Universities and student unions don’t generally invite Nazis to give talks, do they? Free inquiry is good, open discussion is good, but that isn’t necessarily taken to mean that it’s good to have proponents of genocide give talks to university students, is it?
I’m wondering why Islamist preachers with fascist leanings get invited to give talks at universities.
A controversial preacher who described homosexuality as a “scourge” has been invited to speak at a London university the day before a national gay pride event takes place there.
More than 500 people have signed a petition against allowing Haitham al-Haddad to speak at the University of Westminster’s Islamic Society event on Thursday.
Dr al-Haddad has called homosexuality a “criminal act”, as well as saying there is a “proper” way of performing FGM. He has also argued that the authorities should not become involved in domestic disputes, saying: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them.”
The trouble is, many people take that kind of thing literally and as authoritative and binding. A man is free to hit “his wife” because it’s something between them. That’s not abstract or general; it’s very concrete and very particular. The more male preachers say things like that, the more women will be hit.
A spokesman for Student Pride said: “Considering Westminster is a Stonewall Diversity Champion and is such an advocate of our event it is disappointing that on the eve of our tenth anniversary such an anti-gay speaker has been allowed to speak on campus.
“Homosexuality is not a scourge, and Student Pride has been fighting views like this from its foundation, it’s clear and unfortunate news that there is clearly much work to do.”
Open inquiry is good, but another thing that’s good is progress in including all people under the umbrella of equal rights. These can be competing goods. I think the second should trump the first when the list of speakers is being drawn up.
H/t Chris Moos
Can anything dislodge the notion that appeasing Islamists is ‘progressive?’
This really is a topic worthy of some serious study. Anyone who even reports on Islamist behavior is instantly dismissed as ‘neo-con,’ or the infinitely flexible ‘racist.’
Why do Western ‘progressives’ consistently align themselves with the most reactionary, sexist, homophobic, fascists on Earth?
Here’s the petition, perhaps we can Butterflies and Wheels-ulate it.
https://www.change.org/p/university-of-westminster-stop-anti-gay-preacher-sheikh-haitham-al-haddad-speaking-on-campus?just_created_and_shared=true
Considering the backlash against those speaking out against transmisogynist feminists getting platforms on campus being framed as a free speech thing, I’m not surprised that other misogynists and homophobes are getting invites and freeze peach defenses.
I’m wondering why Islamist preachers with fascist leanings get invited to give talks at universities.
You are going to get tagged as “anti-free speech police”.
I read Coynes post today and was amused to see that people being asked(not coerced!) to put a flyer in their room qualifies as being anti-free speech (supposedly me putting up a flyer in my room tramples all over your free speech rights)- but a professor doing the same thing with a different message is somehow worthy of praise!. The nature of the protest doesn’t seem to quite register with these people . Signing a protest form , stating that I (and like-minded people) am going to boycott a particular event/class whatever are also expressions of free speech in a different form – its the same old free speech for me , not for you stupidity that runs rampant among these types
@1 johnthedrunkard
“Can anything dislodge the notion that appeasing Islamists is ‘progressive?’”
Probably nothing will change the minds of members of the ‘progressive’ left.
Once people decide that Muslims are members of a ‘race’ they’ve painted themselves into a corner, and if they’re too arrogant, or just plain stupid, they’re trapped. Historically, some elements of the Left have a rather appalling record of supporting brutal and totalitarian regimes.
Seriously? Having the “wrong” view on how best to address abuses in the sex industry is on a par with advocacy of FGM and spousal violence against women? It must be nice to have the one and only truth on the right way to deal with human suffering.
RJW @ # 5: Probably nothing will change the minds of members of the ‘progressive’ left.
I’d ask you to put that broad brush down, except you (& johnthedrunkard @ # 1) seem committed to attempting portraiture with a paint roller. So – please visit your friendly local optician today!
Deepak – what is Coyne’s post?
“An employer should not be questioned why he stole from his employee’s super fund, because this is something between them.”
“A father should not be questioned why he impregnated his daughter, because this is something between them.”
“A husband should not be questioned why he killed his wife, because this is something between them.”
Never mind, I found it.
A Surprise @ #6: Yes, advocating abuse and murder for trans women is actually on par, as does advocating for policies that kill the most vulnerable. Was that a trick question?
Wtf? What are we talking about? Who is advocating abuse and murder for trans women?
If anything is a scourge, it’s this preacher’s version of Islam.
I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the comment in question was related to the recent controversy about Kate Smurthwaite.
That preacher must not be a real Muslim.
In and of itself, I totally agree with this bit of the sentence. Questioning the man is half a step towards empathising with him hitting her. The man should be told forthwith that he is not allowed to hit his wife (or his children, or his sister, or whomever), and that he will be prosecuted if he does. The bit that the precious preacher said after the ellipsis… no, that is not just something between them. End of story.
I see your problem…. 😉