Haitham's mentors go about their business

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

It is a common misconception that freedom of expression does or should guarantee a platform. It does not. The decision to allow premises or forums in general to be available, belongs to the owner/trustees/committee of the organisation. They control the property rights and can allow or disallow as they see fit.Traditionally, universities hold an open position on the assumption that full debate and free questioning will occur. In this case, that concept is extremely unlikely and therefore the relevant authority is entitled to deny the use of their premises. As a 100% kafir, aware of my status as defined by Mohammed, I consider it an axiom that any positive exposition of Mohammed himself, his thoughts or actions, should be resisted and undermined. Karl Popper when considering the paradox of allowing freedoms to those who wished to destroy those freedoms, conceded that restrictions may be necessary.

Almost as bad as the dishonest piece of journalism in the Guardian are the comments BTL, which take the line either that Haddad doesn't sound that extreme really, or seem to approve of Haddad. The overall reaction is 'big fucking deal, why are the LGBT society whining?'

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.

Paul Hurt,

From the Guardian article BTL here is comment that seems to echo your view:

we can read, ponder and reject [Haddad's views] without any self-appoint group of undergraduates telling us that our little brains couldn't cope with his ideas.

And here's another commenter's response:

It's not your "little brain" that is important. The "self-appointed" undergraduates are those with something to fear should this repulsive creature's disgusting views influence any of their fellow students. They have real fears. You couldn't care less. Shame.

Which the first commenter just shrugs off. There's a lot of shrugging on that thread, and you, a 'human rights' exepert, are doing a fair bit of shrugging about Haddad on here. I recall you got very angry when a while back I endorsed torturing and killing ISIS members. But you find it in yourself to compliment Haddad, who advocates the torture and murder of all sorts of innocent groups of people, for allowing people to disagree with him on his website.

Meanwhile in Syria and Iraq, Haddad's Islamist brethren are practising what he preaches throwing gay people from the tops of buildings and stoning them to death.

Nice set of priorities the 'human rights' industry has. Funny how people like Haddad and ISIS are always at the front of the 'human rights' queue and their victims and targets nowhere to be seen.

Your comment is stale and predictable, even if has been endorsed by the likes of your up-voters, 'Barad,' 'itbeso,' 'shazza' and 'suad.' It's the kind of comment that supporters of the death penalty routinely come up with when they accuse death penalty opponents of being 'do-gooders.' I won't give the address of my anti-death penalty page but you can find it easily enough, if you're inclined. I take a very realistic view of the death penalty, treating arguments from human rights with extreme care. I don't claim to be an 'expert' in human rights, by the way. An extract from the page:

'High-minded arguments, arguments with an impressive sound, are sometimes
very feeble arguments, as in the case of an argument used by Amnesty
International, which opposes the death penalty in all circumstances (I
don't):

'It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

'Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without
exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the
offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.'

'Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, including circumstances which make alternative, lesser punishments completely impractical, out of the question, to anyone with any sense.

'The introduction of the prison system was essential before societies
could dispense with the death penalty, unless threats to the society were
far from severe. Since that time, whenever conditions have made alternative, lesser punishments completely impractical, out of the question, then executions have often been completely justifiable. This is with
{restriction} of course - I'm only concerned with societies which would
adopt humane measures if only they were feasible, not with ruthless
societies.

'A nomadic society which couldn't possibly have built and maintained any
prisons and which lacked any other means for restraining dangerous
individuals justifiably killed individuals who threatened its survival by
killing its members at random.

'In conditions not of a stable nation-state, equipped with prisons, but of
a country occupied by Nazis, partisans who opposed the Nazis were justified
in killing out of hand - executing - the Nazis they captured.'

My attitude to Haitham Al-Haddad and his views is much the same as yours. They're vile. But if a person's views seem almost entirely vile but not completely vile, then I acknowledge the complexity. I'm not in the least equating you with Haitham Al-Huddad but in your utterly different ways, and you're immensely superior to him, of course, you both seem happier in a world of absolutes.

Any idea that I'm indifferent to the execution of gay people by pushing them off high buildings or stoning to death is grotesquely misguided. Many of the direct, person-to-person encounters I've had with Islamist sympathizers have involved confronting them with the reality of these hideous acts.

Your reply is stale and predictable false equivalencing. Haddad advocates my murder. Not surprisingly, I'm not happy about or that or remotely impressed by your pretence that I'm somehow comparable with him:

SOAS not only gave a doctorate to Haitham Al Haddad, it has hosted him numerous times. He's applauded the President of Liberia for criminalising homosexual acts, and has told his followers to apply the following scripture to gay people (following information courtesy of another poster on Pink News):

"you [gays] are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins).” (81) ... “Drive them out of your town,

[Mynote: these are probably desert people so driving people out of the town probably meant they would die of thirst or be attacked by desert bandits]...(83) And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists, sinners, etc.).} [Al-A’raf 7:80-84]"

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015...

Is it okay if in return gay people advocate driving Haddad and his adoring SOAS followers students out of town, or even killing them? Are we not allowed to defend ourselves? Are we not allowed to have a bit of dialogue about killing this or that group of people? No?

