If you want to talk about the “regressive Left,” the poster child would be Britain’s university Student Unions, which have a shameful record of suppressing free speech, especially when that speech criticizes Islam. Their latest shenanigan, as reported in The Independent, The Spectator and The Tab, is banning a speech by someone who battled against ISIS:
A university and its students’ union have been accused of displaying ‘horrible prejudice against the Kurdish cause, human rights and the freedom of speech’ after an officer banned a former student from speaking about his experiences fighting Isis in the Middle East.
Head of the Kurdish Society at University College London (UCL), Kavar Kurda, issued a statement online saying he was ‘angered’ and ‘deeply offended and disgusted’ after University College London Union’s (UCLU) activities and events officer, Asad Khan, blocked Macer Gifford from speaking at an event which was being organised by Kurda.
Speaking with online student publication The Tab, Kurda claimed he was told ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’ and that Khan further defended his decision by saying there were concerns an event with a person speaking about their experiences fighting in Syria ‘could lead to others going and fighting in the conflict’.
The Tab reports more reasons given by Khan:
[Khan] said in an email: “In every conflict there are two sides, and at UCLU we want to avoid taking sides in conflicts.”
. . . Asad said the Syrian crisis is a “contentious topic” and defended his decision to block the speaker.
He told The Tab: “It is important to note the rooms these activities take place in belong to UCL rather than UCLU and we liaised with UCL, who in turn wanted to seek advice from the police.
“When they didn’t get a reply, to stay on the side of caution, UCL also leant towards not providing a platform.
“The Syrian crisis is a very contentious topic with many different groups, and although I understand YPG are fighting against ISIS the situation is far too complex to understand in black and white as expected by the student.”
Why is it “taking sides” to present someone who criticizes ISIS? Isn’t a good university one that presents several sides, and lets students decide for themselves? According to Khan, however, that’s not the way it works at University College London: these issues are simply “too complex” to be understood by students. Clearly, though, Khan understands them, and what he really understands is that ideas critical of extremist Islam are simply to be kept from students.
Khan is someone who’s clearly lost his moral compass. Seriously—equating ISIS with those who fight against them? And banning a speaker out of fear that it may inspire someone to go and fight ISIS? Let’s hope that UCL changes its mind, and that university unions across Britain stop trying to censor speakers so that students are presented with only a sanitized and approved set of views.
A textbook example of the consequences of allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
Much in British media, political & academic life is premised on “don’t rock the boat”.
Leading institutions and ‘societal leaders’ have become scared to offend (directly and indirectly). This is understandable because in some cases the most sensitive of people are capable of the most disproportionate and violent behaviour in response.
Even modest curiosity from direct questioning can be deemed offensive.
A spinelessness has replaced intellectual rigour and moral superiority. The more we cower, the more we self-censor, the worse this will get.
The UK’s Education Act (1986) requires that universities:
“… shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers …”.
This seems to imply that universities should not allow student unions a veto on speakers, and must have a mechanism allowing access to rooms and facilities such that groups of students can host events without union approval.
Yeah, this story broke yesterday, first I saw was via Maajid Nawaz: kudos to you, Jerry, for post…retwee…blogg…websiting it.
This British YPG fighter may be the same bloke as was interviewed on ‘Today’ on BBC Radio 4: at least they have recently spoken to a British fighter against ISIS. That’s how mainstream this story is.
I read somewhere yesterday that the guy wasn’t minded to make a fuss: first Germaine Greer, who seemed to walk away from the Cardiff University hullabaloo and now this chap; the noisy censors sometimes win through sheer boorishness.
Btw. Maryam Namazie’s speech at Warwick University (where her ban was rescinded) is now up on youtube. x
Thank you for reminding me to watch Maryam’s talk.
Here’s the link, for anyone who is interested in watching:
Maryam Namazie on Apostasy, Blasphemy and Free Expression in the Age of ISIS
Thanks for that. I hope she is well guarded.
The first 40 minutes is a reading of her position in detail. The Q&A starts 40 min in, and is more visceral statement.
Interestingly, at 42 min, Namazie says the Islamists are fascistic but points out that religion is not the key motivation. It is a political movement. And she says Hindu fascists, Christian fascists, and even Buddhist fascists have something in common with Islamists. Hmmm…I sense a contradiction.
