Tag: Maryam Namazie

  • 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.

  • Yes or no

    A guy on Facebook yesterday posted video of something a lot of my friends have been passionately discussing: a few minutes from the Parliamentary inquiry into Sharia courts on Monday, in which Bradford MP Naz Shah interrupts Maryam Namazie’s testimony to demand a yes or no answer to a misleading question and then simply attacks her for her views. It’s pretty horrifying.

  • A prominent human rights campaigner

    I guess it’s only the right-wing press that can manage to report on Maryam and the bullies who try to shut down her talks without first labeling her “controversial.” Such as, the Telegraph:

    The headline: Human rights campaigner heckled at blasphemy lecture

    The subhead: A prominent human rights campaigner who was heckled during a lecture on blasphemy at Goldsmith University has said universities should be “unsafe places” where ideas and beliefs are openly challenged

    See there? They call her a human rights campaigner, which she is, and skip the bit where they prejudice us against her, and excuse the people who bully her, by calling her “controversial.”

    The Telegraph is better on this subject than the BBC. What a fucked-up world.

    Javier Espinoza goes on:

    A prominent human rights campaigner who was heckled during a lecture on blasphemy at Goldsmith University has said universities should be “unsafe places” where ideas and beliefs are openly challenged.

    He calls her “prominent” rather than “controversial.”

    Ms Namazie, who was banned from speaking at Warwick University for being considered “too inflammatory”, was giving a talk on Monday following an invitation from the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (ASH).

    Members of the Islamic Society had expressed their opposition to her talk entitled “Apostasy, blasphemy and free expression in the age of ISIS” – arguing Ms Namazie should not be allowed to speak given her “bigoted views”.

    He puts the attribution of bigotry squarely on the Isoc, rather than voicing it himself. Makes a change, doesn’t it!

    He quotes from Isoc’s complaint to ASH, then goes on:

    However, she went ahead with the talk but “brothers” of the university’s Islamic Society started coming into the auditorium and repeatedly banged the door, heckled he[r] and shouted at her.

    Ms Namazie, who fled her native Iran’s repressive government and now is a fierce campaigner against Islamic extremism, said: “They shut my projector, shouted over me, threw themselves on the floor. They created a climate of fear and intimidation. I spoke as loud as I could.”

    Do better, BBC.

  • When in doubt, call her controversial

    London Student reports on Maryam and Goldsmiths Isoc.

    The headline: ‘Death Threats And Intimidation’ At Controversial Goldsmiths Lecture With Speaker Maryam Namazie

    The subhead: Students at Goldsmiths “disrupted” a controversial talk with human rights activist and broadcaster Maryam Namazie yesterday evening, with some audience members accused of issuing death threats.

    Is the well poisoned enough yet? I do wish people would stop pre-poisoning every story on or conversation with Maryam by screaming about how “controversial” she is in the title and subhead and opening paragraph and every subsequent mention of her. It’s rather like calling anti-fascists “controversial.” Maryam is “controversial” only to theocrats, so why pin the theocrats’ label on her? Advocating secularism and equal rights for all and the right to leave a religion should not be controversial and certainly should not be labeled controversial by huge media organizations like the BBC.

    It’s deliberate, this shit is. Make no mistake about that. They’re signalling to the Islamists that they’re not supporting Maryam, they’re not fans of Maryam, they don’t agree with Maryam – so please don’t kill them. It’s cowardly, it’s dangerous to Maryam, and it sells out the entire population, just to appease bullies like the Islamists of Isoc.

    Once we get past the introductory well-poisoning though, the story lets Maryam have her say, quoting her account of what happened at her talk, then adding details.

    A student, during yesterday’s lecture, moved to turn off the main screen when Namazie showed a cartoon from the series Jesus and Mo.

    Ah so that’s what it was. Again: that’s not something that should be “controversial” or grounds for forcibly disrupting a talk. We’re allowed to have cartoons, including cartoons of religious figures.

    Allegations were also made in last night’s event that certain members of the audience had issued direct death threats. One speaker, lecturer and activist Reza Moradi, said that the person threatening him “looked right into my eyes and with his finger, shaping hand like a handgun, touched his forehead.”

    He said: “I asked the security guard if he saw the death threat and he confirmed it”, adding that he has had “many issues with Islamists and lots of threats but this one was different.”

    And yet it’s Maryam who is called “controversial.” Maryam doesn’t issue death threats.

    Prior to yesterday’s event, Goldsmiths’ Islamic Society (Isoc) released a statement saying that it “[expressed] deep concern regarding Goldsmiths Atheist, secularist and humanist society with renounced Islamophobe Maryam Namazi”.

