How far is far-right?

Listening to the Today Programme this morning I heard Ross Hawkins’s alarming vox-pop cameo, which was clearly designed to advance the absurd hypothesis that the threat of violence from the “extreme far-right” is equal to, if not in excess of, the violence (terrorism) motivated by Islamic extremism. While he was at it, he also managed to belittle Sara Khan, who was in the studio talking to Mishal Husain, who conducted this interview in her ‘impatient-schoolmarm’ voice. (No saccharine tones for Sara Khan this morning.)

I know full transcriptions can be dull, but since you’re here  I’ve made one for you, you might as well read it. (Emphases: italics=theirs; bold=mine)

MH
Let’s start with your own position and the question about how effective you can be when there was so much criticism of your appointment because you were perceived by so many people as insufficiently independent of government. 

SK
Well, I would contest that. I have criticised government in the past when I believed government policy is wrong and the best example I can give actually is my opposition to the government’s counter-extremism bill itself. If I agree with government policy, if I believe that one of their policy is correct then I will support it. That’s the approach I’ve taken in the past and that’s the approach I’ll continue to take in the future. 

MH
But the central government policy in this area is the Prevent policy, which is widely regarded as being stigmatising to Muslims, even a UN special rapporteur said that it could actually end up promoting extremism, by dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, now the organisation you used to run took money from Prevent, didn’t it? 

SK
 I think it’s really important to make clear that my remit as lead commissioner is not Prevent. I have no remit with Prevent whatsoever. My focus is looking at extremism in this country and I think Ross’s piece is very interesting because it actually highlights the challenge of extremism today and in particular what does modern day extremism look like. 

MH
Yes we’ll come to that in a minute, but the point about your credentials, it is correct isn’t it, that your organisation did benefit from money that came from Prevent. 

SK
So one of my campaigns that “Inspire’ ran was an anti-ISIS campaign called ‘making a stand’; that was one campaign that the Home Office funded over ten years’ worth of work. I’m very proud of that campaign, if I was with Inspire again I would do that campaign again. The campaign benefited Muslim women from across the country. It taught them theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology. It taught them who they can go to for support, and the Home Office, I believe has a responsibility and a duty to support Muslim communities, to support other communities who are facing extremism and how to safeguard their children. 

MH
But some of those who’ve been very worried about your appointment, a Labour MP Naz Shah, the Conservative Peer Lady Sayeeda Warsi, the Muslim Women’s Collective, the Muslim Women’s Network UK, you have a really important job to do and these are all people and organisations that you need to work with, don’t you, and it doesn’t seem as if you’ve had them onside at the moment. 

SK
I would disagree with that I mean from day one I’ve made it very clear that I’m going to engage widely and that’s what I’ve done. Over the…

MH
Which parts do you disagree with, needing to work with them…. 

SK
…over the last few months I’ve engaged with over three hundred people, experts, academics, I’ve visited ten cities, just last week I was in Liverpool at meeting with different faith leaders which included ten Imams from ten different mosques. I’ve engaged with different Muslim women’s organisations .. 

MH
But with… 

SK
…I’ve had a very constructive meeting… 

MH
With the aim of doing what? You’re going about doing these meetings and you are planning to write a report I think, about the evidence you’re gathering..if you need to gather evidence, now, on extremism, does it suggest that we haven’t properly defined what extremism is, as yet. 

SK
Well, government has defined extremism, and there is a definition, now what’s been interesting for me as I’ve toured the country and I’ve spoken to faith leaders, I’ve spoken to women’s organisations, I’ve spoken to ordinary people, is how they see extremism. They have described it to me with crystal clarity. They can see extremism and they know what it is when they see it, so, far-right demonstrations in their cities, the extremism they’re seeing on social media - I was in Leicester for example…. 

MH
Has that, I mean, on far-right extremism, do you think we as a country have underestimated that? 

SK
Well  think we’re underestimating the scale of all forms of extremism and i want to be clear, my extreme - my commission is looking at all forms of extremism, that’s why I’ve been meeting people who specialise in far right extremism, islamist extremism, hard left extremism, I’ve spoken to Hindu and Sikh activists who are concerned about extremism within their own communities, and so looking at that and understanding the scale of that is what I’ve set out to do which is why we want to do a comprehensive study looking at the scale of extremism, the harm it’s causing - we don’t talk enough about the harm it’s causing, the tactics that extremists are using, and understanding the changing face of extremism in 2018. If we don’t understand extremism Michelle (sic) we’re not going to be able to effectively counter it. 

