Just goes to show how far these degenerates have already dug themselves into a hole with the enemies of civilisation.
UNIVERSITY of Sydney staff have argued for ISIS supporters, including controversial Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, to be given a platform on campus “to express their anti-Semitism” in the name of free speech.
The comments came in a heated email exchange between arts staff, who were responding to an open letter sent by academics Stuart Rees, Nick Riemer and David Brophy.
The trio were calling on the university to drop all charges against staff and students arising from a pro-Palestinian protest last month, when a group from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement disrupted a talk by former British colonel Richard Kemp.
Professor Jake Lynch, who remonstrated with security guards when they tried to remove the students, was accused of anti-Semitism for allegedly waving money in an elderly woman’s face.
He was cleared by the university of charges of anti-Semitism following an internal investigation, although he and 12 other protesters, including the five students, still face potential disciplinary action.
In an open letter titled ‘Serious threat to intellectual freedom and civil liberties on campus’, the group reiterated the BDS movement’s opposition to a ban last year on Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar, who was invited by the Muslim Students’ Association to speak at a campus Q&A on September 11.
“Perhaps, if the university was less selective in the speakers it offers platforms, there’d be less motivation for protests like the one at the Kemp lecture,” Professor Riemer wrote.
A number of staff objected to Professor Riemer drawing equivalence between Hizb ut-Tahrir and the speech by Colonel Kemp, who was speaking on the ethics of tactics in counterinsurgency operations.
Associate Professor Bronwyn Winter, taking issue with Professor Riemer’s email, wrote: “Just in case people didn’t know, Uthman Badar is a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is an explicitly political movement the goal of which is to reinstall a caliphate and to do so worldwide. I won’t get stated on the group’s attitudes to women.
“This is part of the Islamist extreme-right, it is to the Muslim world what Nazism was to Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and indeed still is. To organise a speaker from this group on the anniversary of 9/11 is at the very least in extremely poor taste and at worst highly offensive to many.”
Professor Winter said while she didn’t support Kemp’s views, “although he is right wing he is nowhere near in the same league as the people to whom Riemer et al appear to be giving at least tacit support”.
In reply, Professor Riemer wrote: “Bronwyn, your statement that Badar crosses a line much more clearly than Kemp simply reflects one possible evaluation of the difference between them.”
Dr Wendy Lambourne from Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies also disagreed with the stance. “Sorry Nick, but free speech should not include hate speech and incitement to violence,” she wrote. “That is the distinction and yes, it’s not always clear-cut, but I agree with Bronwyn that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Unfettered free speech is dangerous.”
Asked if an IS supporter should be allowed to “express their anti-Semitism” and give a lecture about why the west is wrong and they are right, lecturer and fellow BDS supporter Yarran Hominh wrote: “I would say yes, we should ‘allow’ them to express their anti-Semitism — within bounds, of course.”
But he added that the question “reveals a deeper issue, which is namely why Richard Kemp was invited in the first place”. “Inviting such a speaker, as would inviting an anti-Semitic IS supporter to speak, seems to me to invite polarisation of the sort that is to my mind not conducive to a proper discussion of the issues,” he said.
A number of other staff spoke out against the BDS supporters, including Dr Gil Merom from the School of Social & Political Sciences, Dr Lionel Babicz from the Department of Japanese Studies and Professor Wojciech Sadurski from the School of Law.
“This global movement [Hizb ut-Tahrir] and its local chapter support the ‘freedom’ of Australians to join fighting in Syria (ISIL included), underage girl-marriage (to adults), and Jihad against Jews. The local chapter also complains about the vilification of ISIL,” Dr Merom wrote.
“Who else in Arts thinks that we should ‘allow’ ‘anti-Semitic IS supporters’ (or for that matter misogyny peddlers, Islamophobes, homophobes, anti-Asian and other racists) to express their misogyny/anti-Semitism/Islamophbia/homophobia/anti-Asian racism — within bounds, of course?”
Dr Babicz questioned the behaviour of the protesters. “No one is threatening intellectual freedom and civil liberties on campus, except a small group of activists who think they detain the truth,” he wrote.
“As they are so marginal, they are trying to shut down any opposition to their views. As they are so insignificant, they claim to martyrdom when the university decides rightfully to investigate their conduct.
“No one has ever challenged their right to express their views, no matter how distorted many decent people may find them. What we do challenge is their conduct. Brutally shutting down an officially invited guest of the university, even though you are allowed to protest outside of the talk room and ask all the questions you wish in the Q&A part, is not intellectual freedom.”
Professor Sadurski weighed in, likening the behaviour of protesters to neo-Nazis. “The authors of [the initial email] state, seemingly with admiration: ‘Students around the world, for their part, routinely interrupt political talks at universities.’ As a statement of fact, it is correct,” he said.
“In my home country, over the past years young people from the extreme right (including students), some with clearly neo-Nazi predilections, successfully interrupted lectures and speeches by prominent left-wing and/or liberal speakers.
“There is no room, at the University, for administrative censorship and speech control. There is no room for heckler’s veto either.”