Coffee House

Islamist extremists shouldn’t be allowed to preach hate at British universities

29 April 2014

29 April 2014

More evidence has emerged that Islamic Societies at universities are continuing to host extremist preachers in front of segregated audiences. Last month, students at the University of Westminster invited Murtaza Khan, before replacing him with the equally reprehensible Uthman Lateef. At around the same time, Brunel University Islamic Society hosted Lateef and Dr Khalid Fikry as guest speakers.

Other university Islamic societies including Nottingham, Salford, Kingston, SOAS and Queen Mary have also hosted hardline preachers, despite concern that their sermons stir up sectarian hatred and sow social division.

The most recent instance was the University of East London (UEL), where the Islamic Society secured permission to hold its Annual Dinner on 17 April in the main lecture theatre of the Docklands campus. Two notorious Islamist advocates, Murtaza Khan and Uthman Lateef, were due to speak, and the event was advertised as ‘segregated’. Men and women who wanted to attend had to book tickets via two separate phone lines – one for ‘brothers’, and the other for ‘sisters’.

Counter-extremism group Student Rights pointed out that this could contravene the university’s own equality policies – and it could be against equality law for a public body, funded by the state, to facilitate gender segregation.

Subscribe from £1 per week


Uthman Lateef has stirred hostility towards non-Muslims and gay people, and denounced democracy and social integration. He has repeatedly referred to non-Muslims using the insulting word ‘kuffars’.

He has also condemned secular Islam, attempts to reconcile Islam with democracy and warned against Muslims integrating into British society. He told an audience at the East London Mosque in 2009:

‘If we are teaching the way of life of the disbelievers, of the kuffar, Allah will bring humiliation on us’ and that Muslims should not be misled by those advocating Islamic modernisation, such as ‘democratic Islam’.

Murtaza Khan has declared that homosexuality is ‘abominable’ and that it should be punished with death. He also endorses brutal punishments for sex outside of marriage, including flogging 100 times for unmarried persons and stoning to death for those who are married. He has denounced non-Muslims – especially Jews and Christians – as ‘enemies’ of Islam.

The Peter Tatchell Foundation lobbied staff, students and the UEL Vice-Chancellor, to block the Islamic Society event on the grounds that it was segregated and the speakers had a history of stirring hatred and discrimination. We argued that although the event was deplorable, the Islamic Society was entitled to hold such an event in a free society on its own premises or a privately hired venue – but not in a publicly-funded institution committed to equal treatment, social cohesion and good community relations.

We also stressed that we would take the same view towards a similar event organised by the British National Party (BNP). If they were inciting anti-Muslim hatred, or requiring Muslims to sit separately from non-Muslims, we’d want the university to deny the BNP a meeting space on campus. Just as there should be no toleration of anti-Muslim bigotry, there should be no toleration of bigotry espoused by Muslim extremists.

The UEL authorities said they were unaware of the hate and segregation issues when they accepted the Islamic Society booking. But once we drew these matters to their attention, they agreed the Islamic Society should not be permitted to meet on campus premises if its events featured hate preachers and gender segregation.

A good result. But why are other universities – supposedly places of enlightenment and liberal values – hosting Islamist preachers whose ideology is often more extreme than that of the far right BNP, which is banned from most campuses? Why the double standards when it comes to far right Islamists? Isn’t it ironic that some of the most vocal student radicalism today is not from left-wing activists, as in the 1960s and 70s, but bigoted religious fanatics?

Peter Tatchell is the Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • Evil Liberal

    F@ck these nutters.

  • Serafim Oliveira

    Anjem Choudary was the man who influenced Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, the killer of US journalist James Foley. The killer who beheaded James Foley was a British Muslim Hip hop jihadist’ who left £1m London home to fight in Syria. He was influenced by Anjem Choudary.

  • mollysdad

    When Uthman Lateef stops calling me a kaffir, I’ll stop calling him a camel piss drinker.

  • Kasperlos

    The Ages of Reason and Enlightenment, the Renaissance, indeed the very foundation of what is known as the Western Tradition is dying with an accelerating speed. It’s not about design, architecture, technology, but the minds and hearts of the Western peoples. It is supplanted by the life eliminating ideologies ushered in by the the global elites and their cheerleaders and handmaidens in academia, government and business. Hardly anyone or any media organ dares asks basic questions. To wit: how did this come about, how was it ushered in and for what purpose? Why was such an alien and contra, reactionary religion permitted to take firm root in the West, in its higher academic institutions? Have the Maoist Cultural Revolution-like cadres and acolytes in the state and private liberal academic field been so successful as to indoctrinate their pliable students that they should be ashamed of and reject the Western Tradition. I fear so, so much so that the very words ‘revisionist history’ is now the fashion that has unleashed a strange and unfriendly new order now upon us. Civilisation being thin, time has about run out.

  • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

    The Brits ignore Islamic hate speech and then are shocked when a Lee Rigby is brutally murdered by two Muslims in broad daylight.
    Obviously Muslims in the UK are paying attention to what these imams are preaching, even if the Brits have been oblivious to it.

    • cartimandua

      It isn’t just “Islamic” as there are also Christian literalists ready to burn those witches.
      They are actually having input into laws in the USA.

      • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

        Burring witches?
        In what century do you live in?
        And to compare contemporary Christians to Islamic cultural jihadis
        is, to paraphrase lawyer Dan Abrams, one of the worst types of “moral relativism”.

        • cartimandua

          Fundamentalist Christians with the Catholic” life from conception” rubbish negatively affect the healthcare of every fertile woman wherever they have sway.

          Have you come across Ireland? It says out loud “women’s health doesn’t matter”. In the USA pregnant child rape victims or women with life threatening pregnancies are obliged to carry on because the “Christians” have said so.

          In some States anti abortion laws are so stupid and draconian Doctors have said they cannot practice safe medicine.

          There is no difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism but hypocrisy.

          “Christians” in Africa are busy killing Muslims in CAR .

          And then there is this

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

          “Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

          The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. “In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul’s memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors,”

          • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

            This may come as a surprise to you but the Old Testament is actually Jewish.

            And Muslims who perform FGM on their daughters “negatively affect the healthcare of every fertile woman wherever they have sway,” even in the U.K.

            Just ask Hirsi Ali.

            And as for Central African Republic:

            “The conflict in CAR began in November 2012 when the militant Islamists of Seleka launched an uprising against the country’s Christian majority. Within months, anti-balaka militias were formed in response to the looting, raping and murders by Seleka Islamists after they seized control of the country in March 2013. Since then, anti-balaka militias have launched retaliatory attacks and massacres that mostly targeted Muslims.

            “While many of the anti-balaka claim to be Christian, they are so only in a nominal sense: many are ethnic Christians who, although they attend church, practice traditional African animism. But that didn’t stop the media from reporting the conflict in CAR as a Christian versus Muslim sectarian war.

            “Churches in CAR have repeatedly distanced themselves from the anti-balaka by calling on true Christians to pursue peace, reconciliation and healing …”

            http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/178515-sectarian-violence-continues-in-car/

            • cartimandua

              Patronizing git of course I know the OT is Jewish but it is used by “Christians” to justify all kinds of horrors.
              In the USA many anti woman laws have been passed based on “Christian” (well Catholic) beliefs. The latest is in Tennessee they have made it possible for women to be prosecuted for miscarriages and stillbirths.
              Since the science is not available no woman could ever prove she was innocent.

              • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

                Not only do you practice “moral relativism,” it seems everything else is “relative” to you as well: you can’t tell the Old Testament from the New, Christian from Jew, or Catholic from Christian.
                And now, like a bad bar tender, you’re mixing a cocktail of legal and scientific laws, or can’t you see the difference there either?

              • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

                Not only do you practice “moral relativism,” it seems everything else is “relative” to you as well: you can’t tell the Old Testament from the New, Christian from Jew, or Catholic from Christian.
                And now, like a bad bar tender, you’re mixing a cocktail of legal and scientific laws, or can’t you see the difference there either?

              • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

                You “know” the OT is Jewish, but you will still quote it to disparage believers from another Testament entirely.
                Are you going to blame Christians for the “sword verses” of the Quran as well?

              • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

                And how do Christians use Jewish scriptures to justify themselves?

              • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

                How do Christians use Jewish scripture to justify their actions under the New Testament?

  • ADB2

    “hosting Islamist preachers whose ideology is often more extreme than that of the far right BNP…”

    If enough people had listened to the BNP, there wouldn’t be any Muslim extremism in the UK. Instead, white liberals are beginning to panic as the chickens of their multicultural ideology come home to roost.

