-kind-request/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/behold-theocracy-in-action/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/jesus-and-mo-promote-peace-tolerance-and-respect/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/who-gave-these-kuffar-the-right-to-speak/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/history-has-told-us-that-these-things-cause-offence/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/london-11-february-2012-defend-free-expression/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/more-from-the-goombahs/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-an-islamophobe/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/no-longer-a-safe-space/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/too-much-conflation-of-being-offended-and-being-intimidated/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/it-has-come-to-our-attention-that-you-are-wicked/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/01/emergency-everybody-to-get-from-street/

  • Emergency! Everybody to get from street

    Great news! The LSE Students’ Union has another statement out. It’s another pip. It’s about an urgent EGM on Thursday – which I take to be an Emergency General Meeting (but perhaps it’s Electric, or Elegant, or Educational, or Elevated*). Emergency, emergency! Why I bet we can guess what that is…

    In light of recent events there will be two anti-discrimination motions being discussed and debated at an EGM this week, these are: No to racism – no to Islamophobia! and Stop Anti-Semitism Now.

    Guessed right.

    Stop racism no to Islamophobia! – in the form of a cartoon image of two guys having a beer on the Facebook page of a student group. That’s racism ‘n’ Islamophobia? No, but in studentworld, it’s so much like it that it’s worth punishing just the same.

    Union believes

    1. In the right to criticise religion,

    2. In freedom of speech and thought,

    3. It has a responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech,

    4. Debate on religious matters should not be limited by what may be offensive to any particular religion, but the deliberate and persistent targeting of one religious group about any issue with the intent or effect of being Islamophobic (‘Islamophobia’ as defined below) will not be tolerated.

    5. That Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism.

    Union resolves

    1.To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred”,

    2. To take a firm stance against all Islamophobic incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.

    3. To publicly oppose actions on campus that are Islamophobic based on the aforementioned definition,

    4. To ensure that all Islamophobic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School,

    5. To work with the Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address Islamophobia and other forms of racism on campus and methods to alleviate it,

    6. To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of Islamophobia on campus.

     4 is good. 4 is very special. Debate should not be limited, but it will not be tolerated.

    5 too. A form of “anti-Islamic racism” – as if Islamic were a race. “A form of anti-Christian racism” – doesn’t work, does it. (Mind you, it might, in Nigeria or Egypt for instance. But are British Muslims being targeted the way Nigerian and Egyptian Christians are? Are they being blown up or shot down in large numbers? Not that I’ve heard.)

    1 under Union resolves is good too. Hatred of “Islamic culture” is a form of racism. So, what, then? Hatred of the way many Saudis treat foreign servants for instance, is that racism? Hatred of laws against “adultery by force” that allow a raped woman to be sentenced to 12 years in jail, is that racism?

    And then all the rest of it is good, because clearly the whole point is to lay the groundwork for sending the LSE ASH to Re-education Camp.

    Especially 6. “Let’s agree to accept our definition so that we can define anything we want to as Islamophobia and then proceed to pitch exquisitely self-righteous fits whenever we find some. Let’s punish us some cartoons, man!”

    * No: it’s Extraordinary. H/t Gareth Chan.

    Addendum

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=El03KPUeQc4

  • It has come to our attention that you are wicked

    The LSE Students’ Union has put out a statement on its quarrel with the LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society. It’s a horrible little document.

    On Monday 16th January it was brought to our attention via an official complaint by two students that the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society posted cartoons, published by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, depicting the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus “sitting in a pub having a pint” on their society Facebook page. Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students’ Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page.

    Why? Why did they bother to collect “evidence”? (Meaning they looked at the Facebook page and nodded solemnly – yep, there it is – ?) Why on earth was an emergency meeting called (and who called it?)? An emergency? Because of a cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed having a beer? Why did they call an emergency meeting to discuss how to deal with the issue? What issue? Why did they think there was an issue? Why did they think it needed dealing with? Why on earth did they think it was up to them to “deal with it”? Who do they think they are? The Stasi? The Inquisition? The Taliban? What makes them think it’s any of their business that somebody has a harmless image on a Facebook page? Not images of women being raped and torn in half, mind, but of two guys having a beer. Who cares that they got “over 40″ complaints? No doubt there was a little knot of people running around in a frenzy of joy because somebody was listening to their pathetic bedwetting “complaints” but so what?

    It was decided that the President and other committee members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society would be called for an informal meeting to explain the situation, the complaints that had been made, and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of Students’ Union policy on inclusion and the society’s constitution.  This meeting took place on Friday 20th January at 10.30am. The society agreed to certain actions coming out of the meeting and these were discussed amongst the sabbatical team. In this discussion it was felt that though these actions were positive they would not fully address the concerns of those who had submitted complaints. Therefore the SU will now be telling the society that they cannot continue these activities under the brand of the SU.

    Oh doesn’t that sound like a festive occasion. The ASH members called in to be told that a harmless cartoon is in breach of Students’ Union policy on inclusion. The members bullied into agreeing “to certain actions.” The bullies, sexually aroused by all this power to tell people off, deciding it’s Not Good Enough and they’ll just jolly well demand more; so, now they will actually get to tell the society that they cannot. Ooh ooh ooh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That’s those members told. How was it for you?

    The LSE Students’ Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus. The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students’ Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE.

    Yes we get it you self-important puffed-up little shits: you’re good and they’re bad; you’re against racism and they’re totally racists; the content is offensive and you’re good; you’re for tolerance, diversity, and respect and they’re for offensiveness. We get it. You think free speech needs to be “balanced” with self-admiring “concern” for self-aggrandizing complainers about worked-up “offendedness” about a cartoon that’s about as “offensive” as an Eccles cake.

    Pfui.

    Update: I forgot to say: h/t Alex Gabriel.