If not, why not?

You are hopelessy lost, logically and morally. While the police and university scum fail to act against Haddad and co, I won't take a lecture from you or any other apologist for the non-existent 'freedom of speech' of scum like Haddad to incite my murder.

Understand? Good, now fuck off.

Your comment goes well beyond simple stupidity. Haven't you noticed that Disqus allows editing of comments? Comments which are clearly ridiculous or worse can be changed to give them the approximation of good sense. Fortunately, your comment won't be seen by the general readership of 'Harry's Place,' I think. 'Harry's Place' moves on. Two weeks is a long time in the progress of 'Harry's Place.' By this time, comments are largely hidden from view.

After giving a link to my site in a previous comment, I decided not to repeat the error, but I'm making an exception now, as this new comment won't be made public. My Website www.linkagenet.com has some pages with a section, 'Friendly fire ...' where I criticize people and sites on the same side as me. So, the pages opposing the death penalty and feminism have sections where I criticize some opponents of the death penalty and feminism.

I decided to include a similar section in the page www.linkagenet.com/themes/i... with the emphasis on 'Harry's Place' (a site whose strengths are far more important than the weaknesses) and your own contributions to 'Harry's Place' (your strengths don't compensate for your weaknesses.) So, stand by for some healthy criticism.

I intend to discuss the Comments Policy of 'Harry's Place,' which, as it stands, supports my own view of freedom of expression, not yours - although it was formulated, I'm sure, without reference to views as extreme as the ones held by people like Haitham al-Haddad. The Comments Policy includes this:

'It is our conviction that the best way to deal with contrary views – even objectionable ones – is to challenge them, to argue, to criticise them or, in some cases, to treat them with contempt by ignoring them. This is how a
free society functions.

'Furthermore, we believe that minds can be changed. People may hold eccentric or obnoxious views today, but they may come around to another view through discussion and engagement with those who think differently. Silencing people and banning them closes the door forever on the chance to persuade them of their errors or to challenge their ideas. We will not, in general, ban any participant permanently.

'Even when a mind cannot be changed, it is better that a bad idea is exposed to the light of day.'

If the purpose of these events was to critique loathsome views then you might have a point. But it isn't. It's to spread them.

As for his website allowing a difference of opinion, do we really need to applaud that?

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.

Oh well then, if it's all too difficult to safeguard human rights and civil liberties we better cave in and let the religious fascists take over.

If it isn't inappropriate, grow a pair.

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.

I'm very glad to hear it; but 'human rights' and 'civil liberties' are degraded when they are extended to those who would deny them to others.

These types should not be given a platform.

Haitham has stated he is working towards getting a Muslim majority in England within the next 50 years. He is one of the many advocates of the 'overpopulate to legislate' doctrine that many Imams preach in their mosques. Islamists currently enjoy a free reign in English society. They are radicalising the Muslim youth without any reproach from the government or local authorities who know exactly what is going on but are to scared to take action.

Here we are fretting over some stupid schoolkids who went to ISIS to be brides while we give space to someone who is an ISIS recruiter by his assist in quoting for jihad and being against gay people.

I guess if he were hosting a job fair for disaffected young Muslims he would be welcomed with open arms and invited to the White House by Marie Harf.

Anyway, the University is absolutely correct. It is free speech to prosletyse directly from the Koran and Hadiths. To curtail that free speech would be to suggest there are ugly and dangerous parts of Islam contrary to what our politicians want us to believe (or don't understand).

Let him speak. So what if Jews, gays and non-believers are attacked by his words. There is plenty we could say about his leader Mohammed (althouigh we'd be shot and killed for exercising the SAME free speech).

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World!

The spotlight should be shone on the person, people who invited him from the University's Islamic Society.
The old ' let's hear what has has to say' argument, is a nonsense defense. They know what he thinks and believes; that's why they have invited him and his ilk to the University.
It's fascism masquerading as free speech.

Right. Let's get their names and watch them.

I don't really care.

Muslims complain that they are being unfairly stereotyped as homophobic, racist anti-Semites with a taste for mutilating their daughters with rusty razor blades.

Then they appear to have few interests apart from discussing homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and the right way to mutilate their daughters.

It's worthwhile reminding ourselves of what the British Muslim community is really interested in, and why the pleas of parents who claim to know nothing about why their children are terrorists are such utter bollocks.

People think Muslims in Britain are homophobic child abusers because, every time they have the opportunity to get a room and a speaker, the top topic is homophobia and how to abuse children. If British Muslims would like to be regarded in a better light, it's entirely in their hands.

" the best response to their poisonous narrative is open discussion and debate, where it can be systematically exposed, ridiculed and defeated."

I'm sick of the bullshit mantra that letting these religious fascists speak is the best way to counter them. I've seen no sign of it stopping them from spreading their poisonous filth, in fact the opposite seems to be the case. They are emboldened by this craven liberal response.

I have said this before.

If someone now were to form an organisation which stipulated that half of the world's population be deemed second class, slavery, child marriage, marital/violence condoned, etc. etc. the founders would soon, quite rightly, have their new organisation banned and said founders prosecuted.

