Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Islam Is All About Conquering Infidels

Egypt's Al-Azhar Insists on Anti-Semitism

by 
  • Signed by politicians from the right and left, as well as Jewish, Muslim and Catholic leaders, the declaration asks that "the verses of the Quran calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be [denounced as] outdated by theological [Islamic] authorities, as were the incoherencies of the Bible and the Catholic anti-Semitism abolished by Vatican II, so that no believer can rely on a sacred text to commit a crime."
  • "He [Abbas Shoman, Deputy to the Grand Imam of Al Azhar] also asked the signatories of the manifesto to understand that the Quran is the right way and "if they insist on their misguided understanding [of it], they should go to hell with their wrong understanding." — El Masry al Youm, Egyptian daily.
  • One wonders how, after having been taught Islamic supremacy all their lives, imams could even try to understand such a manifesto. Sheikh Shoman's remarks may just indicate his own indoctrinated anti-Semitism.
  • Saying that "Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam" does not make it so. Like or not, it does.
Whether one likes it or not, the image of the Jews depicted and disseminated extensively by Quran is that they are inherently evil and enemies of Islam, enemies of "the religion of truth," and of all Muslims. When anyone, such as a moderate Muslim or non-Muslim, draws attention to this dismaying fact, such as its direct connection to an indoctrinated hatred of "all" Jews, and when anyone calls for a justified examination or reform of these views, he immediately faces accusations of "Islamophobia." He is then overwhelmed by dozens of false rationalizations and supposed justifications in a way that indicates a deeply-rooted avoidance by senior Muslim scholars and institutions -- and even many mainstream Muslims -- of the truth that Quranic verses are full of hatred of Jews. All of the Jews, no exceptions:
Al-Bukhari (3593) and Muslim (2921) narrated from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: "The Jews will fight you and you will prevail over them, then a rock will say: 'O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.'"
In Saheeh Muslim (2922), it is narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "The Hour will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them, until a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: O Muslim, O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Except the gharqad (a thorny tree), for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Christians (and all "disbelievers") are not far behind:
"They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment." (Quran 5:72) Sahih International translation.
"O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous." (Quran 9:123) Sahih International translation.
"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." (Quran 5:51) Sahih International translation
It was no wonder, therefore, that Egypt's al-Azhar University, the most influential school of Sunni Islam, was enraged by a call from many intellectuals in France to amend the verses in the Quran that disseminate anti-Semitism and hatred of non-Muslims.

Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. (Image source: Sailko/Wikimedia Commons)