    The statement continued to read she “is known to hold very controversial views”, adding “we feel such an individual will violate our safe space”.

    When London Student requested a response from the organisers of the event, the Goldsmiths’ ASH society, its president said the society had sent an email to the Islamic society’s president “because I wanted them to be included in Maryam’s talk and the ensuing discussion,” but that the group “had responded to my email with a thinly veiled threat asking me to call off the event on the grounds of violating the safe space policy”.

    “Asking” is putting it tactfully.

    He also clarified that despite the students’ union approving the speaker “some of the predominantly male members of the Isoc then showed up and made a strong effort to disrupt Maryam’s speech”.

    He accused some in the Goldsmiths Islamic Society of making a “great effort to create an atmosphere of intimidation and belligerence at the event, rendering the talk feeling unsafe for non-Isoc attendees who wished to have a ‘safe space’ to discuss dissenting ideas about religion.”

    They’re bullies. They treat Islam as a bullies’ charter, and they act accordingly.

    An email seen by London Student, sent by the president of Isoc to the president of the ASH society read: “As an Islamic society, we feel extremely uncomfortable by the fact that you have invited Maryam Namazie. As you very well probably know, she is renowned for being Islamophobic, and very controversial.

    “Just a few examples of her Islamophobic statements, she labelled the niqab- a religious symbol for Muslim women, “a flag for far-right Islamism”. Also, she went onto tweet, they are ”body bags” for women. That is just 2 examples of how mindless she is, and presents her lack of understanding and knowledge about Islam.

    “We feel having her present, will be a violation to our safe space, a policy which Goldsmiths SU adheres to strictly, and my society feels that all she will do is incite hatred and bigotry, at a very sensitive time for Muslims in the light of a huge rise in Islamophobic attacks.”

    What huge rise?

    “For this reason, we advise you to reconsider your event tomorrow. We will otherwise, take this to the Students Union, and present our case there. I however, out of courtesy, felt it would be better to speak to you first.”

    That’s the veiled threat? Not veiled at all – it’s saying they’ll try to get the SU to shut down Maryam’s talk.

    Maryam Namazi, when asked if she could give her response to the talk, said: “Goldsmiths Isoc never made any formal complaint to the students’ union” arguing last night’s incidents were an “attempt at intimidating Atheist Secularist and Humanist organisers”.

    She also told London Student: This very group which absurdly speaks of “safe spaces” has in the past invited Hamza Tzortzis of IERA which says beheading of apostates is painless and Moazem Begg of Cage Prisoners that advocates “defensive jihad”.

    But the BBC keeps right on calling Maryam “controversial.”

    It’s funny, the left used to be able to recognize fascism when it saw it.

  • A deep concern

    A public Facebook post by the Goldsmiths ISOC dated 5 hours ago:

    Goldsmiths Islamic Society expresses a deep concern regarding Goldsmiths Atheist, Secular & Humanist society’s event with renowned Islamophobe Maryam Namazie, which is due to be held tonight. Namazie is known to hold very controversial views i.e. labelling the the niqab as a “bin bag” and calling the veil a symbol of “far right Islamism”. She also regularly shares platforms with right wing fascists such as Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society. We feel that at such a sensitive time for Muslims, where islamophobic attacks have dramatically risen, it is dangerous for such a person to be given a chance to express such bigoted views. We feel such an individual will violate our safe space, and are disappointed that someone so controversial has been given a platform.

    Yes, Maryam holds “very controversial views,” like the view that all Muslims should be entirely free to leave Islam whenever they want to, and the view that women should never be forced to wear a niqab or a hijab or any other religious gear, and the view that the laws should be the same for all people, not sorted and altered according to religion.

    Maryam also holds the view that Muslims as a group should not be confused with Islamists, and the view that Islamism presses hardest on Muslims, and that it’s both possible and necessary to dissent from Islamism and Islam without demonizing Muslims in the process.

    Goldsmiths ISOC is doing far more to muddy those waters than Maryam is. Whoever wrote that awful post is presuming to speak for Muslims in general at Goldsmiths, as if all Muslims at Goldsmiths are as illiberal and coercive as the jerk who wrote that post.

     

  • The state has not gagged her

    David Shariatmadari takes the opportunity to piss on Maryam in the wake of Warwick SU’s reversal of its rejection of the ASH invitation to her to speak.

    Even if it didn’t evolve into a full-blown Twitter storm, this incident was a classic of the genre. Righteous indignation was tweeted and retweeted, celebrities piled on the pressure, pundits sharpened their quills. Even better, the issue straddled a major faultline in progressive thinking. Advocates of free expression were being pitted against those who feel that criticism of religion, Islam especially, can be antisocial, even dangerous.

