UK / Europe — 22 February 2012
Liberal ‘Extremism’ on Campus?

Jamal Harwood

Recent articles in the Huffington Post have argued that Muslim students are dodging issues of ‘campus radicalisation’, because Muslim speakers of various affiliations have been invited to speak on campus. As a member of – Hizb ut-Tahrir [The Liberation Party] – who has been invited to participate in numerous debates and events at universities, I consider such arguments as a clear admission of defeat. Rather than engaging Muslim speakers and students in direct debate, time and again we have seen liberal activists put their efforts into getting talks cancelled and speakers barred.

Last week on Thursday 17th February, I was due to speak at a debate on the financial crisis, however the event was called off by the University of Westminster, who cited the “threat of violence” breaking out due to actions by secular activists, and an inability to protect the speakers and attendees.

If these are the types of tactics that liberal fundamentalists resort to in British universities today, then it’s a poor look out for intellectual discourse on campus – resembling the tactics of fascists who cannot win their case through argument; and who cannot find a legal basis to criminalise the arguments being propagated.
In February 2010 the University of Westminster also decided to cancel a discussion on the “Swiss Minaret Ban” which I had been invited to speak on. On this occasion the other speaker was a respected academic and head of the Swiss think-tank ReligioScope – Jean-Francois Mayer.

Dr Mayer, who had traveled from Switzerland specifically for the event, was surprised that a University would take such steps. Fortunately, an alternative venue was found and the event proceeded successfully, although many Westminster students who planned to attend could not because of the short notice.

The above and this weeks cancelled debate are merely some of those that I personally have been involved in, there are numerous others, sadly too frequent to list here. Ironically the Universities’ Academic freedom working group published guidance notes in February of 2011 which were supposed to outline how universities would minimise their interference student events, in line with their legal responsibilities under the Education Act (1986).

Due to the previous cancellations and interference in past debates, the student society which invited me were scrupulous in following all of the University’s administrative policies. I was given the go ahead to speak, and like the other participants signed the speakers’ guideline document.

Similarly any five minute conversation with the Metropolitan Police could easily confirm that there has never been violence at any of the hundreds of lectures, debates, vigils or peaceful protests organized by, or involving speakers of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK over the past 25 years.
It seems ridiculous that a serious debate on a key global topic was cancelled due to a tiny handful of disgruntled secular activists (hardly on the scale of the student demonstrations over university fees).

The title of the debate: Economic Future: The Real Solutions? Capitalism? Islam? Socialism? – indicated that a spectrum of views would be represented on the panel, in order to examine relevant alternatives.
It is not unusual that I was asked to speak since I have just edited a booklet on the Gold Standard as well as edited another three years ago on the global financial crisis. I have also debated with Norman Lamont, Matt Frei, representative of the World Bank and others on issues pertaining to Islam and economics.

In a world in which Western economies have stalled, unemployment is growing, discontent spreading, and bankers still protected and seemingly above the law; surely opportunities to debate the various options open to governments, policy makers and the public must be pursued vigorously? Yet the University of Westminster chose to close its doors. Why?

The only rational explanation for the canceling of this type of event lies with the growing liberal intolerance of alternative thought. Rather than participate and defeat opposing ideas, UK universities are under increasing government pressure to silence Islamic political and economic thought, particularly with interest in real change in the Middle East high on everyone’s agenda.

This is a stance shared by the FBI, who it was recently reported, have decided advocacy of a Gold Standard currency is a criteria for ‘extremism’. So by their standards this would indeed have been campus radicalization, as would have organizing a speech on the same subject by Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul or Lord Rees-Mogg!

Rather than risk losing the game it seems liberal fundamentalists and spineless university administrators have decided to take the ball away. The longer they persist in such tactics, the more they will be ridiculed for their protestations of cherishing freedom for all.

 

Jamal Harwood is a regular contributor to New Civilisation.  He is a lecturer in Finance, and a member of the UK Executive Committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain.