MH
Sara, thank you very much.

Hmm. That got me thinking. I wonder what the government’s definition of far-right extremism is? 

I Googled. 

Demos starts its study on this topic by stating: 

“In tandem with, and partially as a result of national political and social differences, there is no clear definition of far-right extremism.” 

I haven’t read the whole thing because my attention-span has dwindled to negligible, but a quick skim led me to surmise that they believe the far-right extremism of today has much to do with opposition to Islamic terrorism.

(Do correct me if I’m jumping to my own pre-conceived hypothesis.)

Since we’re allowing folks to meddle with internationally recognised definitions of racism and bigotry, and since internationally recognised definitions are evidently susceptible to the pick’n’mix approach, perhaps we don’t need definitive guidelines after all. 

We already tend to thoughtlessly label each other ‘bigot’ ‘extremist’ ‘hard left’ or far-right. Or Zio. 

If I’m not mistaken, the kind of far-right extremism to which everyone, including Sara Khan, the government, the BBC and the liberal consensus appears to be alluding, is vociferous opposition to all manifestations of Islam that are ‘incompatible-with-our-values’ i.e., far-right extremism merely means opposition to the creeping Islamisation of the west.  

All that nonsense about extreme Hinduism and Sikhism, not forgetting that silent spectre in the room, ultra-orthodox Judaism - most of whom appear to be religious fanatics who confine their abusive practices to insiders - and the inflated threat of violence (against whom?) from the far-right - all that bluster seems very much like a smokescreen, set up purely as a cover. Why?  To avoid being accused of that terrible crime, Islamophobia. 

Perhaps they’re correct to fear that “far-right rallies” will whip up unrest, thus endangering the elusive (or non-existent) condition called ‘social cohesion’.  But one has to ask,  which came first, the establishment’s deliberate social engineering project designed to acclimatise the irreligious majority to an unmanageable influx of Muslim immigration by stealth, with the media frantically endeavouring to normalise Islamic religious and cultural practices - or the existing population’s resistance to it? 

I’m saying that the particular kind of ‘far-right extremism’ that these organisations, including Khan’s,  are referring to is a reactive phenomenon. It wouldn’t exist without its cause. 

To muddy the waters further, the problem has been turned on its head; but we’re still stuck with Islamic terrorism now, whether or not Sara Khan and her team are able to shut down the opposition, or if the state keeps Tommy Robinson behind bars in perpetuity. 

Who was it who said “If British Muslims renounced their religion, there would be no more violence; but if they silenced the “far-right” Britain would be Islamic."  I might have mixed up that quote with one about another intractable conflict.

If the government’s definition of far-right extremism is that elastic, I’m a far-right extremist; and so, probably, are you.

A bit of a general rant rather than a take-down of a specific piece of BBC bias this time, but at least you had the transcript. Sorry about the football.  

Why is the BBC dancing to the Islamists’ tune over Sara Khan?

Sara Khan

Reading a piece by Sarah AB at Harry's Place I was taken, via a link, to another piece, this time from the National Secular Society website, written by Chris Sloggett. 

Its headline reads: Why are journalists dancing to the Islamists’ tune over Sara Khan?

I hope Chris doesn't mind if I quote a huge chunk of his piece here:

'Controversial' is a word that means almost nothing while revealing a great deal. Pretty much anything worth saying is controversial. If something is newsworthy, it's either controversial or very likely to become so. 

But when something means so little, the fact someone has chosen to use it usually tells you something. 

So let us consider the case against Sara Khan, the Government's new Commissioner for Countering Extremism. Today the BBC's headline about her appointment is: 

'Controversy over new counter-extremism tsar Sara Khan'. 

Many of those who claim to speak for Muslims do not like Khan because she promotes a positive message. She encourages a degree of integration into British society. She says Muslims should obey the same laws as everyone else and cooperate with the British state. She has called for honesty among Muslims about hateful ideologies and intolerant practices which are specific to, or particularly prominent among, those who share their religion. 