    For Namazie’s supporters two things were very clear: first, this was a direct attack on free speech; second, lefties were once again siding with religious conservatives because of a misguided belief that Muslims, as a minority group, should be protected at any cost.

    The latter is a familiar accusation. I’m suspicious of it because my own willingness to defend Muslims and Islam from certain kinds of attack isn’t motivated by the idea that they and their faith should be beyond criticism.

    But what kinds of attack? By “certain kinds of attack” does he mean Maryam’s kind? Maryam is very firm about rejecting the kinds that are just racism hiding behind criticism of religion, so what “certain kinds of attack” can he have in mind?

    Also, defending Muslims is not automatically the same thing as defending Islam, and in fact the two can be quite opposed.

    First – was the move to block Namazie’s appearance really an attack on free speech? She should certainly be at liberty to express herself within the law. The Guardian has in the past published her work. But does the withdrawal of an invitation really amount to censorship? Her words have not been banned, the state has not gagged her.

    It doesn’t amount to direct state censorship, no. (It may amount to indirect state censorship, but that’s not really the core issue.) But the withdrawal of an invitation is not at all the same as not issuing an invitation in the first place. The withdrawal, and the rejection of permission to issue, an invitation is an overt No. That’s much more active than a non-engagement.

    In a free society we are, on the one hand, at liberty to publish and promote ideas so far as they do not advocate harm. We are also free to shun them if we want to. The Warwick episode is a case in point. All we’re really seeing is one student body’s messy weighing up of which values it wants to endorse, and which it wants to reject – and exercising its own right of free expression to make that choice.

    Yes, but in doing so it canceled the Atheist Secularist Humanist student body’s right of free expression to invite a speaker it wanted to invite. Its “right of free expression” obliterated ASH’s right of free expression by saying No to ASH’s invitation. That’s a power play, not just free expression.

    Shariatmadari goes on to explain what he dislikes about Maryam’s atheist take on Islam.

    What might lead people to decide they’d rather not give a platform to such rhetoric? Recognising the pressure British Muslims are under – surveilled by the state, victims of verbal abuse, vandalism and arson – could it be that some students felt welcoming a person who believes Islam is incompatible with modern life would be wrong?

    They could, of course, have engaged her in debate. Why demand instead that the talk be cancelled? The reason given was that she might incite hatred on campus. I think this is over the top – her words probably wouldn’t have resonated very far beyond the meeting room itself (they might now). But the underlying sentiment is reasonable: we don’t want to have any part in the further stigmatisation of Islam.

    It’s not all that reasonable. Wanting to defend Muslims from attack and demonization is reasonable, but wanting to protect a major religion from criticism is not. Why not? Think Raif Badawi, think Asif Mohiuddin, think Avijit Roy, think Taslima Nasreen. That’s why not.

    We are lucky to live in a pluralist democracy, with freedom of choice in politics and religion. These are things we should cherish, but they are not in any serious danger. Were they really threatened – by the emergence of a theocracy, by the drafting of racist or misogynist laws – the left would oppose that with every sinew. I hope that more citizens in Muslim-majority countries can one day enjoy the level of political and social freedom that we do, and I support the men and women who try to bring that about.

    That’s so smug. Britain as a whole is probably safe from threats to freedom of choice in politics and religion, but plenty of individuals within Britain are not. That’s why Maryam founded the CEMB, isn’t it. That’s why she founded One Law for All. That’s a major part of why she does what she does.

    What does David Shariatmadari do?

  • Meta Warwick

    The Coventry Telegraph reports on reactions to Warwick’s reversal yesterday. (Warwick and Coventry are next door to each other, and Coventry is a city while Warwick isn’t.)

    High-profile public figures have welcomed news that Maryam Namazie’s ban from Warwick University has been overturned.

    …

    The students’ union indicated the initial decision had been made was made “in deference to the right of Muslim students not to feel intimidated or discriminated against on their University campus.”

    But, after 48 hours of intense public pressure – including an online petition, the union released a statement to apologise to Ms Namazie and confirm it would back down over the ban.

    Ms Namazie said: “I am really excited that I will be able to speak to students there and am grateful for all the brilliant support from Warwick Atheists and from so many wonderful people.”

    High-profile figures such as Prof Brian Cox, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins and Dr Ben Goldacre had all rushed to blast the initial decision. But they have since welcomed the latest development.

    Not “but” but “and” – they (and we) blasted the no and welcomed the yes.

    At the end they quote UKIP MP Douglas Carswell, which I wish they’d skipped.

  • Warwick welcomes Maryam to speak

    A win!

    Warwick says procedures weren’t followed, and apologizes, and says hell yes Maryam can speak.

    In the last few days we have all seen much debate, and considerable concern, expressed about an application to Warwick Students’ Union made by the Warwick Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, that an SU society host the campaigner and blogger Maryam Namazie as an external speaker.

    Warwick SU has a process for assessing any potential risks or legal issues associated with any external speaker, and it is now very clear to us that in this case that process has not been followed.  Speaker invitations that may involve such issues are routinely considered by the SU President, who will also take advice from senior SU staff. This did not happen on this occasion. Neither the SU President, nor senior SU staff, were consulted as they should have been. This is a significant error for which there can be no excuse.  There is a great deal that we now must put right, and these are the first steps that we are putting into place:

    1) The proper process has now been followed, as it should have been in the first place. The application by the Warwick Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society for Warwick Students’ Union to host Maryam Namazie as an external speaker has now been considered and approved.

    2) The SU is now seeking to meet promptly with the leadership of the Warwick Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society to make the necessary arrangements for the event to take place in the format they have requested.

    3) Warwick SU will issue an unequivocal apology to Maryam Namazie for this egregious and highly regrettable error.

    And they’ll look at what went wrong and fix it.

    Making a fuss worked this time!

    It’s possible that the fuss wasn’t necessary, but nothing had happened until the fuss got going, so it’s possible that nothing would have gone on happening without a fuss.

    Anyway – a win!

  • They must remain silent and accept their lot in life

    Maryam responds to Warwick Student Union’s deceptive ass-covering statement yesterday.

    Warwick Student Union (SU) has officially responded to the uproar surrounding their decision to refuse the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists’ Society (WASH) request to have me as a speaker in October.  They deceptively imply that the uproar over their denial is premature as a “final” decision has not been made.

    And so the white wash begins.

    We already know why that’s deceptive and a whitewash (aka ass-covering). The SU told ASH No, weeks ago. Just No, not No pro tem, not No until we reconsider, just No.

    ASH appealed the decision.

    The SU ignored the appeal.

    ASH asked the SU to respond.

    The SU did not respond.

    ASH told Maryam the state of play.

    Maryam blogged the story and it spread rapidly.

    Then, and only then, the SU said oh it’s not final.

    That is some clumsy whitewash. Their ass is showing.

    Maryam objects to the way the SU is accusing her of things while being too vague about it for her to rebut the accusations.

    I have already briefly addressed the SU’s initial decision: the Islamists incite hatred, not us. But there is a serious question that remains unanswered: which articles, written by myself and “others”, have so concerned the SU? These need to be published in full – for the sake of transparency – and so we can all judge for ourselves.

    The SU cannot accuse me of potentially inciting hatred – a prosecutable offence – and then deny me the evidence to defend myself. Needless to say, I am also very interested to learn of the “others” they have relied on.

    It’s a filthy business, isn’t it. The SU is nervous, so it throws shit on Maryam’s reputation. Maryam, the brave human rights campaigner, founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britian and inspiration for parallel councils in a number of other countries, founder of One Law for All, secularist and universalist – they throw shit at her reputation. It’s a filthy filthy business.

    She goes on to make the point – for the thousandth time – that opposing ideas is not the same as opposing people.

    There might be members on the SU who are atheist, who think Christianity is superstition and who dislike and even hate the pope, the Christian Right, the EDL, and the BNP but don’t hate “Christians”. Also, they should be able to see that not all “Christians” are the same. Many are Christian in name only. And even though Britain has an established church and bishops in the House of Lords, they understand that the society is not Christian nor are many who are labelled as such. This is common sense. They just can’t seem to see it when it comes to the “other”. Then any criticism is seen to be “discrimination” against and “intimidation” of “Muslim students”. Isaac Leigh, president of Warwick Student Union, says as much in the Independent: “The initial decision was made for the right of Muslim students not to feel intimidated or discriminated against on their university campus… rather than in the interest of suppressing free speech.”

    There is a way in which that’s not solely an indefensible double standard. Christians are, broadly speaking, insiders in the UK, while Muslims are, again broadly speaking, outsiders. It’s more complicated than that but it’s also as simple as that. In a way it makes sense to assume that Christians can just put up with criticism of Christianity while it’s not so easy for Muslims.

    But then if you know anything at all about Maryam – which the SU should if it’s going to say No to her speaking – you know that she’s very well aware of that and talks about it frankly.

