Archbishop Cranmer is reporting that Douglas Murray has been banned from chairing a meeting on Islam at the London School of Economics because of "concerns about public safety". The debate was called "Islam or Liberalism: Which is the Way Forward?" Looks like the answer to the question is quite clear.
This is a very worrying development indeed. From time to time I get asked to speak at events at the LSE. I shall think very carefully before accepting any future invitations from them. Perhaps my very presence would not be conducive to the public good.
21 comments:
when and where is the debate?
If you want tickets
HERE
You wanted some insight into the rising popularity of the BNP?
Now you have it.
This looney will be speaking
No wonder they predict "unrest"
I'm taking a bacon sandwich and a can of Stella
I think the Centre for Social Cohesion is one of those bodies that would be easy for to paint as "anti-islamic", even though it actually is trying to expose the problem of extremist islamism.
Looks like yet another University is caving to intolerance in the name of security. Well done for highlighting this Iain.
Visit the facebook group for more fun
I'm off to William Hills to put a bet on the LSE being burned to the ground
In the 1960s the LSE was at the forefront of challenging the status quo, by breaking the law if necessary. These days they are prepared to uphold the status quo,the ochlocracy and the scapegoating of those who dare challenge political correctness, by violence and intimidaton.
Mr Dale,
His Grace's heightened incredulity is manifest by virtue of the fact that Mr Murray was not speaking at the event, but merely chairing it.
Being barred from doing so impugns Mr Murray's character and integrity. It is a slur upon him more than his personal beliefs.
George Galloway might be a better fit.
What a disgraceful decision. This is one of those cases where "I disgree with your views, but i'll fight for your right to say it".
It makes me even more sure that we need a clear constitution in this country, outlining the principal of free speech and the rights of the individual.
Word Verification: fecof
Quite.
@ OH: 'Visit the facebook group for more fun
I'm off to William Hills to put a bet on the LSE being burned to the ground.'
****
If the level of debate on the Facebook page is anything to go by, I'm so glad I'm not going. For example:
"Che Guevara was an atheist. Thereby, it's clear that YOU CAN BE MORAL AND MODERATE WITHOUT RELIGION."
Where to start with that?
Who said after the end of WWII "The next fascists will be the anti-fascists." Churchill?
"Wrinkled Weasel" - In the 1960s the LSE was at the forefront of challenging the status quo, by breaking the law if necessary.
That's true, but probably not quite in the way you intend... According to a colleague of mine who used to lecture there in the late-60s, apart from being a Trots resthome everything that wasn't welded to the floor got pinched!
I don't know the full story here, but surely the issue is whether he is an appropriate person to chair the event (given his clearly one-sided views), not whether he should be allowed to speak.
"Will said...
...but surely the issue is whether he is an appropriate person to chair the event (given his clearly one-sided views)...
January 23, 2009 4:57 PM
You're right, they should get someone from the impartial BBC to do it.
Capitulation to terrorism?
Not at all.
It's just that, as of Tuesday, neocons simply don't matter any more.
Douglas Murray blew any chance of a Tory seat when he used a Spectator Diary to announce that he had voted Labour in the Ealing Southall by-election following his Question Time spat with Sayeeda Warsi.
And now this, doubtless the first of many.
So what is he going to do with the rest of his life now? He's only just 30, if he's that old.
Of course, he doesn't need to work. Hence his pretend think tank that is in fact just his media by-line where "Too Rich To Need To Work" would not do.
But even so, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.
John @ 3.30pm
We don't need a constitution about what we can say.
We once had English Common Law which said what we could not say. Please lets go back to case law and let the jury decide. That is a way of saying let the people speak and be heard.
There is some merit in the argument that he isn't an appropriate chairman, maybe he should just have been on the panel. However, for the LSE to cite security as the primary consideration for this is just boll**** of the worst and slimiest sort. Like many once fine British institutions, their "management" have replaced a respect for truth, liberty and decency with a lickspittle avoidance and neutralised corporatism.
@ Despairing Liberal
I agree with what you say on the lame security excuse, but by banning Murray they are not being neutral, they are actively censuring someone in a positive way.
They don’t like Murray’s research and the published results, so they blacklist him.
What Murray says maybe true, but that is immaterial in their eyes.
A sorry position for a place of learning- shame on the LSE and those people who pushed for this decision.
RonB - fully concur.
In the 1960s, Wrinkled Weasel, the same methods were used by student groups and staff who caved in to them to keep out anyone who was right-wing, anti-Soviet, in favour of free speech, pro-American or in favour of Americans fighting in Vietnam. The immediate cause may have changed, the behaviour remains the same.
Post a Comment