  • David

    Personally I’m not against blocking anything or anyone (so we can see them to be the vile creatures that they are, if they are), but I am really worried that there seems to be one standard for Islamists and another for everyone else as far as ‘hate speech’ is concerned. Only yesterday, that guy from LibertyGB (?) – a candidate at the forthcoming elections – was arrested for ‘racially aggravated behaviour’ (or suchlike) for quoting Churchill in a public place. Yet we have no end of Islamists saying loathsome things about gays, women, British culture, etc., and the Police don’t dare to touch them. What is going on? We need equality under the law.

  • monkey for sale

    Gays and women have more to fear from Islam than most. It’s high time we heard more from gays, women and so-called liberals.

    • cartimandua

      It depends on how frit politicians and media are.

    • Lamia

      Gays and women generally don’t resort to threats of or actual violence to get their way. Hence politicians, police and the Crown Prosecution Service don’t give a damn. Nor do the supposed progressive left.

      That is why Peter Tatchell has to write this in the Spectator – the New Statesman and Guardian consider it Islamophobic to criticise those Muslims who advocate beating women and killing gay people.

  • Bonkim

    Private meetings – one supposes will not be attended by the public.

  • cartimandua

    The problem is Muslims are “pre loaded” to react to Islamist hate preachers by rote learning and a culture which is almost universally abusive to women and children.
    They are triggered by an emotional experience in those “speeches” into actual action.
    There is a book by Nancy Kobrin called the banality of suicide terrorism.
    It isn’t strange or something we cannot understand. Abuse produces very damaged children. Women are abused in Muslim cultures. Children are not allowed to separate from a very devalued and denigrated parent. Honour her as Mother yet despise her as a woman is the impossible instruction.

  • MikeF

    “stirring hatred” – what on earth does that mean? People like Mr Tatchell fail to see that the language they use is part of the problem. What should be illegal is direct incitement to violence not expression of opinion or belief however ugly or unpleasant. Simply because Islamic extremism is in this instance the target of this deliberately imprecise form of denunciation does not vindicate it – it is still intended to destroy free speeech by making people afraid to say what they think in case they be accused of some sort of ‘hate crime’.
    When Mr Tatchell makes a clear stand in favour of freedom of speech and recognises that concepts like ‘hate speech’ are utterly incompatible with it then he might have some credibility. The same is true for his use of that formulaic left-wing imprecation ‘bigoted’ – a word now leached of all useful meaning which has instead become little more than a secular curseword intended to intimidate into silence those against whom it is aimed.
    But then the left is now in any case increasingly a cult of irrationalism – indeed arguably the most fundamental aspect of today’s political landscape is that the left has entirely severed its links with anything that could reasonably be described as enlightenment thinking. We are instead in the age of voodoo socialism and increasingly, sometimes even more so, voodoo liberalism.
    When Mr Tatchell recognises this he might have some credibility. Until then articles like demonstrate not principle but panic at the inevitable consequences of policies of which he has been an architect.

    • cartimandua

      What an “expression of belief” that so and so groups are subhuman or deserve punishment?

    • JimmyUK123

      Murtaza Khan and Uthman Lateef are preaching hate; promoting crimes against people based on their religious belief, gender and / or sexual orientation. That is why he thinks they should be banned from speaking at public institutions that promote diversity and equality, such as a university. If they were just expressing unpleasant opinions or beliefs then they would have a right to do that. Peter’s human rights foundation supports both the Reform Section 5 campaign http://reformsection5.org.uk/#?sl=4 and the Reform Clause 1 campaign http://reformclause1.org.uk/ . Both of which defend free speech against censorship. Please have a look at these links to see fr yourself.

      • MikeF

        There is no such thing as ‘preaching hate’ – that is an abstraction so broad as to be meaningless. There is such a thing as incitement to violence and anyone doing so should suffer legal consequences. ‘Diversity’ and ‘equality’ are just catchphrases of the left that in practice often mean the exact opposite – ideological conformity and preference based on ethnicity or some other arbitrary factor.

  • colliemum

    Mr Tatchell – I applaud your stance against islamic hate preachers, especially in this current political climate where quoting Churchill’s diatribe against islam gets you arrested, and where newspapers twist words to smear UKIP politicians as ‘homophobe’.
    For the life of me I cannot understand why the metro elite, who is so keen to see a homophobe under every bed, is not taking such stance as you do, against hate preachers and against politicians in their own midst who espouse the same hate, but are given a free pass because of their religious affiliation.
    It seems that homophobia must take a back seat because criticising the religion of the permanently offended is deemed to be more hateful.

