Banning Hate Preachers Will Not Eradicate University Campus Extremism

Islamist Extremism University Campus Britain 1


Prohibiting extremist preachers from speaking on university campuses will not stop the radicalisation of impressionable young minds – and the ongoing coalition row between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats shows the Tories at their authoritarian worst.

“Should these men be allowed in UK universities?” frets The Times of London, in a report which begins:

Radical and intolerant Islamist leaders preached to crowds of students at almost 200 official events in the past year, according to a study of external speakers at universities including Cambridge, Birmingham and University College London.

Segregated seating for male and female students is understood to have been implemented for at least a quarter of those public meetings held by the Islamic societies at 21 universities.

The issue of university campus extremism has been brought into sharp relief since it emerged that Mohammed Emwazi, or “Jihadi John”, may have been radicalised while studying at Westminster University in London. This revelation has led to renewed scrutiny of various Muslim student organisations, their invited speakers and their practices (such as segregated seating in some instances). And this scrutiny is often welcome.

But the government goes too far when it seeks to make universities responsible for enforcing the censorship of ideas deemed “extremist”, as the BBC reports:

Universities should be removed from a list of institutions required by planned terror laws to crack down on extremism, MPs have said.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said plans to require universities to stop people being drawn into terrorism would stifle academic freedom.

The committee also said the government plans were full of legal uncertainties.

UK universities said there needed to be a suitable balance between freedom of expression and preventing terrorism.

The context of this whole story is the increasingly blurred definition of the word “extremism”, which is now also being conflated with the milder term intolerance (see the Times article). It is bad enough that under the government’s proposals an idea could be deemed “extremist” and purged from university campuses when there is no direct incitement to violence, for none of us have the right to live in a country where our values and deepest held sensibilities go unchallenged.

But if the government now wishes to include “intolerant” speakers on their list of provocateurs approved for censorship, then we are in real trouble. The Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies in particular may suddenly find themselves with very empty schedules for the remainder of the academic year. But worse than this, the government would be doing the work of activist Students Unions and pampered millennials for them. There is already a disturbing effort underway in many universities to purge speakers and ideas that fall outside the narrow boundaries of approved thinking, primarily on social issues, and the last thing that believers in free speech and free enquiry needs is for the government to side with the tinpot censors.

Besides, universities are nothing if not places for the pursuit of knowledge and the robust discussion of ideas. So what better crucible could there be in which to expose, challenge and defeat the primitive, medieval anti-enlightenment dogmas of extremist Islam (and extremist fundamentalism of any form) than Britain’s great institutions of higher education?

Let the crazy preachers come, with their bellies full of hate and their desperate yearning for death. Those who would be swayed by Islamist extremist arguments will seek them out one way or another, in the age of YouTube. But at least in a university bad ideas can be challenged, speakers can be heckled and offensive statements can be protested. There may be no such counterbalancing opinion expressed at the Mosque, or the illicit online conversations between the extremist recruiters and their impressionable targets.

And if the extremist speakers abuse their right to free speech and openly incite violence, so much the better – they will have put themselves in clear breach of the law, at which point action can be taken against them. But so long as they restrict themselves to promoting their backward ideology, let them babble away to whoever will listen. And then respond with the one thing that acts as kryptonite to fundamentalist dogma – the power of reason.

Those who seek to ban speech which is contrary to British or western values have too little faith in those values they seek to protect – the inherent goodness of democracy, equality, pluralism and tolerance speak for themselves, and if any young Muslim students remain unconvinced of this then banning extremist speakers will not go anywhere near fixing the underlying problem.

Ultimately, speakers with “extreme” views are at their most dangerous only when they can legitimately claim that they are being hounded and persecuted by those in authority. Sit back and give them a free platform to spew their garbage while giving others the right to rebuttal, on the other hand, and they turn almost instantly from martyrs to idiots.