Her organisation Inspire encourages girls and women from Muslim backgrounds to be aspirational. It has done important work countering the narrative of grievance and resentment peddled by so many. And Khan wrote a book, The Battle for British Islam, in which she tackled many of those peddlers, as well as their counterparts on the white far right, head-on. 

Is this really work that we should explicitly describe as 'controversial'? Anyone interested in the future of British society should support the general thrust of what Khan has tried to do. 

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be reasonable analysis and criticism of her work. But if such a thing exists it has been drowned out today amid a hurricane of apologism. 

Advocacy groups such as 5PillarsUK, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee have berated Khan. Politicians such as Sayeeda Warsi, Naz Shah and Diane Abbott have cravenly jumped on the bandwagon. 

And meanwhile press reports have danced to the Islamists' tune. The BBC's initial report on Khan's appointment was particularly egregious. It described what had happened, included one sentence from Khan in reported speech, and then handed over the stage to a succession of Islamist apologists. 

In the fourth and fifth paragraphs we were treated to Warsi's view that Khan was "simply a mouthpiece and creation of" the Home Office (you can say 'Uncle Tom' if you like, Sayeeda). Then there was a picture of two of Warsi's tweets – without the one which bridged them, defending Khan, from Amina Lone. 

Next Martin Bashir was reported as saying the appointment would "anger many Muslims". It was unclear how he'd drawn this conclusion. There was a paragraph criticising the Prevent strategy, with no defence of it offered in response. Harun Khan of the Muslim Council of Britain got two paragraphs to say the Government had sent an "alarming" signal to "Muslim communities". Sara Khan's work with Inspire was given a passing mention – in the 14th paragraph. 

The BBC later updated its piece, adding some detail near the bottom about who Khan was and giving her the right of reply. But it also added in criticism from Shah and changed its headline to say the real story was the 'controversy' around the appointment. The criticism was still given far too much weight.

The latest update to the BBC article being condemned there is headlined New counter-extremism tsar Sara Khan faces calls to quit, so the BBC obviously isn't changing tack over this.

And what do we immediately see on clicking on that latest update?: 

So, the BBC chooses to describe MEND (a group I always think of as a mob of unpleasant Islamist rogues) as an "anti-Islamophobia campaign".

Well, I'm sure the unpleasant Islamist rogues at MEND will be absolutely delighted by that! 

Harry's Place, in contrast, calls them "Islamist agitators", and The Henry Jackson Society agrees and (in great detail) contends that they are an extreme, bullying bunch, full of antisemitic, homosexual-hating apologists for Islamism with worryingly ambiguous views about Islamist terrorism. 

So why is the BBC pandering to their self-description and describing them as an "anti-Islamophobia campaign"? 

Seriously, this is weird, disturbing BBC reporting. It isn't impartial, and, worse, it seems to be actually siding with the bad guys.

Douglas Murray and Sara Khan on 'The Sunday Politics'

Today's The Sunday Politics included a discussion between Douglas Murray and Sara Khan. It was so interesting and important that a full transcript seemed appropriate.

For the 'BBC bias' angle, please look at Jo Coburn's rather heavy-handed and one-sided contributions and then weigh them against the programme editor's decision to stage this vital discussion with these particular guests in the first place. 

Jo Coburn: The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy. In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers investigating radicalisation in the UK: Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society, and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire. We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray:

Douglas Murray: Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance, still we learn no lessons. We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism - they blow us up, we sing Imagine. Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify the sources of the problem, and polite society remains silent or dumb. This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi. Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people, one for each year of life this country had given him. We need to think far more deeply about all this. Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem because it doesn't have much Islam. France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam. Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this? Apparently not. For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible. The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities. Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill, and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states, even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country. Our enemies are serious. It is high time we became serious too. 

Jo Coburn: Douglas Murray there. And now for Sara Khan's view: 

Sara Khan: Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country. We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it? Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims. We need to wake up. These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities, hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers on their social media. Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition to democracy and human rights. I've seen politicians and charities partner with and support some of these voices and groups. This is nothing short of scandalous. Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do so would be Islamophobic. But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them as it implies that all Muslims hold these views. Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual. We must counter those who seek to divide us. 

Jo Coburn: Sara Khan's view there, and Douglas Murray and Sara Khan join me now. Douglas Murray, you wrote a book, Strange Death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you say, "Let's get serious?"