Related Articles

Share

About Author

NewCiv

(29) Readers Comments

  1. It’s funny that you actually accuse secularists of being violent. The SU lied about that. There were no threats of violence from those who disagreed. The ones who disagreed with your stances were planning on attending and engaging in the debate, and circulating information on your views. If you have a look at the risk assessment done by someone in the University, there was no threat of actual violence. The only ‘threat’ that seemed semi-likely was that the debate might get heated, and that the media might pick up on the story and put the university in negative light. It is all smear tactics. Not only that, the SU targeted Peter Tatchell, who had no previous knowledge of the event, by stating he was one of the main people who were a ‘violent threat’. This is libel. It’s disgusting. I advise you get your information correct before you publish your views on the incident.

  2. As a student at Westminster I would like to present the other side of the argument. We currently have an student union (SU) president with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and who was previously a member of the Global Ideas Society (which itself is run by Muslim students who ban people from the group for disagreeing with them).

    They invited Mr Harwood to the event but because it is so niche market very few people were aware of what Hizb ut-Tahrir represent. The ‘leaders’ of the SU released a potentially libellous statement where they suggested that students, lecturers and Peter Tatchell were going to violently disrupt proceedings without any evidence to support this. There had simply been leaflets handed out advising students of what was going on in their name.

    We contacted Peter Tatchell and he replied with the following statement:

    Statement by Peter Tatchell 21 February 2012

    I had no knowledge of the Global Ideas Society event at Westminster University on 16 February 2012 until after it was cancelled.

    I was later informed that I had been falsely accused by the GIS and UWSU of “posing a violent threat” to the event. This accusation is untrue.

    I have a long history of non-violent direct action and I am one of its best known exponents in the UK. I have never in my 45 years of human rights campaigning committed any violent acts, even when violently assaulted myself. The idea that I threatened violence or posed a violent threat is absurd and defamatory.

    I call on the UWSU and GIS to withdraw this untrue, libellous allegation and apologise.

    I spoke at an LGBT rights meeting at the university the same evening. It had no connection with the GIS event.

    I did not seek the cancellation of the GIS meeting or threaten to disrupt it. If I had known about the Hizb ut-Tahrir speaker, I would have protested peacefully against his organisation’s reactionary ideas (as I have done in the past).

    I strongly oppose Hizb ut-Tahrir. It rejects democracy and human rights. It has a long history of homophobia, sexism and Islamist supremacism.

    In May 1994, at their Wembley conference, I was subjected to death threats from members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. They explicitly threatened to track me down and kill me.

    Hizb ut-Tahrir is a clerical fascist organisation. According to its draft constitution and past statements from its spokespeople it believes in:

    The replacement of secular democracy with Sharia-based theocratic rule.

    The subjugation and inferiority of women and their debarring from holding ruling positions

    The superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims

    The denial of full rights and citizenship to non-Muslims

    The banning of non-Islamist political parties.

    The death penalty for Muslims who leave their religion.

    The death penalty for those guilty of blasphemy against Islam.

    The death penalty for LGBT people and women who have sex outside of marriage.

    In short, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a far right organisation that seeks to impose a theocratic dictatorship worldwide. It is more fascistic than even the vile BNP.

    It should be opposed at every opportunity.

    The rights and freedoms of ordinary Muslims should be defended against these fanatics who are, first and foremost, a threat to fellow Muslims. The Muslim community must be defended against the extremists of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    ENDS

    Fascist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, the BNP and the EDL should not be welcomed into centres of learning. While it is not hard to point out the faults in their arguments one knows that ultimately, they will never change their mind. Why give them the platform to influence others?

  3. Given the two of your responses are immature and verging on the hysterical, its probably not all that surprising that the university felt that those intending to disrupt the event may turn violent.

    If its not the case – you can simply tell the university that no one had the intention to do anything other than come and engage in the debate constructively, and support the event going ahead next month.