Recently, Al-Azhar condemned an open letter written by co-founder of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, and signed by more than 250 French politicians and public figures such as former President Nicolas Sarkozy, three former Prime Ministers, elected officials, intellectuals, and artists, calling to reconsider outdated the Quran verses that provoke hatred and killing of Jews and promote anti-Semitism. Twelve members of Charlie Hebdo's staff, including its senior editor-in-chief, Stéphane Charbonnier, were murdered and 11 others injured by three Muslim extremists shouting "Allahu Akbar" ["Allah is the Greatest"], on January 7, 2015.
The new manifesto, "Against New Anti-Semitism," which emphasizes the need for urgent action against the rise of anti-Semitism and recent increase in violent anti-Semitic attacks in France, was published in the newspaper Le Parisien on April 21. "In our recent history, 11 Jews have been murdered -- and some tortured -- by radical Islamists because they were Jewish," the manifesto said.
Signed by politicians from the right and left, as well as Jewish, Muslim and Catholic leaders, the declaration asks that "the verses of the Quran calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be [denounced as] outdated by theological [Islamic] authorities, as were the incoherencies of the Bible and the Catholic anti-Semitism abolished by Vatican II, so that no believer can rely on a sacred text to commit a crime."
In response to the manifesto, the Deputy to the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Abbas Shoman, decried any calls for purging or considering obsolete any verses of the Quran and labeled such calls as "absolute ignorance," the Egyptian daily al-Masry al-Youm reported. And in obvious taqiyya (dissimulation), Shoman denied that the Quran contains "any verses that command the killing of anyone that has not committed a crime that necessitates that, such as premeditated murder" and falsely described all "war and killing verses" as calling for justified self-defense and as verses of peace. He also asked the signatories of the manifesto to understand that the Quran is the right way and "if they insist on their misguided understanding [of it], they should go to hell with their wrong understanding." Notably, Sheikh Shoman overlooked that the French manifesto not only talks about the murder and abuse of Jews; it was also talks about the culture of anti-Semitism being promoted by dozens of Quranic verses. One wonders how, after having been taught Islamic supremacy all their lives, imams could even try to understand such a manifesto. Sheikh Shoman's remarks may just indicate his own indoctrinated anti-Semitism.
Islam is not the only religious text that contains violence and anachronistic passages -- a fact highlighted by a few imams such as Tareq Oubrou, imam of the Grand Mosque of the southern city of Bordeaux. Yet, as has been noted elsewhere, Islam is the only remaining religion in which "people still live by" these texts, where violence is divinely sanctioned.
Sheikh Shoman correctly says that Allah loves not the aggressor,
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." (Quran 2:190) Sahih International translation.
Yet, it has often seemed easy to point to others as aggressors -- whether real or imagined -- to justify a "defensive" response and guarantee that the defense of Islam has been "just." The problem, of course, is that what constitutes an "aggression" is wholly subjective. While everyone has the right to defend oneself if attacked, justifications for what constitutes an attack have ranged from children naming a stuffed teddy bear Muhammad (the teacher, who was British, received death threats and served jail time) in the Sudan, or another teacher, in Spain, who was sued for having discussed ham, a major Spanish export, in class.
The Catholic Church issued a declaration ( November 18, 1964) that unequivocally absolved the Jews of all times -- whether in the era of Jesus or in later days -- from the ancient charge of deicide, which meant abolishing incoherencies of the Bible and traditional Catholic anti-Semitism. Muslims strongly believe that the Quran, which forbids befriending "disbelievers" is the permanent word of Allah, the only God, hasn't and will never be altered or modified and should not be equated with other religious texts have been altered and distorted.
"Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers." -- Quran 3:28; Sahih International translation.
In an egocentric and deceptive spirit, the "Observatory of Islamophobia," which is affiliated with the Egyptian Dar al-Iftaa (an institution run by al-Azhar scholars and is responsible for issuing fatwas [religious opinions]) denounced the manifesto as hateful and Islamophobic, and claimed it that causes attacks and antagonism against Muslims. The statement deliberately ignores that, according to the manifesto:
"French Jews are 25 times more likely to be attacked than their fellow Muslims. 10% of the Jewish citizens of Ile-de-France -- that is to say about 50,000 people -- were recently forced to move because they were no longer safe in some cities and because their children could not attend public schools anymore."
We will never be able to understand Islamist violence in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world if political and religious leaders -- including al-Azhar and Pope Francis -- insist on saying that Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam. Saying that "Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam" does not make it so. Like or not, it does.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, remarked in a November 2016 lecture at the Catholic Institute of Paris, "If we treat religiously-motivated violence solely as a security issue or a political issue, then it will be incredibly difficult -- probably impossible -- to overcome it." The archbishop also insisted that, "Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution."
A. Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 4, 2018

Britain Loses Its Moral Compass To Islam

Tommy Robinson’s Arrest Points to Britain’s National Suicide


Dear Thomas,
Over the weekend I wrote an article about the battle for free speech in Europe, specifically England. Tommy Robinson's recent arrest for filming a video exposing radical Islamists outside the courthouse is the latest egregious example of the continued degradation of the continent and its traditionally western freedoms. But people are speaking out about what happened to Tommy, and I encourage everyone to sign this petition in support of his right to free speech by clicking here. 
Remember, political correctness is not only foolish — it's also dangerous. And we as Americans best do everything we can to destroy it before it destroys us — the way it has our European allies. My entire article is posted below.
Thank you for all you are doing in the fight against leftist political correctness. Working together we will make a difference.