Fortunately for Britain, the Liberal Democrats were on hand to block this latest attempt at campus censorship – though the Telegraph leaves no ambiguity over which side they are on:

Nick Clegg has blocked tough new laws intended to stop extremist speakers brainwashing university students for terrorism, raising fears that Britain will be left more vulnerable to attack.

The Deputy Prime Minister personally vetoed the plan during private talks with David Cameron, after one of the worst Cabinet rows in the Coalition’s five-year rule.

Mr Clegg said he could not support moves to require university bosses to vet visiting speakers and prevent impressionable students from falling under the spell of extremists – because Liberal Democrats feared the move would erode “free speech”.

No doubt the likes of Theresa May will now seek to make political capital from the thwarting of their plans by painting Nick Clegg’s party as “aiding the terrorists”. But maybe the other wing of the Conservative party will yet see sense, and rediscover their faith in the enduring power of British values.

It seems that this government is willing to do almost anything and pursue any line of enquiry rather than stop and have a sensible discussion about the causes of Islamist extremism and the radicalisation of increasing numbers of young Muslims. And blog has long argued that politicians are negligent in their duties when they fail to face these problems.

Banning hate preachers from British universities will not constitute even a small step toward reducing the threat of terrorism. Those who say otherwise are grievously underestimating both the nature and scale of the problem we face.

6 thoughts on “Banning Hate Preachers Will Not Eradicate University Campus Extremism

  1. londonbridgesharon March 15, 2015 / 2:35 PM

    Loving your sensible arguments as always – however it seems you are sitting up all night writing – this was published at about 4.30 in the morning! Hope you are getting enough sleep as well! Well done again Sam, great stuff, well thought out and well argued – as usual! Sharon x

    Liked by 1 person

    • Samuel Hooper March 17, 2015 / 12:51 PM

      Thanks Sharon as always for the kind words, and for your recent message. It would be great to meet up soon to compare notes and see how you have been getting on now it has been nearly a year since the Big Issue Online Journalism course!

      I continue to read your blog regularly and enjoy it very much, especially watching your biography gradually unfolding on the “About” pages.


  2. patricknelson750 March 15, 2015 / 7:16 AM

    As for the “hate preachers” there are indeed such people, but many of the people who have been accused of being “hate preachers” are victims of their words being selectively quoted out of context or in some cases the victims of inaccurate translation.

    At the same time many real hate preachers such as the highly dubious Anjem Choudhary and his evil mentor Omar Bakri Muhammad strangely managed to act with impunity for many years and were constantly given airtime by the media despite their having almost no following amongst the Muslim community.


  3. patricknelson750 March 15, 2015 / 7:04 AM

    You hit the nail on the head when you mention the “increasingly blurred definition of the word “extremism”, which is now also being conflated with the milder term intolerance”.

    The government has made the definition of extremism so broad as to catch not only Muslim extremists but also conservative (small c) Muslims, Christians and Jews who in any way deviate from the ultra-liberal social values that have replaced more traditional British values (in a process that began quite gently in the 1960s but ended up with old people people questioned and terrified by the police for quoting ideas from the Bible that are no longer considered acceptable).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Samuel Hooper March 17, 2015 / 1:01 PM

      You’re right that there is a very real danger here. On one side, the definition of extremism has been blurred and conflated with intolerance to the point of being meaningless, and on the other side the rise of identity politics means that a growing number of people have come to view any honest political or social disagreement as a direct attack on themselves.

      In this murky world that we have created for ourselves, often through well-meaning intentions, we have given too much power to the mini despots and authoritarian liberals who want to police the political discourse and purge any viewpoints that they find offensive or threatening.

      It is difficult to see the situation improving unless we reclaim a much more unabridged right to free speech in Britain, along the lines of the US First Amendment. And for this, we would need some kind of constitutional convention for the UK – though the danger now is that we have been swimming for so long in the stagnant, debate-suppressing pool of enforced political correctness and left wing shibboleths that the British people might not seize the right to free speech even if it was offered.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.