    (Of course – the end of Andy’s reply ironically just confirms the whole point of the article written – that liberal extremists think they can dictate what people do or do not listen to on the university campuses, irrespective of the rules governing the place)

    • Please point out to me what in my reply is so immature and hysterical. Don’t resort to personal attacks.

      I was not among the people who were planning on going to the event, however I’ve heard from people who were planning on it that they are upset it was cancelled. They wanted a debate. There’s an open platform for a reason, so that there can be debate. The risk assessment itself has no mention of real violent threat, but has mention that the debate might have gotten out of hand. I’ve been to debates at the University in the past where sides have very extremely opposing views, and those organising the event did well to make it understood that there would be no personal attacks, stay calm, etc, lest that person be removed. This worked very well. It could have worked very well in this context.

      I have not seen any proof of anyone threatening violence against this debate. If you have proof, I’d gladly see it and if it’s sound I would dismiss my argument.

      • Well – you accused the SU of lying – and yet all the SU/ GIS email did was mention what the university told them.
        On top of that – you started going on about libel etc. etc., which is pretty hysterical given what was actually mentioned in the email and in this article. The writer of the article hasn’t even mentioned Tatchell in any case?

        As far as i know – both the SU and the GIS were AGAINST the cancellation of the debate – so why blame the SU, the GIS or the scary “Islamists” who were going to debate an economical question with a professor at the uni for getting it cancelled?

        Anyway – if i offended you it was unintended, but i do think both responses, particularly that of Andy who unlike you does want to shut the event down, were unwarranted and over the top here, and also misinformed.

        Again – if you/ they are up for the discussion, tell the university authorities. but writing messages blaming everyone other than the university itself seems politically motivated.

        • Perhaps you can tell me what was “immature”, “hysterical” or “over the top” about my response? The majority of it was the statement released by Peter Tatchell after it was suggested that he might have been involved in violence. If you read my post correctly, I said that “the ‘leaders’ of the SU released a potentially libellous statement where they suggested that students, lecturers and Peter Tatchell were going to violently disrupt proceedings without any evidence to support this.” This is true. There is no evidence.

          In reply, Mr Tatchell said: “The idea that I threatened violence or posed a violent threat is absurd and defamatory.”

          No mention of Jamal Harwood making an accusation there, I don’t know why you mentioned him? The information about Hizb ut-Tahrir was taken from their draft constitution. Is it somehow incorrect? I think you will find that instead of being “immature”, “hysterical” or “over the top” it is simply the facts.

          I stand by my final point a la allowing fascists into universities. One cannot debate such people – be they racists, fascists, Islamaphobes, homophobes… There is no chance of Mr Harwood leaving with a fresh outlook of the murder of apostates, for instance. It’s a pointless exercise and I am happy to oppose his presence.

          PS Ad hominem attacks are not the sign of a strong argument.

          • Why come and debate things not mentioned in the article? Your reply was hysterical, over the top etc. going on about libel (read the email from the SU properly – show it to a lawyer, and see what they say), reproducing a whole counter claim by someone who is not even mentioned in the article written – pretty immature, and then make general links between an Islamic party and far right racist movements….which is just ignorant on many levels.

            As i already mentioned – you proved the article true by your own reaction at the end of your email.

          • oh and the email is the height of hysteria

            he was threatened to be killed in 1994 – proof? perhaps he lodged a complaint with the police? who was it?

            the man has said that he regularly protests against HT – but he can only bring up an alleged threat from 1994 which kind of highlights that he knows that the group is not violent at all.

            rubbish.

            and he makes the same mistake of claiming that the SU and the GIS “falsely accused” him (more amateur dramatics), – but their email states it was the university that made the claim.

            it comes back to the same point – if you thought your ideas were correct and that others are wrong – you should welcome the open debate since you should be able to convince people of your straight path.