Tommy Robinson’s Arrest Points to Britain’s National Suicide

Freedom of speech has too few defenders in England when Islamic terrorism cannot be explained, critiqued, or shown for what it is

by Brigitte Gabriel | Updated 02 Jun 2018 at 9:54 PM
When anti-Islamist Tommy Robinson was arrested recently in Britain, it was the direct result of cultural suicide and a rejection of western Judeo-Christian values — in place of political correctness and Islamic appeasement.
Along with its European allies, Britain has chosen submission over strength and tyranny over truth. The result has been the self-destruction of one of the greatest nations in the world.
For the high crime of streaming a Facebook Live video and covering an alleged Muslim rape gang entering a courtroom for trial, Robinson was arrested and detained by British police. In tyrannical fashion, the specific details of Robinson’s sentence remain hidden since a judge placed a gag order on the case, preventing reporters from covering it.
Think of it: A country finds merely filming an alleged child-grooming rape gang so offensive that it must jail those who do so.
Britain has placed more emphasis on silencing opponents of Islamism and unfettered immigration than it has on preventing Islamic terrorism, or the heinous crimes committed by Islamist gangs, such as the one Robinson was committed to exposing.
Robinson was surrounded by more than a half-dozen police officers — who placed him under arrest for what they called "breach of peace." Really? Since when is using Facebook Live considered a "breach of peace"? Since the Islamism of Europe, apparently. This is what the radical Left and the Islamists they appease have so much in common with, their self-entitled desire to silence everyone they oppose.
Freedom of speech has come under relentless attack by the Islamist-leftist coalition in recent years, which seeks to bully and intimidate critics of open borders and Sharia law into submission. Once this anti-western coalition realized that screaming "Islamophobia" wasn't enough, they turned to more fascistic measures, such as speech codes.
In many ways, Robinson's arrest is merely an amplified extension of the "safe space" epidemic plaguing college campuses across America today. So-called hate speech has served as justification for shutting down open discourse and the free exchange of ideas, a fundamental pillar of western Judeo-Christian civilization, much like that of pre-Islamist Britain.
Britain has given the world some of the greatest advancements and cultural treasures as a result of the very values it is now rejecting. We're talking about a country — one which gave the world the Magna Carta, William Shakespeare, John Locke, and, with the United States, the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny — turning around and jailing its own citizens for speaking freely.
Robinson's political views are irrelevant to his arrest. Contrary to how the radical Left portrays him, Robinson is not a terrorist. His views are considered controversial but are hardly a matter of national security. More importantly, the simple act for which he was arrested — filming in public — in no way warranted such a tyrannical response.
Meanwhile, according to government reports, British imam and ISIS supporter Anjem Choudary is scheduled to be released from prison in the next few months. Choudary openly pledged allegiance to ISIS and is the leader of the Islamist extremist group al-Muhajiroun.
He was imprisoned and sentenced to five and a half years in jail in 2016 after encouraging Muslims worldwide, including those in Britain, to join ISIS. Authorities believe one of Choudary's followers helped plan the 2017 London Bridge attack, in which an Islamic terrorist used a vehicle to mow down and kill 11 innocent civilians.
Though official government statements warn about the ongoing threat of Islamic extremism and terrorist acts, Choudary is scheduled to walk free by October. So, while Robinson could presumably be sitting behind bars, Britain will have a non-remorseful terrorist walking the streets of London with a smile on his face and a skip in his step.
Is this what over a million British soldiers gave their lives for while defending their Island through two world wars? To die defending their home against tyranny, only to have it choose to implement tyranny against its own people?
Bullets and bombs are deadly, but they were never enough to defeat the heart and wherewithal of the United Kingdom. Rather, it is leftist lies that are destroying Britain. Lies that say all cultures are equal, borders are irrelevant, Islamist values are consistent with western values, and that free speech does not include what some deem to be hate speech.
The arrest of Tommy Robinson and the coming release of Anjem Choudary are symptoms of a crumbling society — and should serve as a stark warning for all Americans of what can happen when a nation forgets who it is and for what it stands.
Political correctness is not only foolish — it's also dangerous. And we as Americans best do everything we can to destroy it before it destroys us — the way it has our European allies.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Freedom Of Speech Disappears In Germany.