Douglas Murray: Several things. Just one example I can give you. The young man who carried out this atrocious attack last Monday night was two years a student at Salford University. He was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter-extremism programme. They not only oppose it they boast they're boycotting it. They always did this. The university that he was at was against the only counter-extremism policy this state has. 

Jo Coburn (interrupting): Talking about one event, were you? Yes? 

Douglas Murray: This is just one example of a much bigger problem. 

Jo Coburn: What are you suggesting though? Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? 

Douglas Murray: Well, I think that a university, which in the case of Salford, for instance, encourages students to report racist attacks - which is quite right - but discourages them from reporting any Islamic extremism is a serious problem because...after all, if you've  spent years telling people not to report Islamic extremism and then discover that you've produced a suicide bomber in Manchester, I think you should be held accountable. 

Jo Coburn: Sara Khan, what do you say to that? 

Sara Khan: I think it's quite clear from my own experience that there have been politicians who have undermined Prevent, there have been community organisations, indeed there have been Islamist groups in this country that have been at the forefront of undermining and countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. And I think we haven't really started getting real in recognising the fact that Islamist extremism has flourished in this country. If somebody had given us a crystal ball ten years ago when the 7/7 bombings had happened and said, 'Look forward and you're going to see the fact that hundreds of people leave this country to join Isis', and we've had hundreds of people being convicted of Islamist offences, I think we'd have been quite shocked about the fact that things have got worse as opposed to getting better. 

Jo Coburn: Right, but, Douglas Murray, the essence of your argument when you made those comparisons between the numbers of Muslims in different countries is that we've got too much Islam in Britain? 

Douglas Murray: Well, look. The answer that the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups give is that the answer to absolutely everything is Islam. It think less Islam, in general, is obviously a good thing...

Jo Coburn (interrupting): Really? 

Douglas Murray: The Islamic world...let me finish...The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem and it has been going on since the beginning. And I think it is not worth continuing to risk our own security simply in order to try to be politically correct. 

Jo Coburn: Would you support that kind of policy?

Sara Khan: No, I would disagree with Douglas on that and say, look, nobody is going to deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in Islamist extreme terror organisations. But the fact of the matter is, what's really happening now, yes, there is a crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a clash at the moment. There are competing claims about what the faith stands for. So, yes, while we're seeing Islamist terror organisations, at the same time there leading religious theologians who are saying to Muslims that, for example, the concept of a caliphate is absolutely outdated and that Muslims should be embracing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and adopting a human rights culture. 

Douglas Murray: If I may just pick up on that very quickly? I entirely agree with Sara Khan that there are obviously people trying to counter this; however. I would urge us to take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many reformers and most of the time they have ended up being on the brunt of the violence and the ones being killed. I deeply admire what Sara and other people do in this country. I want them to win. But the evidence out there is that they are not only a minority but the most beleaguered minority. Take a poll that was taken last year in this country. It found that two thirds of British Muslims said they would not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to the police. I mean, this is a very serious problem...

Jo Coburn (interrupting): But the policies you are proposing are far more Draconian because, as you say, you don't think they can win and the majority...

Douglas Murray (interrupting): No, no. I wish that they could. I hope that they could. We should do everything we can to support people like Sara but we should also recognise that the scale of the problem out there is beyond our current understanding. 

Jo Coburn: How do you counter, Sara, radicalisation that can happen on a university campus or it can happen online? The discussion we had with Ben Wallace this morning, the security minister, about the amount of material that is out there. But if we really pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, then gone is freedom of speech, gone is free debate and discussion, as they will see it? 

Sara Khan: I've always said that the best way and the most effective way of countering extremism is through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights to fight extremism. And I have to say where I think we are going wrong, where there's the hole, the gap, is that the lack of counter work is actually in challenging the Islamist ideals....that when you put up your larky image there...How many people are actually going to say 'We need to now counter that very strict anti-Western narrative, the Islamist ideals?' That's where we really aren't doing enough work. 

Douglas Murray: Yes, and....

Jo Coburn (interrupting): What about the human rights point though, that you cannot take away people's human rights in order to protect ours? 

