A complete betrayal
The Times has reported on Maryam’s encounter with Goldsmiths ISOC.
Maryam Namazie, a feminist who fled the Iranian regime and campaigns against Islamic extremism, was speaking on “apostasy, blasphemy and free expression in the age of Isis” at Goldsmiths, University of London, when the talk was interrupted by protesters who switched off her projector and accused her of violating their “safe space”. The secularist, who said it was wrong for Bangladeshi bloggers to be hacked to death, or for Afghan women to be stoned, in the name of religion, said she was staggered when the Feminist and LGBTQ societies posted statements of solidarity with the Islamic Society, denouncing her as an Islamophobe.
She said: “I don’t expect any apology from Islamists – fascists don’t apologise — but I do expect it from those who feign to be defenders of women’s rights and gay rights. It’s a complete betrayal.”
Oh Goldsmiths feminist society. Oh Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ society. Repent. Apologize.
This shit wouldn’t fly in the US (I think), with y’know, actual Islamophobes. It makes no bloody sense…
A lot people don’t really understand what islamaphobe really means. And these are university students who should know the difference. If this was a paper, they would fail. So, if someone criticizes trickle down theory of economics does that make them a trickle downaphobe. Or if they protest war that must mean they are war-phobes. If they criticize Nazis, then they would be Nazi-phobes.
It’s not wrong to note that Islamaphobia — or xenophobia, racism, tribal-religionism, and all the factors that get lumped into that term — exist. But the fact that Group A irrationally hates Group B does not mean any criticism of Group B’s speech and actions imputes membership in Group A.
I do want to make clear that my use of “Islamaphobia” here refers to the kind of unthinking, reflexive, and totally irrational idiocy pushed by the likes of Fox News. That kind of bigotry is a real problem, and poses an active danger to Muslims, but criticizing the treatment of women and apostates by Islamist groups is hardly the same thing as screaming about Sharia becoming the law of the land in Oklahoma. They are two different things.
Lots of people get this. The classic example is that the ACLU defends the rights of the KKK to peacefully assemble. They do not, however, defend the right of the KKK to march into a meeting of the NAACP and shut it down. One can find less extreme examples quite easily if one objects to the comparison of ISOC and the KKK — again, it’s just the classic example of how to appropriately and legitimately come to the defense of groups you profoundly disagree with.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand for some people. I really don’t.
On a side note, the unironic use of the word “solidarity” just takes my breath away. These people have absolutely no understanding of the history of that word, do they? Like, none. Just amazing.
Perhaps those people who don’t want sharia law in Oklahoma can read. Perhaps they have read about no-go areas in european cities. Perhaps they have read about sharia courts in the Netherlands, the UK and elsewhere. Perhaps they have read where senior british police officers have recently admitted that they have to have to have the approval of local imams in some areas before they can carry out their normal duties. Perhaps they have read of ‘sharia police’ gangs in the UK, Germany and other european states. Perhaps they have read about acts of terrorism and murder by islamic extremists. Perhaps they are thinking of Theo van Gogh or Lee Rigby or the victims of 7/7. Doesn’t seem like irrational fear to me – merely sensible concern to not have it in Oklahoma. Yeah – I don’t understand it either!
Ok then… since you have seemed to miss the point entirely, the point was that self-described feminists and LGBTQ activists were expressing solidarity with groups that are explicitly anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ against someone making entirely reasonable criticisms of Islamist goals and methods. The stated reason was that they needed to stand against Islamaphobia — as so aptly demonstrated by your comment, more on that in a moment — which demonstrated a staggeringly ignorant conflation of criticism and fearmongering.
I personally don’t class Maryam Namazie with people like you, who bewilderingly continue to spout debunked claims taken straight from outlets like Fox News or The Daily Caller.
Seriously, your very first example has been extensively debunked. The “no-go” areas in European cities originated with an on-air Fox News claim that they were forced to retract and apologize for. Paris was at one point moving forward with a lawsuit — a lawsuit! — for defaming their city.
The only thing that could make this funnier is if you came back frothing about the 55 zones in Sweden. SWEDEN!
But I suppose I should thank you for helping to illustrate my point. It’s that kind of idiocy and fear that constitutes Islamaphobia, which has real consequences for people who have nothing to do with Islamists, radicals, and terrorists, and in fact leads to innocent people being harassed, threatened, and even physically harmed. That needs to be countered — and vigorously — but Maryam Namazie is not a representative of that, and Maryam Namazie certainly isn’t out there spreading lies about no-go zones, police forced to accept orders from imams, and how the terrorists are coming for YOU, YES YOU, RIGHT NOW.
Maryam Namazie is tirelessly working to speak out about the regressive attitudes and harm caused by Islamist groups — not the ominous, civilization destroying spectres of doom that haunt the fevered dreams of your average right-wing nutjob, but the actual, real Islamist groups who do want to subjugate women, who are virulently against any deviation from traditional gender roles and heterosexuality, and so on and so forth.
The Goldsmith groups chose to reject her efforts, and instead express solidarity with people actually advocating rolling back human rights. They chose to stand with regressive bullies instead of the person working for the human rights those groups claim to value. They cited as their reason the many, many terrified idiots believe anything they read on the internet. Because some of those idiots are dangerous, and commit vandalism, arson, and assault, harming innocent people. Because, apparently, Maryam Namazie incites people to such violence, just like Fox News and its kindred spirits.
So to restate my point: Yes, Islamaphobia — the deranged kind — is a real problem. No, Maryam Namazie is not representative of that.
Also: no-go zones. LOL.