Germany: Full Censorship Now Official

Courts Rewrite History

by 
  • Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU.
  • When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state's private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?
  • Perhaps fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?
A new German law introducing state censorship on social media platforms came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether or the content is accurate or not. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.
This state censorship makes free speech subject to the arbitrary decisions of corporate entities that are likely to censor more than absolutely necessary, rather than risk a crushing fine. When employees of social media companies are appointed as the state's private thought police and given the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who shall be allowed to speak and what to say, and who shall be shut down, free speech becomes nothing more than a fairy tale. Or is that perhaps the point?
Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently sentenced a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.

A German court recently sentenced journalist Michael Stürzenberger (pictured) to six months in jail for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a Nazi official in Berlin, in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. (Image Source: PI News video screenshot)

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working "relatively" well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was "hateful" between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.
While purportedly concerned about online "hate speech," one EU organization, the EU Parliament, had no qualms about letting its premises be used to host a convicted Arab terrorist, Leila Khaled, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at a conference about "The Role of Women in the Palestinian Popular Struggle" in September. (The EU, the US, Canada, and Australia, have all designated the PFLP a terrorist organization). The conference was organized by, among others, the Spanish delegation of Izquierda Unida (United Left) as part of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left bloc in the European Parliament.
In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May also said that she will tell internet firms to tackle extremist content:
"Industry needs to go further and faster in automating the detection and removal of terrorist content online... ultimately it is not just the terrorists themselves who we need to defeat. It is the extremist ideologies that fuel them. It is the ideologies that preach hatred, sow division and undermine our common humanity. We must be far more robust in identifying these ideologies and defeating them -- across all parts of our societies."
Prime Minister May keeps insisting that "these ideologies" are spread "across all parts of our societies" when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban's head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the "Palestine Expo" a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are "agents of Satan". Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports -- accurately -- is "Islamophobic".
The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also recently stated that online "hate crimes" will be prosecuted "with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending". The decision to treat online offenses in the same way as offline offenses is expected to increase hate crime prosecutions, already at the highest recorded level ever. Prosecutors completed 15,442 hate crime cases in 2015-16.
Jews in Britain, who have experienced a dramatic increase in anti-Semitism over the past three years, are frequently on the receiving end of hate crimes. Nevertheless, their cases constitute less than a fraction of the statistics. In 2016/17, the CPS prosecuted 14,480 hate crimes. According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism:
"we have yet to see a single year in which more than a couple of dozen anti-Semitic hate crimes were prosecuted. So far in 2017, we are aware of... 21 prosecutions, in 2016 there were 20, and in 2015 there were just 12. So serious are the failures by the CPS to take action that we have had to privately prosecute alleged anti-Semites ourselves and challenge the CPS through judicial review, the first of which we won in March. Last year only 1.9% of hate crime against Jews was prosecuted, signaling to police forces that their effort in investigating hate crimes against Jews might be wasted, and sending the strong message to anti-Semites that they need not fear the law... Each year since 2014 has been a record-breaking year for anti-Semitic crime: between 2014 and 2016, anti-Semitic crime surged by 45%".
Almost one in three British Jews have apparently considered leaving Britain due to anti-Semitism in the past two years.
British authorities seem far more concerned with "Islamophobia" than with the increase in hate crimes against Jews. In fact, the police has teamed up with Transport for London authorities to encourage people to report hate crimes during "National Hate Crime Awareness Week", which runs from October 14-21. Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police will hold more than 200 community events to "reassure communities that London's public transport system is safe for everyone". The events are specifically targeted at Muslims; officers have visited the East London Mosque to encourage reporting hate crimes.
Last year, London mayor Sadiq Khan's Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) announced it was spending £1,730,726 of taxpayer money policing speech online after applying for a grant from the Home Office. Meanwhile, Khan said that he does not have the funds to monitor the 200 jihadists estimated to be in London, out of the 400 jihadists who have so far returned to the capital from Syria and Iraq. (He also implicitly admitted that he does not know the whereabouts of the jihadists who have returned). When asked by the journalist Piers Morgan why the mayor could not have them monitored, Khan answered:
"Because the Met Police budget, roughly speaking, 15 percent, 20 percent is funded by me, the mayor. The rest comes from central government. If the Met Police is being shrunk and reduced, they've got to prioritize and use their resources in a sensible, savvy way."
When Morgan asked what could possibly be a bigger priority than, "people coming back from a Syrian battlefield with intent to harm British citizens", Khan did not answer. Perhaps because it is hard to admit in public that fighting "Islamophobia" is now a higher priority than fighting terrorism?
Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Is Political Correctness Being Exposed For The Lie It Is?