At 1:15 Namazie addresses reform of Islam and departs from what Iyaan Hirsi Ali is into. She says ISIS IS the reformation of Islam paralleling the bloodshed of the Christian reformation.
It turns out that Mr. Gifford is fighting his ban: you can sign the change.org petition here to support him. x
http://www.change.org/p/uclu-uclu-let-macer-speak?recruiter=12966855&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_term=des-lg-google-no_msg&fb_ref=Default
Once again it proves Islam is a hypocrisy.
My hunch is that if he was sympathetic to ISIS in anyway he would not have been banned from speaking. Also I hope that this university has no political science program. Otherwise they apparently putting students in classes that are way too complex for them and how will they ever pass?
Whether this man’s speech inspires people to go to Syria fight against DAESH isn’t his concern or responsibility. That is the job of the security services. Khan is taking on a role that is not his own.
I hope Khan would not be complaining if a speaker inspired others to join the cause of feminism, or LGBT rights, because of a speaker. “Controversial” should not be factor in banning a speaker.
If Anjem Choudary regularly gets to speak in the streets of Britain, I think someone who has fought against DAESH should be allowed to speak in her universities.
It seems in the past year we’ve been racint to a ‘jump the shark’ in influential parts of the leftwing sphere. People are expected to defend the indefinsible. If a movement is anti -west, anti-US, or anti-Israel it’s automatically defended, no matter how barbaric.
There is a local female ‘peace activist’ that I know through our humanist circles who vociferously defends Palistinians no matter how bad their behavior, ingnoring the fact that if she were to set foot there her life would be at risk. Double think comes to mind.
How long before people start seeing through this crap?
Perhaps you could ask her to join you in supporting the right to self-determination of Muslim Western Sahara against the 40 year occupation by the Islamic kingdom of Morocco. In which Morocco tortures, ‘disappears’, immures Western Saharans in camps and refuses a referendum on self-determination.
You could tell her that the ex-colonial powers France and Spain are by far and away Morocco’s biggest inward investors so that would tick her anti-West box.
You might shine a light on the ‘whatabout Israel’ whine if you happen to see a post about Kurds and free speech, as I saw yesterday – and which you’re obviously seeing.
The Israel/Palestine is serious and needs attention, don’t get me wrong, but what about Western Sahara and why is it always about the Jews? x
Now that you mention it…just what is the deal with Western Sahara? It’s never been a legitimate country, right? And yet it’s on my globe…
Diane, you’ll find bugger all about the Western Sahara online and in the mainstream media. But you will find plenty of UN declarations, much as you do on the Israel/Palestine question, on the right of self-determination of the country, e.g. here:
http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11876.doc.htm
in which, in the usual UN runic style you need to read between the lines to spot the criticism of Morocco’s 4 decade-long brutal occupation of WS.
My point of course is that the regressive left – and I do count myself as on the left – always end up having at it on Israel. If the subject is Iraq: or Syria; or Iran; or Islamist censorship in the UK. They always end up saying, ‘what about Israel?’ You can virtually guarantee it. It’s always the hopeless, irrelevant whataboutery tu quoque argument.
I do think that Nawaz’s concept of the regressive left is a useful one, but economically I am to his left. As regards Maryam Namazie, I think that she has a blind spot about the link between the doctrine of Islam and the behaviour of ISIS and Khomeini, Khamenei and their acolytes. Natheless, Namazie and Nawaz are far braver people than I and worthy of our support unless we see evidence to the contrary.
To return to the regressive left, OK, I think, I’ll give them a whataboutery argument by raising Morocco and the WS in which no Jews are involved. Yes, tu quoque arguments are always beside the point, but I hope that by mentioning it, I demonstrate their logical incoherence and illuminate the crypto-anti-Semitism of the commenter. x
Thanks, Dermot, more than I deserved and an excellent stratagem. Your link & the subject in general did send me on an hour or more’s websurf which left me less ignorant but even more despairing of any chance for world peace, a phrase that’s essentially become an oxymoron; maybe it always has been.
Another hypocrisy-by-analogy point is the 40 year-old invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, a NATO member, and ex-navel of the Ottoman Empire. Which also seems to get a free pass when we’re discussing the disastrous historical imprint of the ex-imperial powers in the Middle East. Bewildering, seeing as it’s the one ex-Empire which was actually in the Middle East. x
“How long before people start seeing through this crap?”