Douglas Murray: I'm not suggesting that and I'm not suggesting that anyone has their human rights taken away. I'm suggesting that we do things that make sure  that 22 people don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? The idea that it is against human rights to ask people, for instance, to simply be opposed to people who want to blow up our daughters in a pop venue on a Monday night, that isn't restricting human rights. It isn't restricting human rights if you're taking government money and you are an institution like Salford University you should be held responsible for not cooperating with the standard security measures. 

Sara Khan: I don't disagree with that but I'm saying you can challenge extremism without having to abandon human rights, and in my organisation there's a lot of work going on, going into Muslim communities, working with teachers. But we're saying: We've got to actually counter the Islamist narrative. We are not doing enough. This is not about actually closing down free speech. This is encouraging more of us to say...and this is the most effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. 

Jo Coburn: So why isn't it doing better?Why isn't it reaching and spreading in the communities themselves?

Sara Khan: There are a  number of reasons. One of them is there is a denial taking place. There are a lot of apologetics taking place. Part of it is also the way we talk about Muslims in this country. We use this term 'Muslim communities' as if they are a homogeneous monolith when the fact is there is a very positive trend but also there is a negative trend among British Muslims, and we need to counter those who are promoting the idea that Muslims need to be part of a global, collective (?) identity. 

Douglas Murray: I agree. I absolutely agrees. It's also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Islamists in this country they are defending the faith as they see it. We think we can advise them down a better path but they think they are defending absolutely everything and e need to get real about that. 

Jo Coburn: Douglas Murray and Sara Khan, thank you very much.

Question Time from Salford

I am averagely squeamish and I certainly don’t get a kick out of self-inflicted pain, but I felt compelled to watch the special Question Time last night from Salford. You had to do it. 

I can’t be sure if the ISIS magazine ‘Dabiq’ is a fabrication, like a souped-up version of the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’, but if you listened to Sam Harris’s Podcast, (as per my previous post)  (make the effort) you’d have a better grasp of the fundamental allure of ISIS than the panel on last night’s Question Time, with the exception of Sara Khan, who was accused of knowing less about Islam than Manchester’s new Mayor. Yes, I mean Andy Burnham, who has reputedly said that the ‘Manchester Concert Bomber’ Salman Abedi was “a criminal, not a Muslim”. 

Are we in a fool’s paradise or a living nightmare?

Jeremy Corbyn is about to resume campaigning with a speech that advertises his ignorance of Islamic State’s ‘vision’,  and appears to be basing his entire campaign on his own stupidity, while Theresa May’s suicidal manifesto and shifty denial that a U-turn is a U-turn has effectively scuppered her landslide.

Meanwhile the BBC is dumbing down. 

They invite that idiot Ceri Bullivant of CAGE on to Newsnight to opine on ‘the Prevent’ scheme. 

Rizwaan Sabir “Counterterrorism researcher’ was given airtime on BBC news.

The charming fellow standing on the right of this film and conspicuously shaking his head popped up again in the audience of Question Time. His main concern was for the Muslims.

(The symbols spelling out ‘LOVE’ on the front of the lady in the bag’s bag, if you didn’t notice, are: “gun, grenade, knife & AK47”.)

On Channel 4, he said:

“Muslims are the ones who suffer collateral damage from this kind of attack. I don’t think the Muslim community can do more than they’re already doing. This is nothing that we have to be apologetic for. We have done nothing wrong. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. My message is that part of who you are as a Muslim, the gift that Allah (!) has bestowed upon you mercy from him, use it wisely and don’t be afraid. If you get attacked - Islamophobia - then you report it. But do not come to Muslims and say we  need to do more. We’re doing everything we can Krishna. Muslim charities have already given money to the victims’ families.”

A QT audience member says the problem comes from the mosques. He reads from a leaflet he was given on Didsbury Mosque’s open day:

“Living in a society in which people have accepted Western lifestyle and their way of life brings immorality at every step. Modesty shame and honour have no place in Western civilisation.”

The man in the QT audience (and in the Channel 4 video) put his had up and delivered a revised version of his speech, which I assume he’d been practising ever since he had spoken to Krishnan. Maybe he realised his  victimhood schtick was too raw or maybe someone reminded him about the actual victims. 

“I want people to listen to me very carefully. I am Manchester. I was born in Manchester and raised in Manchester. I am a proud man and a proud Muslim. And when Manchester hurt, I hurt, and I am hurting after what happened on Monday, and what happened on Monday night was an evil act, an abhorrent act that should be condemned with the strongest condemnation and to think that somebody could target small girls, and that anybody could target small girls in particular to carry out evil, should be said by anyone as evil. But let me make a plea. 