Common Sense on Campus

by 
  • As the Hirsi Ali case demonstrated, many serious-minded people simply could not distinguish between genuine, often racist, hatred for Muslims and informed criticism of Islam as an ideology.
  • "[I]n relation to Ms Allman, I am confident [law student Robbie Travers's] actions were in response to her comments and her position, and unrelated to her race." — Catriona Elder, University of Edinburgh.
  • Let us hope that this will be the first of many more recognitions that it is improper, not least in a university setting, for one side to silence the other, especially by deceitful means.
When Esme Allman, a second-year law student at Edinburgh University, issued a maliciously-worded complaint to the university authorities concerning Robbie Travers on September 6, she must have been confident that her status as a black female politically correct activist would guarantee a listening ear. Her complaint (see below) was constructed in such a way that it seemed Mr Travers would find no way out of the predicament in which she had placed him. Had the university acted on her charges, there is little doubt that Travers's university career and future prospects would be damaged beyond repair. That certainly seems to have been her intent. The story was widely reported in the British press and here on Gatestone, for whom Travers had written. Her specific claim -- that Travers's calling Islamic State fighters "barbarians" and mocking their aspiration to marry 72 virgins in heaven should they die as martyrs in battle was racist and Islamophobic -- did not go down with members of the British public, who were only too aware of the multiple barbarities committed by IS terrorists abroad and in Europe, including in the UK.

Robbie Travers, falsely accused of "Islamophobia" for calling ISIS terrorists "barbarians." (Photo: Robbie Travers/Instagram)