Why are we required, on pain of prosecution, have to respect an ideology which advocates behaviour that is forbidden in law?

If a white atheist man were to argue for this, and other backward nasty brutal intolerant and violent quasi-Islamic traditions and values, he'd be called a bigoted dinosaur at best, a fascist hatemonger who should be stopped or imprisoned at worst.
And yet, if someone has a brown skin and a minority religion and says the same with the backing of a non-existent god, then we are lectured by the media and other so-called liberals that we have to celebrate their diversity and welcome the enrichment that this multiculturalism has imported to Britain.
Utter hypocrisy of the highest order (but at least they can do something well then eh?)

Why? Because our own house is not in order.

1) Western dependence on Saudi/Gulf oil and wealth means having to keep your mouth shut
2) The Left has abandoned its principles.

Aside from the obvious point about the UK buying almost no oil from Saudi/Gulf producers, I don't understand why even if we did it would involve agreeing with their politics. They're getting paid, aren't they? They could cut the west off as being horrible kuffar, but with no-one to buy their oil, what would their economies look like?

Depressingly, interests clash with values.

on a one way street

How much oil does the UK import from the gulf?

Most of our oil imports comes from Norway (by a large margin) then Nigeria, Russia and Algeria.

Don't forget our arms sales to them.

I meant Western dependence generally.

The US is set to be energy self-sufficient within 15 years or something like that. The sooner "we" owe "them" nothing, the better.

I am not sure how this works - we buy the stuff we pump out of the ground for them and in return we have to accept them funding their ideology here. They buy our technology and in return we have to accept them funding their ideology here. They buy London and in return we have to accept them funding heir ideology here.

Who negotiates these deals?

It's "the way things are" at the moment.
Look on the bright side though, at least some of that military hardware we've flogged them recently is getting put to good use.

Ah the awkward moment when hate site harry's place who is for "je suis charlie" and freedom of speech........unless of course you happen to be muslim. Voltaire would be very disappointed in you bigots

It's not a freedom of speech issue.

Football fans have freedom of speech when it comes to being racist, but football clubs are likely to tell them that they are not welcome.

Why are extreme preachers like Haddad who hold intolerant views being invited to mosques and Islamic societies?

Because he exults in being an accomplished hate preacher, not in the least self doubting, and particularly good at bringing in those young minds who might be hesitating about taking the path of hatred. I can quite picture him when the time comes leaping into his grave, leaping with joy for a life well lived.

http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/... Enjoy

Blablabla

"Islam is Perfect" is a well-known wazzock/troll. On Twitter he accused me and a couple of others of not caring about the welfare of the three girls who are thought to be trying to join IS.

You can guarantee "Islam is Perfect" doesn't care about their welfare.

"You can guarantee "Islam is Perfect" doesn't care about their welfare"

But what you mean by their welfare and what he means are not the same. You are concerned that they will be abused and discarded or murdered, that they will be defiant in death whilst killing others for God,which you know to be helpless delusion, but he thinks thay are to be the brides of those that die for Islam and that their welfare is guaranteed even though it may be in Paradise.

You may well be wrong about that - I shouldn't be surprised if "Islam is Perfect" takes the Haitham view; that these girls should really stay in England and breed like bunny rabbits, for the greater cause of Islamifying England's green and pleasant.

shared values?

Birds of a feather.......

You seem to be confused; this site, to the extent it has any real collective view, is opposing regularly expressed, mainstream Muslim hatred and incitement against Jews, gay people, non-Muslims, apostates and secular Muslims, whilst objecting to the criminal activities of terrorism, child sexual abuse, the subjugation of schools and local government and the genital mutilation of little girls. Just characterizing this as "hatred" or "Islamophobia" because you personally might support some or all of those things does not make it so.

".unless of course you happen to be muslim."

And want to mutilate girls and murder gays? Tell us what you think about gays.

I don't believe anybody is advocating curtailing the speech of Maajid Nawaz or Sara Khan in any ways. There is no general objection to Muslims, but there is an objection to people advocating death for apostates and gays and such-like.

Blablablabla blablablabla

I guess it's the fact that Islam is perfect which explains why so many non-Muslims are keen to emigrate to Muslim countries. I hear places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan need the tightest of border controls to keep would-be immigrants out. In contrast no Muslim would dream of emigrating from places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to the West with all its nasty infidels. Or have I got this wrong?

Will pass your ill-informed post to ALL the ex-pat kuffars living it up in the nasty muslim gulf states. Am sure they will give up their tax free salaries just for a bigot lile you 😉

Blablablabla

Islam isn't perfect. In fact (as you know too well yourself) it's a bizarre compilation of ideas plagiarised from the Jewish and Christian holy books plus some totally whacko stuff made up by a paedophile/rapist/murderer/liar/bandit. You should be ashamed of yourself for associating with such a disgusting sex n'death cult.

Got another "sad on", IslamIsShite?

I know. It's just like the situation in Calais, isn't it, with people camping out at the border hoping to get in.