Who, me?

“I’m sitting next to a reverend here, a friend, (spot the Reverend’s reaction) who I’ve known and worked with in Manchester and it seems that Muslims are to be the target of collateral damage when these things happen. 

Islam is not the reason that people do bad things. People do bad things because they’re evil and they’re bad people, and I think that after these things happen that Islamophobia increases and attacks increase, and let us please not let people who hate and who want to divide us, divide us. Let’s be united together and Manchester will be united and we should work together stand shoulder to shoulder and say we will not accept hate and we stand against Islamophobia and all sorts of evil in all its forms.

The BBC is indeed giving a platform to  ‘all sides’, according to the obligations embedded in its charter, but the appropriate amount of intelligent criticism would be helpful. It’s almost as though I’m asking for BIAS. Bias towards “British values.”  

Red herring

<----Sisters and Brothers---->

“Gender segregation would be outlawed by labour” says Chuka Umunna, still aboard the bandwagon afforded him by the Today programme yesterday.  

But the nasty party have countered with: “Gender segregation in universities is pandering to extremism,” Michael Gove has said, as he became the latest politician to wade into the divisive row over external speakers."

While the hard-copy Telegraph has the headline: “Forcing sexes apart is not permissible says equality watchdog” to an article by home affairs correspondent David Barrett, the online version’s headline is: 

“Official watchdog says university sex segregation plans 'not permissible'”. 

After yesterday’s discussion with Justin Webb, many people felt that Justin made mincemeat out of Ms Dandridge. But I’m not so sure. While “Forcing sexes apart” sounds unseemly, “Forcing them together” almost sounds worse. Imagine compulsory seating arrangements a la the dinner party regulations: Man, lady, man, lady, man lady. 

Enforcing seating arrangements of any kind seems regressive and inappropriate, and haven’t the universities argued that they’re ‘providing’ separate areas rather than imposing blanket restrictions, though the “brothers/ sisters” notice seems to contradict that.

 

Brothers, sisters, does God exist?

Nicola Dandridge feels that  if brothers and sisters wish to self-segregate that’s up to them. We can’t have gender police standing at the door forcibly mingling lads and lasses, surely.  But it’s a big ‘if’, for who’s to say what’s really behind this business of being “comfortable” or “uncomfortable”, with such things?

As for gender apartheid in general, no-one can even agree on the effect, if any, that ‘gender’ has on our cognitive abilities.  All this business about vertically wired brains versus horizontally wired lady-brains is dubious.  Now that even our anatomical, gender-related characteristics can be surgically reversed it’s all a blur. But there is, nevertheless, an anatomical difference between men and women, no matter how much we like to pretend otherwise. Common sense should be the arbiter of what’s best for whom.

It seems that everyone, except Nicola Dandridge and the young conservative chaplain Saleem Chagtai, who defended it on the Today programme (08:32) agrees that separate seating at Islamic meetings is misogynistic and unacceptable in universities at any time and under any circumstances. 

However, doesn’t this whole kerfuffle  about gender segregation in universities seem like a red herring? It certainly does to me. It’s a bit like all the other Muslim/Islam-related phenomena, which seem so antithetical to what I assumed was modern civilization. Things that should be accepted as ‘given’, like women’s right to education, the right to equality and enforcing the law against FGM and honour-killing now appear to be a matter of debate. Why, in this day and age should the acceptance of rabid homophobia and antisemitism even be debated let alone tolerated? 

I can’t see how the stridently feminist Sara Khan, or any other ‘brave’ modernising Muslim women can be all that liberated, empowered or free if despite championing certain reforms they’re still associating themselves with Islam.

We’re guilty of pretending that we object to gender segregation merely because it’s a symptom of paternalism and misogyny, which is how I interpreted what Sara Khan said this morning.

Well yes; and a symptom of a paternalistic, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic,  barren, hypocritical, superstitious, warmongering, jealous, medieval religion. Sorry Sara, sorry Nicola, sorry Saleem, sorry everyone, but while you’re denying the incompatibility of ‘Islam’, ‘University’ and 'Great Britain', you’re not making much sense.