However, even if this charge did seem no more than silly, her full complaint could not, on the face of it, be so readily dismissed. Here is the complaint as it was sent to Travers:
I am submitting a complaint about Robbie Travers due to his targeting of minority students and student spaces at the University of Edinburgh. While I have not met him personally, given my matriculation at the University of Edinburgh, my membership of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) liberation group [Liberation from what? Question by MacEoin] at the university, and how I identify personally, I take issue with this clear and persistent denigration and disparagement of protected characteristics and blatant Islamophobia.
While this has gone on for years as evidenced by his Facebook Page, his direct and unfair targeting of this year's outgoing BME convenor Esme Allman was irresponsible and dangerous. On Sunday, 14/05/17, Travers published a decontextualized quote by Allman from a privileged conversation generated by minority students in a safe space [If the conversation was public, how is it "privileged"? Question by MacEoin] he is neither subscribed to nor a member of without her consent. In this intentional effort to 'ruin her career', Travers disclosed Allman's full name, her position at the university, and (implicitly) the university she attends and the city she lives in to his 17,000+ followers some of whom have evidenced either in the past or within the comments of the status, aggression and discussed sensitive information regarding Allman's sexuality and identity.
Since then, Travers has stated that he intends to continue this inappropriate and irresponsible behaviour by advising that this is "phase 1," and he has many other "stings" planned.
In this 2016/2017 school year alone, Robbie Travers has consistently mocked, disparaged, and incited hatred against religious groups and protected characteristics on numerous occasions.
Not only do I believe this behaviour to be in breach of the student code of conduct, but his decision to target the BME liberation group at the University of Edinburgh, and how he has chosen to do so, puts minority students at risk and in a state of panic and fear while attending the University of Edinburgh.
His continual public disregard for other identities leaves me concerned for my safety and privacy as well as the safety of other students at the University of Edinburgh, given his willingness to remove statements from context and presenting them to a massive online audience, and the uninhibited and in some instances aggressive response of strangers to his statements.
This person has gone unchecked throughout their time at this university in their constant barrage against minority identities and religious groups and attacks of BME and other minority students on campus. There is ample evidence of his willingness and ability to incite hatred against students who belong to various identities at the University of Edinburgh. In lying about anti-Semitism, racism, and radicalisation among BME students, and subjecting students to his online following, Robbie Travers has put minority students, liberation group representatives, and the safe spaces they create and maintain at the University of Edinburgh at risk of harm, physical or otherwise.
Over the past two decades, many universities in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe have shown themselves to be supine when faced with disruptive, hate-filled, and at times violent behavior on the part of students and student groups that agitate on issues concerning racism, homophobia, or, above all else, efforts to demonize Israel to get it excised by the international community. From time to time student activists have been exerting pressure on university and college administrations to deny a platform to people with whose views they disagree.
In 2014, for instance, a heroic Somali-born best-selling author, former member of Parliament in the Netherlands, and womens' rights activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, respected for her campaign against female genital mutilation and forced marriage, as a victim of both -- was blocked from visiting Brandeis University, where she had been invited to receive an honorary degree and deliver a commencement address. Students who disliked her criticisms of Islam (a religion which she had abandoned and about which she has serious human rights concerns) delivered a petition that called for her to be silenced.

Somali-born best-selling author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was blocked from delivering the 2014 commencement address at Brandeis, or from receiving an honorary degree, due to her criticism of Islam. (Photo by Elisabetta Villa/Getty Images)

