Mandatory “respect” for religion
The National Secular Society via Spiked:
University administrations are becoming increasingly “censorious”, with 43% of universities censoring speech that might “offend” religious people, according to online magazine Spiked.
The magazine’s Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) claims that 63.5% of UK universities “actively censor speech”.
Launching its third annual analysis of campus censorship, Spiked said: “The fight for the freedom to criticise religion, to blaspheme, was at the very heart of the historic fight for free speech. Yet it seems some universities, terrified of offending students of faith, are turning the clock back.”
It highlighted London South Bank University’s Code of Practice for Freedom of Speech, which warns students that one definition of an ‘unlawful meeting’ is one “at which there is a likelihood that the speaker(s) may… commit blasphemy”. In 2014 the University removed posters from their student atheist society for being “religiously offensive”. Following criticism the University removed the policy with a version that did not mention blasphemy, the document was hosted at the same address and gave no indication of when it was issued.
That’s a little confusing – I think it means the university tweaked its code after Spiked (or others) criticized it, but without saying it had tweaked, or when it had done so. But anyway – I have to wonder why they ever had such a code in the first place. Blasphemy? A mere likelihood of blasphemy? Was “unlawful”? That’s pathetic. I suppose some religious fanatic drew up the code and no one else read it carefully.
Warwick University’s Student Union Policy is also criticised for stating that speakers ‘must seek to avoid insulting other faiths or groups’. In 2015 the University’s student union barred Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist Maryam Namazie from speaking, claiming she was “highly inflammatory and could incite hatred” if allowed to take up secularist society invitation.
Trump isn’t helping. People are going to be even more defensive about any and all criticism of Islamism and Islam now, thanks to him. Islam, like all religions, should and must be wide open to criticism, because it makes such large claims on people’s loyalty, and gives such flimsy reason for those claims.
Nottingham University’s Student Union policy on “respecting religion” opposes “provocative” organisations and “certain groups with known antireligious views”.
We’re allowed to be anti-religion. This isn’t the 14th century.
But insulting, denigrating and even threatening atheists, women, gays etc through religion? Oh that’s just hunky dory and lovable freedom of speech. Spits.
Yet another thing I can thank Dear Leader for… I now have to defend a religious group that I do not like at all and it’s getting in the way of legitimate criticism.
Rob – and insisting that people like Milo Y get their platform. After all, he is spending most of his time “telling truth to power” – that truth being that women are bad, and that power being women. Because we have soooooo much power that everybody cowers in their boots when they see us coming.
In this country, we spend a lot of time defending free speech for conservative thought, while liberal thought can safely be ignored or marginalized. Just brand someone a TERF or a SWERF, and there is never any more need to allow them to speak. But an internet troll who abuses women for fun? Oh, no, he has free speech, and if you want to shut him down, you’re evil..
I don’t care about shutting Milo down. I just don’t want to see him labeled an “expert” and given a free pass for his odious views. And I want to see that same applied to everyone – Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus – people should have both a right to express the above views, and to express views that are in opposition to those views.
If the views move from the realm of idea expression into incendiary speech that promotes particular violent action, then you might have a call for shutting it down, if a crime is committed. But blasphemy is not a crime.
We’re allowed to be anti-religion.
Not really. You’re allowed to be anti-christian because it’s mistakenly seen as “White”, but most other religions, almost all of which are considered “brown”, are out of bounds. Canada, for example, is about to pass an anti-blasphemy law that will conflate criticism, even legitimate criticism, of Islam’s core doctrines with racism. Islam, at least for the moment, is the only religion it specifically mentions.
This isn’t the 14th century.
It,s coming.
Yes I know all that, and it was my point – I said we’re allowed to by way of pushing back against the informal pressure not to. I don’t need it explained that there’s informal pressure not to, because that was my point in the first place.