    And then there’s the fact that everybody, including outsiders, needs to be able to hear dissent.

    Clearly, the SU has bought into the Islamist worldview (and also that of identity politics/multiculturalism pursued by successive British governments) that “Muslims” are a homogeneous community that need to be managed by parasitical and reactionary imams, sharia courts and Islamist organisations rather than viewed as equal citizens and as students (with more than one characteristic that defines them). They cannot see that even “Muslim students” have the right to dissent and to hear dissenting voices.

    If dissenters cannot speak, what does the SU suggest we do? I don’t want to be a Muslim. I was “born” Muslim out of no choice of my own – a lottery of birth. I want to be able to shout my atheism from every rooftop without looking over my shoulder. I abhor the veil and gender apartheid. I want to be equal to men. I don’t want my rights to be culturally relative. I want to, I need to, speak out against the Islamic regime of Iran and ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

    And who better to do it?

    In Iran and Saudi Arabia and the Caliphate, they label it blasphemy, apostasy and heresy and call you kafir and murtad and immoral and kill and imprison and flog you and throw acid in your face. Here, they and their apologists call it Islamophobia to silence critics who are somewhat out of their reach.

    The SU’s infringement of the right to criticise religion and that which is deemed sacred and taboo limits the free expression of those who need it most. Saying Islam and Islamism are off limits means first and foremost that the victims and survivors of Islamism are not allowed to do one of the only things at their disposal in order to resist. It is telling people they cannot oppose theocracies and religious laws and call for secularism in the Middle East and North Africa. It is telling people they cannot oppose sharia and call for universal rights for all. It’s telling women they do not have the right to be equal. It’s telling ex-Muslims they don’t have a right to live if they want to reveal that they are atheists. It’s telling people who need free expression most that they must remain silent and accept their lot in life.

    That’s the real oppression.

  • If those facts are an insult to Islam

    Another post by Benjamin David of Warwick ASH, this one with screenshots of his exchanges with the Student Union, to corroborate that they said what he said they did.

    Here’s his reply to their message saying Sorry, nope.

    I look forward to hearing from them too.

  • Warwick’s Student Union defamed Maryam

    Warwick ASH president Benjamin David’s post yesterday:

    As President of WASH, I feel that it is important that I comment about the recent controversy regarding the decision taken by The University of Warwick’s Student Union to prohibit Maryam Namazie from speaking on campus. For those unfamiliar with Maryam, she is a secularist, a human-rights campaigner, and leader of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain – as well as being a friend of mine.

    After submitting a guest-speaker application to the SU, I received the following response explaining their decision to bar Maryam:

    “…after researching both her and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised. We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus.

    There a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus. This is in contravention of our external speaker policy:

    *must not incite hatred, violence or call for the breaking of the law

    *are not permitted to encourage, glorify or promote any acts of terrorism including individuals, groups or organisations that support such acts

    *must not spread hatred and intolerance in the community and thus aid in disrupting social and community harmony

    *must seek to avoid insulting other faiths or groups, within a framework of positive debate and challenge

    *are not permitted to raise or gather funds for any external organisation or cause without express permission of the trustees.

    In addition to this, there are concerns that if we place conditions on her attendance (such as making it a member only event and having security in attendance, asking for a transcript of what she intends to say, recording the speech) she will refuse to abide by these terms as she did for Trinity College Dublin:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/03/23/tcd-2/”>http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/03/23/tcd-2/

    As a student of the University, I must confess that I cannot but help feel an element of embarrassment – as well as feeling that my society has been vitiated in light of the encroachment on the strong secular and free-speech principles that the society espouses. We have appealed the decision and we will submit a further post detailing the outcome in due course.

    Unless the Student Union just does nothing until after the date for Maryam’s talk has passed.

    I would really like to know exactly what Warwick SU thinks it means by

    There a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus.

    It seems to me that the only thing they can mean is that people who hate secularism and universal rights are likely to be “inflamed” by Maryam’s views, just as Nazis and xenophobes and racists in general are. But that doesn’t mean that she herself is “inflammatory,” or that a university should view her as “inflammatory.” The people who want to shut down Maryam also want to shut down secular universities.

     

  • 1,492 signatures and counting

    There’s also a petition, organized by Benjamin David of Warwick ASH, petitioning the Student Union to Allow Maryam Namazie to speak at The University of Warwick.

    Signatures are rolling in fast, so join the fun.

    Warwick Students Union have made the appalling decision to bar Maryam Namazie from giving a talk on campus to Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists. For those unfamiliar with Maryam, she is a secularist, a human-rights campaigner, and leader of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

    A student union official said the decision had been taken “because after researching both her [Namazie] and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised”.