  4. those petitioning against the event have themselves admitted that it was the university who cancelled the event due to a threat of violence. I don’t know why you blame the SU or the GSI – this is dishonest as all they did is relay what the university said.

    Here is the quote from the person who was active against the event:
    “Either way, speaking for all those who lost the opportunity to debate and discuss last Thursday, we are absolutely disgusted at the implication of violence from the university and protest the event’s cancellation.
    It is a very cheap shot to label your intellectual opponents as a ‘violent threat’ (the words of the University [apparently Carole Mainstone], but then backed up by the SU & GIS in the statement)”
    http://augustandiatribe.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/economic-future-whats-the-real-solution-most-definitely-not-one-borne-of-reactionary-politics/

    its pretty clear that it was the university who claimed this – so take up your beef with the uni instead of crying foul.

    the solution is simple – inform the university you support the event going ahead so you can debate your points of view in a calm manner………..

  5. oh and the email is the height of hysteria

    he was threatened to be killed in 1994 – proof? perhaps he lodged a complaint with the police? who was it?

    the man has said that he regularly protests against HT – but he can only bring up an alleged threat from 1994 which kind of highlights that he knows that the group is not violent at all.

    rubbish.

    and he makes the same mistake of claiming that the SU and the GIS “falsely accused” him (more amateur dramatics), – but their email states it was the university that made the claim.

    it comes back to the same point – if you thought your ideas were correct and that others are wrong – you should welcome the open debate since you should be able to convince people of your straight path.

    • Google Peter Tatchell and Hizb ut-Tahrir. His opposition to them is well documented. Are any of his claims about their constitution false? Which ones?

      The original email about the cancellation (that I have a copy of) reads “Several students, a lecturer and Peter Tatchell, according to the University, who opposed the appearance of a Hizb ut Tahrir member, posed a violent threat to the event”. It may say “according to the university” but it is signed by “Gulum Alamgir, President of Global Ideas Society, Jenny Ybanez, VP Communications and Tarik Mahri, President.” It is untrue. If you wish to split hairs about who said it first, fine. I have also seen a copy of the correspondence between Mahri and one of the people trying to organise publicity about the nature of the organisation Mr Harwood represents; it was made clear there was no threat of violence. Mr Tatchell was not even aware of the event. What would you call that?

      Again – you’re not reading my posts. I said “as a student at Westminster I would like to present the other side of the argument.” Mr Harwood did not give the full picture. It would be facetious of me to ask if you prefer less than the full facts so I’ll leave that there. I will say that it’s immature to purposely distort the facts – I made no claim as to the “truth” of the article itself and I am not representative of the student population of the university of Westminster. There is a plethora of differing views, many people are happy to debate him despite their loathing of fascism. I simply feel that it is a waste of time. Thank YOU for proving that point every time you invent arguments that I have not made.

      • It was the university’s claim – that is clear from the email

        And its clear from the email that the SU and the GIS were against the cancellation.

        So take up your claims with the university authorities – whom you claim are liars, and not the SU, GIS or the speaker.
        [read the post above where it quotes the person against the event stating:
        “It is a very cheap shot to label your intellectual opponents as a ‘violent threat’ (the words of the University [apparently Carole Mainstone],”

        “according to the university” is very simple to understand – this is the uni’s claim.

        I think it is disgusting that you, and others, have tried to twist this around, dishonestly in my opinion.

  6. the fact tatchell is opposed to HT doesn’t prove he was threatened by anyone, does it?

    if he is going to complain about being accused – by university authorities (he in fact blames the GIS) – of being a possible threat to the peace, he should at least furnish some proof for much more serious claims about something that supposedly happened 17 years ago. Proof?

    • Why are you concentrating on Peter’s claim? It’s irrelevant. Does it take away from anything else he said? There is one thing that we cannot prove right now (it’s entirely possible he reported it, I will email him) but everything else he said about them is from their draft constitution.

