An organization working to impose a Sharia-law Islamic caliphate on the world through the destruction of democracy, cultural assimilation, and Jews, has free intellectual inquiry written all over it.

Students at the University of London invited a speaker from this organization — also gung-ho on suicide bombings — to a debate on their campus, but objections to the speaker from other students have been vociferous, and the event’s been canceled.

It must be frustrating for the pro-caliphate students. At University College London they invited a speaker who calls for the murder of all gay people. He too was canceled.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=19975

11 Responses to “Fascinating Fascism at the University of London”

  1. Thomas Says:

    I’d be willing to bet UD’s next month salary that the people who fought against providing a forum for these extremist, nut-case, vicious, haters were labelled Islamophobes, the highest of the high crimes in today’s diverse and multicultural world.

    Thank you, UD, for posting this story, and the story about the University of Minnesota thought police. And thank you for pointing out in that post the fact that Americans, far from being the hateful people that most of the world assumes we are, are actually the most culturally flexible and accomodating people in the world. It’s always amusing to me to hear about someone from Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (for fuck’s sake), criticizing the United States for being intolerant. What horseshit.

  2. Patrick Says:

    I think it’s better to allow those with extreme views to state them, and see them debated in a reasoned fashion, rather than to quash any such debate because we find the ideas reprehensible. Any truly reprehensible ideas will not stand up to debate. I’m not a fan of silencing unpopular, even hateful, speech because it’s a small step from that to silencing speech we merely disagree with. And a democracy cannot function without free speech — for everyone, good and evil.

  3. Margaret Soltan Says:

    I appreciate what you’ve said, Patrick, and am very aware of the dangerous slope you describe.

    If, though, as you say, truly reprehensible ideas will not stand up to debate, why go through the motions of setting up a debate so that the ideas fall down? That all Jews and homosexuals should be killed; that we should be fascists and destroy every vestige of freedom — how exactly do you go about placing these assertions in the context of a debate?

    Democracies, you rightly say, should not silence hateful speech. The question here is whether universities — the privileged arena in almost all cultures of reasoned discourse at its highest — should be host to it, should honor and take it seriously by giving it a place at the university’s table.

    The university is under no obligation to do this; indeed, I’d say that the university’s obligation is to understand its own ethos and be true to it — which means, among other things, defending the university from loathsome ideologies, and from the fanatics attached to them.

  4. Thomas Says:

    Very nicely stated, UD. Thank you.

  5. Patrick Says:

    I see your point. I just disagree. Universities are indeed, in my opinion, under an obligation to speak back to unpopular — and popular — ideas. Intellectual inquiry must be free. If someone were to come to my campus and speak about how all gay people should die, I would — as a gay man — obviously speak against him and his ideas. I’m secure enough to hear his opinion, because I know it’s wrong, mine is right, and I can make the rightness of my opinion obvious to any thinking person.

  6. Thomas Says:

    And I see your point, Patrick, but I disagree. I am for the a vigorous marketplace of ideas, except when those ideas are not really ideas at all – just calls for mayhem and death and the destruction of those institutions that have given us the freedom we enjoy today. These are the key notions (not ideas) at the core of the message of today’s Islamo-fanatics.

    Of course, I suppose I suffer from Islamophobia, which is what anyone who dares to criticize Islamic extremism suffers from, by definition. Good thing this isn’t a crime under the law, yet…

  7. Patrick Says:

    Did I accuse anyone of Islamophobia? I don’t think I accused anyone of anything.

    I just expressed a philosophical disagreement. Perhaps you would rather discuss such issues with someone who will accuse you of Islamophobia; if so, I hope you find such an interlocutor.

  8. Tom Says:

    No Patrick you did not accuse me of anything, and I did not accuse you of anything.

    Perhaps my sarcasm was difficult for you to follow, since you are so passionate about giving a forum to people who advocate the murder of large groups of others, all under the guise that this is a pleasant exchange of ideas. How civilized, except that in the case of these fanatics you are not dealing with civilized people.

    And as an aside, finding someone who would accuse me of intolerance for my position in this matter shouldn’t be difficult at all, because individuals who would make an accusation like that can be found all over the Western left, especially the Western academic left. The same people who would offer a forum to terrorist thugs are OFTEN (not always, Patrick, and anyway I don’t accuse you of being one) the same folks who attempt to intimidate or harass campus speakers or suppress debate about other ideas that don’t fit in their worldview and agenda. If this comes as a surprise to you Patrick, perhaps you should pay closer attention to what’s going on on campus.

  9. Patrick Says:

    Well, clearly you’re far too emotional about this to discuss it rationally, so I’ll leave you to it.

  10. Tom Says:

    Well, clearly my comment about Islamophobia (which was made before you even entered the discussion, so it couldn’t have been aimed at you) and my later sarcasm (which again was aimed at the larger contradictions and nonsense here, and not at you) have gotten you more agitated than the prospect of a debate with a group who would like to put you, a gay man, to death, and who would in a blink, if given the chance. I think that’s a pretty rational analysis of what has transpired.

    So, please continue to advocate for the rights of these deep thinkers to debate their well-reasoned ideas on campus. Enjoy your debate!

  11. University Diaries » The British are of course veterans… Says:

    […] of this sort of thing (background here and here). Their universities sponsor events in which speakers call for the death of homosexuals, […]

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories