Ignorance At Its Worst

Sam Westrop

In his Vision comment piece “Hypocrisy at its Worst”, Angus Hill denounces me as a hypocrite for “calling for the censure [sic] of free speech on campus.” This would be outrageously true were it premised on the notion that I had indeed attempted to censor free speech. Unfortunately for poor Mr Hill, I did no such thing.

Curiously enough, it is actually Hill’s incorrect use of the word “censure” (which means to express severe disapproval) that best sums up his confusion and our unchanging position. We made sure that al-Kawthari was loudly and publicly criticised, but at no point did we seek to actually censor him and his talk.

For those who are not aware, the story is centred on the invitation extended to Mohammed ibn Adam al-Kawthari by the Islamic Society. Al-Kawthari is a “socially conservative” (as dubbed by Hill) Islamic scholar with rather abhorrent views. Al-Kawthari believes, inter alia, that women should be stoned to death for adultery, homosexuals may not be defended in court and thieves must have their hands amputated.

A rather large number of students on campus – liaising with politicians, journalists and Muslim anti-extremism activists – all thought this sounded rather mean. Working together with students of all religious and political beliefs, we helped publicise the vile views held by al-Kawthari.

Fortunately for poor Mr Hill, while not so good with his facts, he is absolutely right with his principles. The proscription of speakers as a tactic to fight extremism has been disastrous for other organisations. As well as being deeply illiberal, censorship simply does not work. Firstly, it encourages the ridiculous notion among potential recruits for extremist groups that there is indeed some type of conspiracy against Islam inherent in British culture. Secondly, we have observed on many campuses that censorship begets censorship – it encourages proscription with a politicised agenda, often aimed at harmless speakers from other religious or political persuasions. Such retribution and the consequent loss of rational discourse damage the ability for all to seek the truth.

So when we speak of extremism, what is the extent of the problem we face? Here are a few examples: Every week, Islamist extremists will preach hatred of homosexuals, Jews or Western values at Universities across the United Kingdom. Only last month Abu Usamah spoke at Queen Mary’s University – this radical Imam has previously called for homosexuals to be thrown off cliffs. A few weeks ago Jalal ibn Saeed, who has made overtly anti-Semitic remarks, spoke at the University of Birmingham. In March, Murtaza Khan will also be speaking to Islamic Societies, no doubt continuing his documented rhetoric against Jews and homosexuals and his call for British Muslims to martyr themselves. Three of the last four heads of the University of London Islamic Society have been arrested for terrorism. Anwar Al-Awlaki, one of the World’s most wanted terrorists and whom Barack Obama has placed on the CIA targeted killing list, was guest of honour at the conference of the Islamic student organisation FOSIS in 2003.

FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) is a particular problem – a large number of thinktanks, policy makers and former members of FOSIS themselves have noted FOSIS’s links with the extremist organisations Muslim Brotherhood and Jaamat-e-Islami. FOSIS frequently hosts speakers who express a blinding hatred towards various minorities, women and Western ideas of freedom and tolerance. Its links to Jaamat are particular worrying – a violent Islamist organisation, Jaamat’s leading members are on trial in the International Crimes Tribunal for unspeakable war crimes in Bangladesh.

A small but powerful group of ideologues have frighteningly but artfully hijacked the political face of an entire student community, of which they literally represent the tiniest minority. As a response, I am part of an organisation, consisting of Muslim, Jewish and LGBT students among others, who have come together from across the country to expose and curb extremism on university campuses. The culprits are by no means solely hijackers of the Islamic faith; only last month the LSE Palestinian Society invited Ahron Cohen to speak – an ultra-religious, vehemently anti-Zionist Jewish extremist who believes that Holocaust victims ‘deserved it’. Regardless of their political or religious beliefs, we will challenge all extremists.

So how did we do it with al-Kawthari? We never demanded the Union or University cancel the event, as such an action is not their prerogative; instead, we asked them for a public statement regarding al-Kawthari’s views and a public plea for the Islamic Society to reconsider their choice of speaker. At no point was any of this a freedom of speech issue. The decision to press ahead with the event can only lie with the Islamic Society. If invited, freedom of expression guarantees Al-Kawthari’s right to speak as well as our right to criticise. The real object of our efforts, which we achieved with ease, was to draw attention to the views espoused by al-Kawthari.

Al-Kawthari’s innocent but duplicitous response explained that his views are merely hypotheses, and would be only applicable under a state that employed his interpretation of sharia law. Firstly, Western Islamic scholars reject such a barbaric exposition of the Islamic Faith. Raheel Raza, the acclaimed Muslim anti-extremist and human rights activist who supported our campaign, told the University that, “He speaks from a deep ignorance of the message of the faith and has concocted rubbish to impart.” Secondly, if a BNP or other far-right hate speaker were to state that his advocacy of eugenics would only be applicable under a fascist state, I doubt any of us would consequently accept his directives as legitimate “theory”, or be at all happy if he came to speak upon our university campus.

Mr Hill does cunningly try to throw in another line of attack on the hypocrisy front when he points out that I was involved with inviting Godfrey Bloom MEP to speak on campus. Bloom was rather well known at the time after making an extremely politically incorrect joke about women “belonging in the kitchen” on Radio Four’s Women’s Hour. Hill’s attempt to draw a moral equivalence between Bloom’s extremely provocative joke and al-Kawthari’s legitimisation of rape and desire to see adulterous women stoned to death is both a ridiculous and extraordinary endeavour. It is true that the York Freedom Society has invited some rather peculiar speakers from both the Left and Right, but we have never even considered inviting someone anywhere near as vile as al-Kawthari. If a joke about Yorkshire women is the closest example Hill can employ to self-validate his cries of hypocrisy then he has catastrophically misjudged the question of decency that each student society must consider.

As a civil rights group, it is precisely reasoned upon this consideration that Freedom Society has not and will not invite a BNP speaker – why give them the oxygen of publicity in the first place?

The increasingly implausible Mr Hill clutches at straws by damning me as pro-Jewish. This I confess to. He’s got me. I don’t dislike Jews.

Apart from some other odd suggestions that I have some kind of subversive religious agenda (nope, I’m an atheist) and that I promote other religious spokespeople (nope, I’m an atheist); Hill’s parting shot is a statement opining that we are wrong to denounce a speaker if he offends our “political or religious beliefs.” Al-Kawthari did neither offend my religious (I’m an atheist) nor political beliefs; he offended my moral belief in the imperative of tolerance, liberalism and equality. I unreservedly denounce al-Kawthari alongside the students of all backgrounds who have denounced him too. The real hypocrisy lies with those who claim to champion liberal values, but then refuse to denounce the illiberal and barbaric rhetoric spouted by such hate speakers. We sincerely hope Hill can overcome his moral trepidation and realise that while al-Kawthari’s beliefs should not be censored, he is, indeed, censurable.