      Of course the SU/GIS are against the cancellation. It’s their event! Did I not just copy/paste the email? As for that, they put their names to it. It appears that you do wish to split hairs about who said what. Fine. AGAIN, if you read my original post I say “the ‘leaders’ of the SU RELEASED a potentially libellous statement where they suggested that students, lecturers and Peter Tatchell were going to violently disrupt proceedings without any evidence to support this.”

      They released it. Potentially liable, RELEASED by them. Scroll up. The point is that it happened. You’re not listening. I was providing the full story.

      As for the “dishonestly” nonsense, who is being hysterical now?

      • You don’t think twisting their email around to make out they were “suggesting” there was violence threatened, when all they did was relay the universities reasons – is dishonest? Whatever.

        As for the stuff mentioned in the email supposedly from the draft constitution – I am not willing to take his word for it, and half of it looks like his own interpretation.

        And in any case – its completely irrelevant. I’m not even interested in his claims, or whether he was threatened or not. I simply highlighted the points to show how double standards apply when you put up unsubstianted claims by him because of your own preferences and prejudices. tatchel is pretty irrelevant – i did a search and saw him protesting “peacefully” outside a conference of HT with about 7 other people with him. well done to him.

        I reiterate the main point so it doesn’t get lost –
        you can simply tell the university that no one had the intention to do anything other than come and engage in the debate constructively, and support the event going ahead next month

        • The double standard comes from clinging to this: “the words of the University [apparently Carole Mainstone]”

          and ignoring this part “but then backed up by the SU & GIS in the statement” – but not Peter Tatchell’s word and documented opposition. Somebody was dishonest. You are clinging at straws.

          If you are not willing to take his word for it, find their draft constitution! Have a look. Apostates are to be executed, non-Muslims disenfranchised… It’s all there. For the record, Peter Tatchell has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement for decades in this country.

          Maybe I should reiterate my point. WE DID TELL THE UNIVERSITY THERE WAS NO THREAT OF VIOLENCE. They cancelled it anyway. I, for one, am pleased. I just wish they had cancelled it on ethical grounds.

          • here is some of the text from the actual email itself – people can make their own judgement about whether it has been misused by you, tatchell and others.

            but thanks again for making your stance clear in your last comment. your agree with the banning of the talk, if not the reason given – which is basically what i think the author of the article was getting at when he talked about the liberal “extremism” of people like you.

            “The Students’ Union is completely opposed to this decision made by the University as the Global Ideas society (a registered Student’ Union society) has complied with the procedures set out by the SU and University when organising the event.

            Several students, a lecturer and Peter Tatchell, according to the University, who opposed the appearance of a Hizb ut Tahrir member, posed a violent threat to the event. They had planned to disrupt the event, though all were unsure whether it would escalate to violence or not. The University was unable to ensure the safety of both speakers and attendees; therefore the university decided to cancel the event. However, it is the view of the Students’ Union, that the University has a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate safety for students and guests on University premises, in accordance with the Universities UK ‘Freedom of speech on campus: rights and responsibilities in UK universities’ document.”

  7. This is why it’s so pointless having debates with people defending this ideology. You’re just not very good at it. All you have done is repeat what I’ve said. Again, I did not disagree with the tone of the article (apart from his ridiculous use of the word fascist when he represents a fascist group himself) I just wanted to provide the bigger picture. I do not want fascists on my campus, it is pointless to debate with them, so I say NO to the BNP, NO to the EDL, and NO to Hizb ut-Tahrir…

    I should also point out that they are being liberal(!) with their use of the term student union – we (the students) are the student union – it is students that are opposing it. They are a barely elected leadership with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir – who are on the NO PLATFORM list of the NUS anyway. Our university has decided to ignore this with no explanation.

    Just out of interest, HOW could Peter Tatchell have misused it?

    • But you are similar to a fascist – seeing in this case it is YOU who is trying to dictate what people should listen to or think about

      the EDL/ BNP are groups who are linked to violence and racism, therefore makes some sense to block them from anywhere as anything can happen. that you keep drawing the parallel just makes you look silly and shallow.

      As for the NO PLATFORM policy – read the email for Gods sake. The uni doesn’t adopt it. Thats not unusual – other universities like SOAS and QMW also do not follow the NUS policy in this case.

      bye bye

      • They used to adhere to ‘No Platform’ – it’s the SU ‘leadership’ that are so welcoming to Hizb ut-Tahrir – but maybe you read about their links to the group in at least 3 newspapers last year? There has been no vote on the issue and they don’t represent the majority of students at Westminster.

        Loathsome as the BNP/EDP are, there is nothing in their manifesto about killing people. I see from another article on here that some people are calling for the death or Hamza Kashgari for… Words. For saying things. He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t even steal… He said things that others disagreed with. Your claim of fascist aimed at me is incorrect, I merely wish to stop people who advocate barbaric, intellectually redundant, murderous rubbish like this from coming anywhere near my university,

  8. yes, and the word going around is that others with your views in the uni even posted threats to Jamal Harwood online (saying they would beat him up).

    Utterly defeated and hypocritical.

    In case you didn’t realise – its not “your” university. And your discussion here just highlights how redundant your views are – if you are so confident you and those with you shouldn’t be averse to open debate. But of course, that aversion is something you share with the fascists.

  9. How utterly pathetic. You’ve been on the back foot for this entire conversation so you pull out some completely unfounded allegation. Are you a member of the Global Ideas Society? This was about their level of debate as well. All the evidence points to two camps: those of us that don’t want supporters of fascist ideology anywhere near the university we go to (hence the use of “my university” – I won’t even go into how pathetic relying on semantics is) and those that want to engage him and highlight the views he represents. There was never a threat of violence and I ask you to support that statement.

    Perhaps they could ask his opinion on Youcef Nadarkhani or Hamza Kashgari? Can I ask for yours?

    Clearly you’re no student of history. During the Second World War, tens of thousands of Muslims fought for Hitler. You can google that, while you’re at it look up Haj Amin al-Husseini. Instead of co-operating with fascist regimes, Hizb ut-Tahrir have developed their own fascist ideology. It’s a progression of sorts, but not one I’d welcome. This is just further evidence of why debate is sometimes pointless. You ignore my questions and points entirely, while implicitly defending a group that wishes to establish a way of life that would restrict the rights of everyone. That’s redundant. I am happy to do this all day but I would rather not have to repeat myself.

  10. And now it comes out – in fact you are a typical prejudiced person, anti-Muslim/ Islam, but not brave enough to state it outright and instead hiding behind words like “anti-extremism” or anti-HT etc.

    Its taken you quite a few comments to come out with it – but i’m glad you finally have. (BTW – oh student of history – the nazis were secular nationalists. Just another example of secular extremism, something you seem pretty versed in)

    Sorry – but people can think for themselves and will do so, irrespective of your facist attempts to silence debate. Back foot? you are deluded. people who read the comments can see just how close minded you are.

    • How predictable. I told my friend that this would be your response. You’re just not listening, refusing to answer my questions and now you play the anti-Muslim card. It’s laughable. This isn’t debating – it can never be when you refuse to engage – which is why having supporters of fascist ideologies at universities is pointless. I have to question the level of intelligence, calling me anti-Muslim is an admission of defeat. For the record I was in Tower Hamlets marching AGAINST the EDL. I was in Luton. I have frequently opposed the BNP, removing their propaganda from places around my hometown during local elections. Of course I cannot prove any of this but I don’t need to, my opposition to fascism is well documented elsewhere. I actually prefer arguing with the BNP because they don’t try to hide their ignorance behind a religious shield and you can actually show them how they are wrong.