    It went on: “We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus. There a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campu

    The restriction of free-thought and non-violent free-speech is the most dangerous of all subversions – a subversion that is only amplified in light of the fact that Maryam has always campaigned against violence and discrimination and has done so passionately for many years – something that should have been taken on board when the SU’s assessment was made. Maryam often describes the true facts concerning her own experiences and those of people she works with in relation to radical forms of Islam – not all forms of Islam, just those pernicious, radical strands of the religion – things that most peaceful Muslims would also condemn. I must profess that if those facts are an incitement of hatred – which I most definitely believe they are not – then the solution is to change the way people are treated in certain faith communities, not to insist Maryam lie about her life through censorship. As Maryam stated in her blog:

    “The Student Union seems to lack an understanding of the difference between criticising religion, an idea, or a far-Right political movement on the one hand and attacking and inciting hate against people on the other. Inciting hatred is what the Islamists do; I and my organisation challenge them and defend the rights of ex-Muslims, Muslims and others to dissent.”

    And, what is more:

    “The Student Union position is of course nothing new. It is the predominant post-modernist “Left” point of view that conflates Islam, Muslims and Islamists, homogenises the “Muslim community”, thinks believers are one and the same as the religious-Right and sides with the Islamist narrative against its many dissenters […]This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of women’s rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the religious-Right. In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim, the oppressed are perpetrators of “hatred”, and any criticism is racist.”

    The infringement of free-speech is becoming insidiously ubiquitous, and many universities, including Warwick, are circumventing the freedom of speech in pursuit of inoffensive, sanitary narratives.

    As secularists and defenders of free-speech – revering the intellectual suffusion of ideas and dialectics – we need to show solidarity in order to construct a truly formidable voice of opposition against such ludicrous strands of censorship. This petition has the potential of bolstering our voice. Please sign and please share. Lest we forget: “censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship” (George Bernard Shaw)

    -Benjamin David
    (President of Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists)

    Here’s the petition again.

  • WASH replies

    And the Warwick U Atheists, Secularists and Humanists have responded to Isaac Leigh’s statement for the Student Union. That statement was a lot more obfuscating than I realized.

    Warwick SU has officially responded to the burgeoning controversy surrounding their decision to bar Maryam Namazie from giving a talk on campus to our society. We find that it is important to respond to this in order to represent the facts clearly and accurately in order to avoid any ambiguity or deceit. We at Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) take serious umbrage with the claims that WarwickSU have made, namely:

    “contrary to what has been communicated in the public domain over the last 24 hours, no final decision has been taken”

    and

    “I would reiterate that the process for reviewing this particular speaker event has not been completed and, once I and senior staff members have reviewed it, a further statement will be made.”

    We believe that Warwick SU’s statement is unpardonably misleading. To begin with, we do not believe that any article has said a FINAL decision has been made – numerous articles document the FACT that WASH are pursuing an appeal (Guardian, Independent 1, and Independent 2). What is more, we at WASH have not once claimed that a FINAL decision (that is to say, a response to our appeal) has been made. We have always stated honestly and openly that the application was declined and we have subsequently appealed.

    I forgot that they’d appealed. The decision isn’t final because they appealed.

    But guess what – the SU is stonewalling. What do I mean “stonewalling”? They’re ignoring the appeal in the hopes that the whole thing will just shut up and go away.

    These are the facts as they stand:
    1) A guest-speaker application was made to the Students Union for Maryam Namazie to come to our society
    2) A member from the Students Union emailed us a few days later explaining that the application has been rejected – citing numerous, ungrounded reasons (as stated in our previous blog post)
    3) This prompted us to appeal – an appeal that was made over two weeks ago – an appeal that still hasn’t been answered.
    4) Further correspondence was made to chase up the appeal – again, correspondence that was met with silence
    5) Maryam was informed of this impasse
    6) The matter exploded online.

    6) is where we come in – we help with the exploding. Do your part – tweet, Facebook, blog, tell your friends.

    According to the SU, the response we received from one of their members that: “I am afraid on this occasion we are going to have to decline authorisation for her atten[d]ance on campus” – (no.2 in the list) – somehow should not be taken as a final decision – and this somehow absolves the SU from any criticism.

    These are the FACTS as they stand. We will allow you to decide if the SU should be absolved from any criticism. We still hope that the SU will indeed reverse their decision.

    –Benjamin David

    (President of Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists)

    Weasels.

  • Timely discussion

    Isaac Leigh, the president of the Warwick University Student Union, posted a statement on the WSU Facebook page a little over an hour ago.

    *** WARWICK SU STATEMENT ON MARYAM NAMAZIE SPEAKER REQUEST ***

    “In reference to the external speaker request the SU has received regarding Maryam Namazie visiting Warwick SU, I feel I must clarify both mine and the SU’s position given the rather premature discussion alive on social media and in the press.

    As previously stated, the SU has a process for assessing the risks associated with any external speaker in accordance with our legal responsibilities. Our policy aims to provide an environment where freedom of expression and speech are protected, balanced with the need to ensure that our community is free from harm and ensure that incitement to hatred is never acceptable.

    However, our policy has a number of stages and – whilst risks have indeed been identified – contrary to what has been communicated in the public domain over the last 24 hours, no final decision has been taken. The responsibility for doing so is mine along with authorised senior staff members. To this point, neither I nor authorised senior staff members have had any involvement in the process – the next stage of which is that we review the request, determine what can be put in place to facilitate the event and then discuss this with the event organiser, whose role is integral to the process.

    We have a record of facilitating over 200 speakers a year covering a wide range of topics, many of which are controversial in nature. This is part of our role in the development of our members. We do everything in our power to ensure that these events take place, safely and with any identified risks mitigated. Declining speaker requests is an absolute last resort.

    I would reiterate that the process for reviewing this particular speaker event has not been completed and, once I and senior staff members have reviewed it, a further statement will be made.”

    ISAAC LEIGH
    Warwick SU President

    The Independent article I just blogged about did say that a final decision would be forthcoming, meaning it hadn’t been issued yet, but it also said the [interim] position was a No.

    So the discussion isn’t “premature,” this is just the right time for it.

     

  • Highly inflammatory

    The Independent on Warwick University’s Student Union’s cancellation of Maryam’s talk.

    Maryam Namazie had been booked by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) group to speak about secularism to Warwick University’s Student Union on 28 October.

    However, the group was notified last month that Ms Namazie’s speech had been cancelled. The decision has led campaigners to raise concerns about student bodies across the UK thwarting freedom of speech on their campuses.

    The union said that “after researching both [Ms Namazie] and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised. We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus”.

    Articles written by Ms Namazie indicated she was “highly inflammatory” and “could incite hatred on campus”, according to the union.

    Prejudicial, your honor. Also false.

    Ms Namazie, who fled Iran with her family in 1980 after the revolution, said she was likely to have spoken about apostasy, blasphemy and nudity in the age of Isis. She told The Independent she was “angry” her talk had been blocked.

    “They’re basically labelling me a racist and an extremist for speaking out against Islam and Islamism,” she said.

    “If people like me who fled an Islamist regime can’t speak out about my opposition to the far-right Islamic movement, if I can’t criticise Islam… that leaves very [few] options for me as a dissenter because the only thing I have is my freedom of expression.

    “If anyone is inciting hatred, it’s the Islamists who are threatening people like me just for deciding we want to be atheist, just because we don’t want to toe the line.”

    Not to mention the Student Union, which called her “highly inflammatory” and apt to “incite hatred on campus.”

    WASH appealed against the union’s decision earlier this month, and the National Secular Society is writing to them to ask them to do better.

    “Unfortunately it is part of a worrying wave of censorship that we’re seeing across British universities under the guise of ‘safe spaces’… it’s utterly disheartening,” said Stephen Evans, the society’s campaigns manager. The concept of “safe spaces” had a “chilling effect on free speech,” he added.

    Isaac Leigh, president of Warwick Student Union said: “The initial decision was made for the right of Muslim students not to feel intimidated or discriminated against on their university campus… rather than in the interest of suppressing free speech.”

    “A final decision on this issue will be reached by the most senior members of the Student Union in coming days,” he said.

    So now is the time to urge them to make the right final decision.

  • The union has claimed

    Student Rights has more on Warwick University Student Union’s cancellation of its Atheists, Secularists and Humanists’ Society’s invitation to Maryam Namazie to speak October 28.

    In an email published by Namazie, the union has claimed: “a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others…indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus”.

    But you could say that about anyone, or almost anyone. People who give talks on how to make cookies or how to plant a garden are unlikely to incite hatred on campus…but frankly they’re unlikely to be invited to give talks, too, because why bother? It’s pretty dishonest, not to mention prejudicial and even somewhat threatening to call Maryam “highly inflammatory.” It’s as if they want to inflame people against her.

    This decision is all the more absurd given that the Student Union gave permission for Ken O’Keefe to speak on-campus in March this year.

    Even the most cursory online search reveals that O’Keefe is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, who was condemned by a number of student Palestine Societies in 2012 after he claimed that “Israel and Mossad were directly involved in 9/11”.

