LSE students say 'No to Islamophobia'

Thursday, 02 February 2012 16:41

The London School of Economics’ Student’s Union newspaper, The Beaver, reports on several motions relating to combating religious hatred on campus which were debated at an Emergency General Meeting of the SU last week.

With respect to the motion on Islamophobia, The Beaver states:

“The second motion, entitled “No to racism – No to Islamaphobia,” was raised in response to increasing tensions on campus between various LSE student societies. Many Muslim students were offended by the LSE Students’ Union Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist (ASH) Society’s publication of a “Jesus and Mo” cartoon, in which the two are portrayed “having a pint.” The cartoon was originally posted on the ASH Society’s Facebook page in solidarity with a similar society at the University College of London (UCL) which was asked to take the cartoon down by the UCL Students’ Union.

“The motion affirms that the Students’ Union believes in “the right to freedom of speech and thought” and “the right to criticise religion,” but also reiterates its “responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech.” Presented by Anneessa Mahmood, LSE Students’ Union Trustee, the motion defined Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred.” All comments or incidents that can be categorised under this definition should be “publicly opposed” and “dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School.” Moreover, the implementation of the motion would ensure the “promotion and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts.”

“The motion passed with a total of 542 votes, 63 per cent for and 33 per cent against, with four per cent of voters undecided.”

The LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society opposed the motion with members arguing it posed an “unnecessary curtailment of free speech”.

University campuses have been grappling with the issue of balancing freedom of speech with legal requirements on equality, public order and incitement to racial or religious hatred, and allegations of their being exploited as ‘hubs of radicalisation’ for some time now. A 2011 Universities UK report made a case for the preservation and advancement of freedom of speech on campus, stating that, “unless views can be expressed they cannot also be challenged.”

The UUK report also highlighted the unequal legal protections arising from the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred legislation which leaves Muslim students far more vulnerable to incitement than other faith groups who enjoy greater protection under the law. Muslim students face a double hurdle under current legislation unlike Jews and Sikhs. The latter two faith groups are regarding as ‘racial’ groups and therefore protected under race relations legislation, which offers more robust protection against racially motivated violence and incitement to racial hatred. The burden of proof under incitement legislation on religious hatred however, is much greater thereby making incitement to religious hatred much harder to prosecute and punish under existing law.

The UUK report notes:

“There is a specific exemption in the legislation relating to religious hatred which acknowledges that the offences should not be applied ‘in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief systems.’”

“It will be noted that the focus of these offences [incitement to religious hatred] is on threatening words or behaviour but not insulting or abusive words or behaviour. Further, as the offences all involve the intent to stir up religious hatred, the defences available in relation to racial hatred do not apply. Intent is a necessary ingredient of the offences – it is not sufficient to show that religious hatred was likely to be stirred up.”

Comments

Add New