George Leef, writing for Forbes magazine summed it up:
The pressure of an online petition with over 6,000 names was too much for Brandeis to bear. On April 8, the university released a statement announcing its cancellation of the honorary degree. In it, Brandeis said that although Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a "compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights" it could not grant the honorary degree because some of her statements "are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."
Encouraging a clash of different opinions, however, is the most central value of any university, and without it such an institution would cease to be worthy of the name. Despite that, student bullies continue to rant and make demands that only serve to destroy the reputations of the schools they attend. Administrators cave in, speakers are banned, and students across the board who disagree with what is regarded by some as the latest politically correct dogma are attacked, scorned, bombarded with threats, and sometimes death threats.
Why do administrators cave in so easily? It pays to take a step back. From the 1960s onwards, university heads learned to take positive action on genuine issues that arose on campus as part of wider social change. It was considered noble to act against racism, to support women's rights, to end discrimination against gay students, and to ensure that members of minority groups (Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, gays and so on) were protected and respected. Important steps were taken to end discrimination. Import codes of ethics were created, often in line with state or national legislation. It became difficult for college officials to appear to be weak when confronted by charges of racism, homophobia, and -- a new and ill-defined concept -- "Islamophobia". As the Hirsi Ali case demonstrated, many serious-minded people simply could not distinguish between genuine, often racist, hatred for Muslims and informed criticism of Islam as an ideology.
It was (and still generally is) only when things got out of hand that administrations stood up against angry narrow-minded students and faculty. Anti-Israel movements have been among the most unjust and prevalent. The best summary of the many incidents over the years can be read here. In addition to criticizing the only democracy in the Middle East that actually protects equality under law and the human rights of all its citizens, the most notable aspect of this assault is the extent to which genuinely anti-Semitic words and behavior have been allowed to pass with a lack of constraint tantamount to complicity.
It is only when things escalate to the point where protesters have to be dragged out by security guards or the police have to be called that administrators wake up to the fact that more is involved than polite disagreement. There are, however, small signs that some administrators are waking up to the wider issues. That was demonstrated recently when UC Irvine acted to clamp down heavily on its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), sanctioning it with "disciplinary probation" for two academic years after its use of extreme disruption at events organized by Students Supporting Israel. Positive though that this is, Edward Kunz has said:
"While the disciplinary probation at UCI will send a message that SJP's disruptive and uncivil activities will not be tolerated, it demonstrates a troubling trend of administrators refusing to take strong action against students violating their own policies until pushed to do so."
Which thought brings us to the extremely good news that officials at Edinburgh University have acted against that trend in a manner that gives cause for celebration. It took only days for two officials there, Catriona Elder and Gavin Douglas, to investigate the charges laid against Robbie Travers by Esme Allman. By the time they had finished, they dismissed the charges and wrote to Travers in clear and balanced terms giving their reasons for that dismissal. It may have been tempting for them to sanction Travers in order to avoid further protests from Allman and her supporters, but the investigators declined to do that in the interests of justice and the values of the university.
Here is the letter sent by Elder to Travers:
Dear Mr Travers,
I have now completed my investigation into allegations of misconduct that have been made against you under the Code of Student Conduct.
I have investigated potential breaches of the Code of Student Conduct, with specific reference to the following possible misconduct offences:
Complaint 1
12.3 Violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behavior or language (whether expressed orally, in writing or electronically) including harassment of any Person whilst engaged in any University work, study or activity;
12.4 Conduct which unjustifiably infringes freedom of thought or expression whilst on University premises or engaged in University work, study or activity;
12.7 Harassing, victimizing, or discriminating against any Person on grounds of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage or civil partnership, colour or socio-economic background.
Complaint 2
12.3 Violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behavior or language (whether expressed orally, in writing or electronically) including harassment of any Person whilst engaged in any University work, study or activity;
12.7 Harassing, victimizing, or discriminating against any Person on grounds of age, disability, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage oir civil partnership, colour or socio-economic background.
My decision, following the investigation, is to:
44a. Dismiss the allegations of misconduct. In relation to both complaints, I found that the evidence presented did not support a finding that the code of Student Conduct had been breached.
Backing this up, one of the investigators provided further details as to the factors that led them to dismiss the allegations. It has been received in a private communication to this author.
In the course of my investigation, I have not seen any evidence that Mr Travers targeted Ms Allman or any other individual on the basis of their race or another protected characteristic as detailed in section 12.7. Mr Travers told me he planned to "expose" the BMELG in a series of posts, and described it elsewhere as a "sting". There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Travers planned to target the group before he became aware of the comments made by Ms Allman, or that he would have acted very differently had it been a different Students' Association group concerned. While I have seen rather controversial comments with the potential to cause offence made by Mr Travers on his Facebook page, I have also seen some evidence of Mr Travers actively disagreeing with others who have expressed racist or xenophobic comments in response to Mr Travers' (sic) posts. Mr Travers expresses frequent provocative opinions on Islam, however it is usually clear where he delineates between commentary on Islam, and more specifically political Islam, and condemnation of Islamic fundamentalism. I do not therefore believe that Mr Travers' online activity jeopardises the safety of Edinburgh University students. I have seen no evidence of individuals or groups being targeted based on their protected characteristics, and in relation to Ms Allman, I am confident his actions were in response to her comments and her position, and unrelated to her race. I find therefore that there has been no breach of section 12.7.
Let us breathe sighs of relief that, at least on this occasion, a vindictive accusation has been relegated to the obscurity in which it belongs. And let us hope that this will be the first of many more recognitions that it is improper, not least in a university setting, for one side to silence the other, especially by deceitful means.
Dr. Denis MacEoin took his second degree (in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History) from Edinburgh University in 1975 and has spent many years since then researching and writing on Islamic topics. He writes as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)