Sue

Joe

'It’s people like you that cause tensions between muslim immigrants and nativesin the western world. People, including muslims, flock here from all over the world to benefit from our economic opportunity and freedom-and that is fine, and understanable. However, it is time for these people to realise that our prosperity is a direct result of the freedom we have to do, say, think, drink, smoke and sleep with whoever we like. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, if you want a state that represses and hates gays, go live in Iran. If you want to live in a nice house, plenty of food and no chance of getting your hands chopped off by the police, stay here but accept the life choices of others.

'Obviously, you are free to express your opinions just like I am (another one of the freedoms that make the western world so prosperous), but Islamic-Christian relations would be so much better if we had a few more Islamic preachers with the intelligence and maturity to respectfully disagree with other people’s life choices without calling them criminals.'

The views of Haitham Al-Haddad are loathsome and stupid and I understand completely Habibi's forceful closing comment, 'No wonder many people just want Haddad stopped. Liberal it's not. Understandable it is. They've had enough.' (Articles in 'The Guardian' minimizing the threat of Islamist extremism are likely to be followed now by a deluge of comments from people who have also had enough - a very interesting development.)

The view that people like Haitham Al-Haddad should be banned from speaking at universities is very plausible, but I don't think it's right. It would take a great deal of space to explain why, but I'll mention one fact that influences me. Surprisingly, Haitham Al-Haddad's own Website allows freedom of expression: http://www [dot] islam21c [dot] com/politics/4670-standing-up-against-homosexuality-and-lgbts/ Contrary views are published and attempts are made to answer the criticism, even if the attempts are loathsome and stupid. He has to be given some credit for this. This is one of the critical comments published on the site.

Mitchell

'The liberal principles cultivated in the West
will not be sent to the moral mass grave of Islamic ‘values.’ We will not capitulate to unreasonableness, and we pride ourselves on the enlightenment values of Mill, Voltaire and Shelley. Alan Turing, Steven Fry, Douglas Murray ... these men are of solid moral fibre and to condemn how they love [Mitchell is wrong in supposing that all of these are or were homosexual - the first three weren't] is to make a mockery of anything a decent religion would stand for. Churchill spoke of the retrograde nature of Islamism. Second class citizenship for homosexuals will not cut it. Your right to your opinion is there, but if you wish to flex your theocratic muscles, please do it to the tune of masturbating Ayotollahs and
fawning Sheikhs, for you will not mobilise your totalitarian forces on the shores of rational, liberal democracy. I urge you to embrace the principles that built the World Trade Centre rather than the world-view that toppled it.'

If Haitham Al-Haddad is willing to allow the publication on his Website of views so opposed to his own, I think this strengthens the case for permitting the expression even of extremist views.

Extremist expression at universities needs regulation, I think, but not by banning it (except in very exceptional circumstances - I'm a libertarian in matters of free expression, but I don't think there's any absolute right to completely unrestricted freedom of expression.) Instead, there might be regulations which made it much more straightforward to subject stupid and loathsome views to critical examination. For example, there might be a requirement that individuals and organizations opposed to the views of a speaker would be entitled to leave on each seat in the venue a sheet or two giving 'evidence and arguments against.' If the organizers removed these, the authorities would have the right to cancel the event. So, an LGBT organization would have the right to leave LGBT materials in the venue before Haitham Al-Haddad spoke. This is just one idea. There are many more ways of encouraging the free flow of ideas and diminishing the impact of extremism.

There would often be extreme difficulties in deciding which events should be banned and which should be permitted. University authorities would have to examine the evidence for banning with extreme care. The evidence would often be disputed. Speakers might cynically and untruthfully claim that they no longer believe in some obnoxious views they held in the past. A university's decision to ban might be followed by protests not just from the organizers but in some cases ant-Islamist people, who believe that in a particular case the decision is wrong or there are extenuating circumstances. Organizers might try to hold the event despite a banning order. The University's security might be completely unable to enforce the banning order. There might be wider protest and disorder. There are many other possible difficulties.

The organization 'Student rights' does a great deal to combat extremism on campus but its approach is often very misguided. It has faith in 'no platforming' policies, policies which are often used to stifle legitimate, reasoned dissent. I don't agree with the absolutist approach of 'Spiked' to free expression, but I do admire most of their published material on campus censorship.

I spent twenty years (but not full-time) working in the field of human rights and civil liberties and I'm very aware of the difficulties and dilemmas, thanks all the same. I spend so much of my time now opposing Islamist extremism, directly, person to person, as well as by email, publication on the Web and in other ways. I'm in no danger of 'caving in' and allowing the 'religious fascists' to take over. Posting a critical comment (not in the least abusive) on the blog or Website of someone not in the least one of the 'religious fascists' may well result in moderation by deletion, as when I questioned the naive and simple-minded writing of 'Classical Iconoclast' on war and peace. Haitham Al-Haddad's writing on war and peace may be much worse than naive and simple-minded, but I repeat that he has to be given some credit for allowing the publication of objections to his views.