If history is any indicator . . . a while.
jay, I think you’ve summed things up perfectly! Unfortunately.
Its nice to see the Brits importing American ideas…like Catch-22. The students must be prevented from hearing someone talk about the situation in Syria, until they fully understand the situation in Syria.
What in the hell is so wrong about taking sides against people who sell little girls and throw gay men off of buildings?
If don’t want to take sides against that there is something very seriously wrong with you.
Yes, that’s why he lost his moral compass. The new stand on politics appears to be “all sides are morally equal, except the U.S. is worse.”
I think we’re only second worst, as long as there’s an Israel…
India’s occupation of Kashmir is with 600,000 soldiers and the horrors there keep coming with that despotic occupation. And nothing is done by the USA who has India, and Pakistan as allies even though they are nuclear powers and have long hatreds. No forcing them, and Israel to the Non Aggression and non Proliferation treaties.
Aack, I hasten to add that I didn’t mean literally; only in the context of favorite regressive left whipping boys.
sub
Censor of what exactly? Kahn is confused with his role as camp mother.
Any student who knows the word ‘google’ is well beyond his reach which just shows how pathetic this attempt to censor is.
He may have an inflated opinion of his job and worth and I hope someone near to him can give him a heads up by telling him to ‘pull’ his head in.
Around here, we’d tell him to pull his head out.
We’re only in the 15s, but it feels like the 30s.
Can anyone really make a clear moral distinction between ISISism and Stalinism? Or a clear distinction between the apologists for ISIS and last century’s apologists for Stalin?
There were supporters of Hitler and Mussolini, also.
Very strange.
This Canadian, who was just killed fighting for the Kurds, was no mere soldier. He had a considered view of Enlightenment values.
http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/john-robert-gallagher
This is a better link
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/we-are-all-on-the-front-lines-canadian-reportedly-killed-fighting-isil-wrote-essay-about-why-he-went-to-war
Thanks for posting this. It really deserves to be more widely read.
Two thoughts:
One, I believe that the idea of just listening to a talk of a militia fighter would, in and of itself, cause students to join a militia is ludicrous. I also tend to think it is probably hypocritical. Would they refuse Prince Andrew a speaking engagement about his experiences in the Falklands War because it might encourage students to join the Royal Navy?
Two, I absolutely agree (in general) with the sentiment that, “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” Gifford would no doubt explain how he fought for freedom against a terrorist organization. I would imagine that that would not be too difficult an argument to make. But the university doesn’t have to endorse his message. They could in fact allow a speaker to present an argument that ISIS is actually defending freedom. Maybe I’m wrong, but I have to believe that the vast majority of university students can tell the difference between a legitimate struggle for freedom and an organization that perfectly fits the definition of a violent crime syndicate.
Little People Argument (LPA) again. Can’t possibly let students hear what this person has to say because it could cause them to go fight with ISIS? WTH!
You know, quantum physics and topology are also too complex to understand for an average student. I think it’s time UCLU banned all physicists and mathematicians from giving talks as well.
An interesting essay by a Canadian killed while fighting ISIS with Kurdish forces.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/we-are-all-on-the-front-lines-canadian-reportedly-killed-fighting-isil-wrote-essay-about-why-he-went-to-war
That is a superb essay. Thanks for posting it.
An interesting essay by a Canadian fighting ISIS with Kurdish forces.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/we-are-all-on-the-front-lines-canadian-reportedly-killed-fighting-isil-wrote-essay-about-why-he-went-to-war
This illustrates perfectly why “extremist” Islam will never be curtailed by “moderate” Islam: many of the “moderates” KNOW that ISIS is following Mohammad’s teachings to the letter and thus are hesitant to allow any criticism of what they see to be a, “pure” expression of their demented, Medieval belief system; the rest are cowed into silence by naked fear. They KNOW, or know someone who DOES know, what real Islam is like and its attitudes and actions toward anyone speaking out against it.
Another aspect of it is the begrudging admiration many have towards ISIS; it’s been a long, long time since Islam was “winning” anywhere, and though they may not agree with the brutality of ISIS’s methods, they are loath to let go of this little rush of pride.
I think the nail has been hit, and driven home
As in UCL so in Government if Muslims were in the Majority, they tolerate no contradiction to their insane beliefs. There is no such animal as a moderate follower of the Q’uran.
“…no such animal as a moderate follower of the Q’uran”
I’m sure there are. It’s just a question of who has the power.
Article I recently found where Taslima Nasreen claims that most Indian ‘secularists’ tend to be really anti Hindu and pro Muslim.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/taslima-nasreen-says-indian-secularists-are-pro-muslim-anti-hindu
For a while imperialism and uncritical admiration of the classical Greco-Roman tradition reigned supreme in the humanities, and although this is (thankfully) long gone its replacement over the past five decades has been increasingly an entrenched program of Post Modern and Critical Studies/Habermas/Gramscian school anti modern thinking with the occasional Marxism. Since very few tertiary degrees don’t require the inclusion of at least some humanities units this thinking has become a strong influence, or even a dominant force in some professions and institutions. We swing out of one anti humane extreme and start going into the other extreme thanks to the ever helpful ideological facilitation of metaphysical philosophy including Grand context-free Ideals and a concept of debate and Socratic dialogue that has nothing to do with what social investigation should be about. Social investigation should be an attempt to determine the true material impacts affecting people’s lives and survival and consequent social attitudes (and these material impacts include natural, technological, religious/traditional value, organisational and administrative contexts). Unfortunately philosophy – both as high theory and Socratic dialogue – does not do an assessment of likelihood or attempt to uncover or compensate for biasing and distorting factors with additional evidence/perspectives from non theoretical and non ideological sources (including wide ranging history, anthropology and archeology of many society types across large time spans).
The PC bullying that goes on in many Western universities is a reflection of the development and rise of a regressive type of Left values and the tiresome division of all political and social discourse into pro and anti capitalist positions a la ideology that does not look into the interplay of multiple material influences in history. Even Stephen Pinker in The Better Angels of our Nature, whilst his historical research and statistical analysis of violence is amazing, he still insists on investing capitalism with some sort of special agency, with what appears to me to be slim arguments. Contrary to his empirical backing for other conclusions, Pinker reads Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments as proof that pure, pre welfare state capitalism leads to social justice for all because Smith indicated we really just want to do only altruistic things to our fellows. But Pinkers other arguments from neuroscience and history indicate that intentions depend on social/blood ties, interests, the presence or otherwise of overarching authority punishing the most egregious, violent forms of opportunism in society, and the availability of structures which reward impartial altruistic behaviours in everyday social transactions. This last did not exist in Smith’s day; there was no structure of standardised economic and other contracts and technical standards at national and international level, no international economic infrastructure of common utility, and no welfare state and state domestic infrastructure designed to benefit all citizens, and Smith’s ethical system reflects this.
Currently government funded educational and media institutions lean towards political correctness because they take the authoritarian left’s view of community values and national cohesiveness to be a key element of their responsibilities. The rights of minorities – particularly the Muslim minorities – are often seen to be at the fulcrum of such concerns. The louder voices of these communities are given an airing whilst dissenting voices (even those who are practising Muslims) are portrayed as colonialist throwbacks and uncle Toms (you only have to see the abuse and threats (or excuses for such threats) directed by the regressive Left and too many Muslims at people such as Majiid Nawal, Tarek Fatah, Ali Rizvi, Sarah Haider et al or even Malala Yousafsai. This is informed by various wings of the left – the anti state, anti globalisation elements who paradoxically believe there is no need for borders, national defence and reciprocal obligations of citizenship or state legal authority, but expect excellent and extensive state services and those multiculturalists whose version of multiculturalism excludes the existence of a dominant culture and a single overall nondiscriminatory legal and economic superstructure in the interests of the whole population. This view of things now often affects the rest of the political spectrum insofar as it has become common for traditional economic opportunism and social conservatism to accommodate white guilt in the form of responsiveness to non western religious sensitivities in globalised human services including education, health, finance and real estate.
In an earlier thread I have criticised the left as a whole – and I should clarify that although I agree with a lot of left values, I am concerned that the before mentioned attitudes have gradually hardened over time until today these things characterise most of the left and are a de facto orthodoxy for many. This de facto orthodoxy exists because many people actually believe it, but more people don’t find time or inclination to question it because they are afraid of being marginalised or ostracised in their profession, institution or other key peer circles. It appears that in all the Western countries, the publicly funded media is afraid to speak out on these issues, and it has become normal for students who used to campaign for free speech to complain about it and call for measures to curtail it.