It is important to be clear from the outset that I do not condone or agree with the views allegedly expressed by al-Kawthari. I am staunchly opposed to people implying women should always consent to sex with their husband or that they should not be allowed to travel more than 48 miles away from their home without a chaperone. I think it is obvious that these comments are contrary to the acceptable norms in our society. However, in a liberal democracy everybody should be allowed the right to express their views, on the condition that they do not cause harm to other people. Inciting violence is wrong, however al-Kawthari is not encouraging Muslims to go out and attack those other religions he is simply expressing socially conservative opinions.
Even if we accept that his views are unacceptable, which I do, the way to defeat them is not through a no-platform policy. The way to defeat them is by allowing freedom of speech, and by engaging in rational discourse with these views.
It is just sheer hypocrisy for Sam Westrop, who led the campaign to ban al-Kawthari, to try to ban speakers from campus. For those of you who may not know, Westrop is a founding member of the ‘Freedom Society’ on campus, a centre-right libertarian group. The group states on their YUSU society profile that the first of the seven principles that they stand for is ‘individual freedom’. Under any definition of ‘individual freedom,’ freedom of speech must be central. It seems impossible for the founder of a society that states as one of its main aims the promotion of individual liberties, including freedom of speech, to be calling for the censure of free speech on campus.
But I suspect that Westrop is not denouncing all his libertarian principles and demanding a no-platform policy. Instead he is denying that it is connected to freedom of speech and is turning it into a ‘decency’ issue. This may be because Westrop is a self-confessed zionist who writes for a pro-Jewish nationalism blog denouncing the spread of Islamist thought on university campuses. Westrop is entitled to his own opinion, but to adopt a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, denouncing Islamic speakers who he disagrees with, but supporting the views of other religious spokespoeple who other people disagree with equally vociferously weakens the credibility of his attack.
Even if we accept Westrop’s assertion that this is a decency issue rather than a freedom of speech debate, his argument still reeks of hypocrisy. Many of the views that Westrop would agree with and which have been expressed by speakers that he has previously invited to campus would be denounced by others as indecent.
Westrop argues that: “It is indecent to invite such a speaker in the first place, and it is indecent to give him the oxygen of publicity.” By taking such a strong stance against the speakers invited on to campus by Islamic Society Westrop is putting his own record on the line for scrutiny. If we take the example of Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber region: Mr Bloom was ejected from the chamber of the European Parliament last November after making a Nazi slur to a German colleague. Mr Bloom shouted “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer” – one people, one empire, one leader – as Martin Schulz, of the German Social Democrats was making a speech. I think there needs to be very little discussion as to whether this is seen as indecent.
So whether Westrop wants to coin this a decency issue or a freedom of speech debate, on either case he has been exposed as a hypocrite. If there is a case to be made for a no-platform policy, then it has to be universal. Denouncing a particular speaker because he offends your political or religious beliefs, while at the same time continuing to express your own views that offend other people shows an unacceptable level of hypocrisy and arrogance.