      I told you to google the Muslims that fought for Hitler for two reasons. 1 – because of your wilful refusal to acknowledge the policies that Hizb ut-Tahrir share with fascist ideologies (murder, caps on civil liberties) and 2 – because I knew that you wouldn’t do it and would respond like this. It’s boring. If you had bothered to research it you would see that ultimately those Muslims that did fight for Hitler were Russian and doing so after being severely oppressed by the the Russian authorities. I was proving two points, and you helped prove the last one. This isn’t a debate until you start engaging. I worked with, study with, and play football with Muslim friends who think that Hizb ut-Tahrir are… Not helpful, shall we say. No. I’m not having that. I’m not anti-Muslim.

      Nahla – please feel free to join in and answer any of the questions that AM simply avoids. You should also know that the NUS has a No Platform policy, technically anyone attending a meeting with somebody on it (Hizb ut-Tahrir, BNP etc) could lose their NUS status. Our current sabs have decided we won’t adhere to it without announcing why, (for instance explaining to our LGBT students why they’ve invited some to our uni from a group that would oppress them). If you know them, maybe you could ask them to release a statement because for the moment they are ignoring us.

      • Actually, the issue of Muslims within Nazi ranks is more nuanced, and beyond the back and forth of comments on a blog (and lets not get into Hajj Amin al-Husseini, hated by the British for his stance in Palestine and often misrepresented by Islamophobes). I am not sure how you expect me to take you seriously as a “student of history” when your reference is google, hardly a primary source. Next you’ll refer me to wikipedia. The point is not the details – but the fact that you stoop to making such throwaway comments in the midst of the discussion.

        Muslim friends? You are now bringing out the typical refrain “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are black”. Its ok, i’ll take your word for it.

        “This isn’t debating – it can never be when you refuse to engage” !!!! – so now its all about debate and engagement

        And yet – your whole stance is to prevent others from coming along to participate in debate in the first place. Its impossible to take you seriously.

        As I said and Nahla pointed out – utterly defeated and hypocritical.

  11. @ AM – completely agree with you, its funny how it slips up that they’re actually anti Islam but like a coward hide behind the term anti fascist. They’re the real fascist, forcing they’re views on other people. The uni does not adopt a no platform policy but yet they want to take it into their hands and stop freedom of speech – hypocritical much?

  12. Just for everyone who reads – Andy stated:
    “There was never a threat of violence and I ask you to support that statement” in reply to my saying that there have been threats to beat up Jamal Harwood.

    This transcript is taken from this facebook page of the GIS. Enough said really.

    Globalideas Wmin: Are you advocating that Jamal Harwood and his supporters should get beat up?

    Alex Law: Yes. And to be honest its only fair, cos I say the same for the EDL, the KKK, Nazis, Racists and all the hateful groups who try to divide society.
    Tuesday at 4:04pm · 1

    Globalideas Wmin yes? students should be beaten up?! this is an economics debate
    Tuesday at 4:05pm

    Alex Law lol not students. Just Jamal will do nicely.

  13. I look forward to this event where I hope the debate will neither mention Hitler or ‘liberal etremism’-both are absurd. I am a Muslim and a student of University of Westminster. I disagree with HuT and their beliefs and my views represent a large proportion of Islamic student’s views. In my opinion GIS’ major issue is that it fails to explicitly declare its Islamic bias. It’s objectives fail to state this yet none of its events are without that standpoint represented. It looks underhand and breeds suspicion-GLOBAL Ideas Society really represents AN IDEA GLOBALLY. That is global Kalifah in line with HuT belief. I find the very thin veneer pointless at best and dishonest at worse. I am afraid it represents a front for an HuT society at the university-this would not be tolerated.

    • the idea of Global Khilafah is not owned by HutT – its actually a well known part of normative Islam, that is part of orthodox Islamic belief for the last 1400 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Read previous post:
UN provides cover to the aggression of Major Powers

Abid Mustafa “...the UN emerged chiefly as a result of an agreement among the great powers led at that time...

Close