    In response to this criticism, he suggested he was being attacked for standing against “the Jewish supremacism that is of dire consequence to our world” and claimed:

    “Israeli Mossad worked with high treason traitors in the US government to set explosives in the twin towers and building 7 on 9/11“.

    So the Student Union is ok with that but not with Maryam. That’s twisted.

    That a principled anti-racist campaigner with a history of opposing extremism should be barred from campus, but the above speakers were waved through is astonishing.

     

    List of shame, Warwick University SU.

  • Maryam wins Journalist of the Year

    Wow – Maryam won a Journalist of the Year award yesterday.

    I won “Journalist of the Year” for my blogging at today’s prestigious 2013 Dods Women in Public Life Awards. I was massively surprised (and pleased) given that other shortlisted candidates included “national treasure” BBC Olympics presenter Claire Balding.

    Wow. Excuse my enthusiasm, but that’s really exciting. I’ve been following Maryam’s work for years and years, and I remember the days when the BBC kept phoning the Muslim Council of Britain for a comment while ignoring Maryam. I posted about it often. Those days are so over. Yesssssss!

    Other winners at the award ceremony were the wonderful Malala Yousafzai (International Women’s Rights Champion); Michelle McDowell (Woman in Business); Rosemary Butler (Devolved Parliament or Assembly Member of the Year); Sanchia Alasia (Local Government Personality of the Year); Jo Swinson (MP of the Year); Meral Hussein-Ece (Peer of the Year); Denis Mukwege (Male Women’s Rights Champion); Fiona Logan (Public Servant of the Year); Francesca Martinez (Public Affairs Achiever of the Year) and Gee Walker (Voluntary Sector Achiever of the Year).

    For more information on the winners, visit here.

    By the way, a huge thanks to those who nominated me and also to those of you who read my blog which has now exceeded 2 million hits.

    Here’s a photo of some of the winners at today’s ceremony. I’m the one with the ridiculous grin.

    WIPL

    Massive congratulations, Maryam. I’m so proud to know you.

  • Way back

    I’ve been following (and doing what I could to share and draw attention to) Maryam’s work for a long time – since 2004. I did a search at the ur-B&W and had to click “previous entries” a lot of times to get to the first ones.

    One of the first ones is The Politics Behind Cultural Relativism, an International TV Interview that Maryam did with Fariborz Pooya and Bahram Soroush.

    Bahram Soroush: You are absolutely right. When you talk about the West, it is accepted that there are political differentiations, that people have different value systems, that there are political parties. You don’t talk about one uniform, homogeneous culture. But why is it that when it comes to the rest of the world, suddenly the standards change? The way you look at society changes. It doesn’t make sense. But it makes political sense. We are living in the real world; there are political affiliations; there are economic ties; there are very powerful interests which require justifications. For example, how can you roll out the red carpet for the Islamic executioners from Iran, treat them as ‘respectable diplomats’ and at the same time dodge the issue that this government executes people, stones people to death, carries out public hangings, and that this is happening in the 21st century. It’s a question of how to justify that. So, if you say that cultures are relative; if you say that in Iran they stone people to death and they veil women because it is their culture, your conscience then is clean. This is the reason that we are seeing that something that doesn’t really make sense to anyone, and which they would not use to characterise anyone else in the Western world, they use it to characterise people from the third world. In fact it is very patronising, eurocentric and even racist to try to divide people in this way; to say, it’s OK for you. For example, to say to the Iranian woman that you should accept your fate because that’s your culture. This is part of the larger discussion of what lies behind this sort of thinking, but the motive is very political.

    Maryam Namazie: You hear this also from the progressive angle as well. People who like what we say – for example, that we are standing up against political Islam – immediately assume that we are ‘moderate Muslims’. In the interview that you Bahram Soroush gave on the incompatibility of Islam and human rights for example, you clearly said that you were an atheist. But it just doesn’t seem to register, even among progressives. Why is that? I understand the political interests of Western governments, but why do even progressives have that opinion of us?

    August 2004, that is.

    In 2005 the NSS named Maryam Secularist of the Year.

    Maryam Namazie received a standing ovation when the time came to reveal her as the winner. Introducing Maryam, Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director said: “Maryam is an inveterate commentator and broadcaster on rights, cultural relativism, secularism, religion, political Islam and many other related topics. The present revival of Islam has heightened interest in Maryam’s work, and at last her writings are gaining a mainstream audience. She has spoken at numerous conferences and written extensively on women’s rights issues, particularly violence against women.”

    She’s a star.