    • Blindsideflanker

      Because there is a hierarchy of minority victim-hoods, and when they clash the Metropolitan establishment are at a loss to know which to give preference to so go and hide.

    • Jonathan Sidaway

      Thank you for this. “permanently offended” is just the phrase. How astonishingly offensive persons sensitive about their religion/personality/culture tend to be. Having read this thread all the way through, however, i can see no necessary distinction between demagoguery and free speech, so if we allow the latter, then etc.. The problem seems to lie with inconsistency of policing – the Liberty GB man’s mistreatment – and failure to provide the audiences of religious fruitcakes with the sort of education that renders those audiences impervious to solemnity.

      • colliemum

        In fairness, I must point out that ‘the religion of the permanently offended’ has been around for some time, and was coined originally by the one and only Pat Condell.

        • Jonathan Sidaway

          Thanks for that. I will look him up. Good thread this!

  • Donafugata

    The demographic invasion of Europe really took off after the WTC attack.
    They know that they can’t take us by force so they have come over here to breed in vast numbers because they know how stupid our governments are.

    As with grey squirrels and magpies, they become emboldened as the numbers grow. If there isn’t a serious repatriation programme soon, it will be too late.

    Far from integrating they are here to take over and, unless the process is reversed, Britain will one day be an Islamic republic and those who have engineered the project will be first for the chop.

    • cartimandua

      Not happening. What could be done is lay down the line about leaving failed state customs at the door.
      If people really need the Niqab Halal etc they are always entirely free to leave.

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        Dream on.

  • shaft120

    Sorry Peter, you are totally wrong on this subject. While your point on audience segregation is valid. Your preference for censorship based on the speaker being somebody you disagree with (in this case somebody you describe as a preacher of hate) is totally against the fundamental premise that this country is built upon.
    If the audience is over 18 and has a choice of attendance then the university should be free to invite whomever they like to speak. Often, it is even more beneficial to have people of extremist veiws speaking as this invites lively debate and, usually, consensus of derision at he speaker.
    By attempting to censor this, or any other speaker of ideas you determine to be beyond the pale, you are saying more about what you think of the people in the audience than you are about the speaker. You are inferring that the audience is so pathetically simple minded that it may be warped into extremist thought, a mere prod away from becoming a savage. Truly yours is the position we the people should find reprehansible.

    • cartimandua

      No you are wrong. Extremist Islamists do not spout “speech”. They give a vulnerable audience an emotional experience which can and often has been a touch paper for murderous actions.
      There is a difference between “free speech” and demagoguery.

      • Adam Carter

        No, it is you who are wrong.
        Incitement to violence is already a crime; that’s where the limit should be.
        You are strictly correct when you say that there is a difference between free speech and demagoguery, because free speech is a bigger
        concept; free speech entails the allowance of demagoguery. It’s analogous to saying that there is a difference between the solar system and the terrestrial planets, one is included within the other. Your implication is : free speech, possibly OK, demagoguery not OK.
        We’ve seen where Peter Tatchell would impose censorship: it’s more or less where speech is inimical to the interests of his interest.group.
        I think that is both disgraceful and dangerous
        It is essential that we know the truth of what the RoP believes and desires; we have been lied to by too many and for too long.
        Now, we know where and why Tatchell would impose censorship; what about you?
        Where’s your line? What is your difference between free speech and demagoguery?

        • cartimandua

          Emotion free from logic. Look at Hitler’s speeches. Islamist speakers are right on that page sieg heil.

      • shaft120

        You can justify censorship if you like, with rhetoric, by saying it is not ‘speech’ or it is a touch paper. But you are lying to yourself. At least face what you are saying. You think the audience (ie. people) are vulnerable and need protecting or they may hear something which turns them into terrorists. This is idotic and patronising. You are sugesting that you or some other, presumably government, authority should decide which thoughts an individual can have. A surrogate will if you like. This is totalitarian in the extreme and ironically, exactly the type of thing you will find happening in these extremist countries you are so worried about. Even if it were justified morally, censorship and prohibition always has the opposite effect of that it is attempting to acheive. Truly it is scary to think a growing portion of imbeciles think like you do. I can only put it down to an ignorance of your countries history.

        • cartimandua

          It isn’t the audience who need protecting (although Muslim women certainly do) . Its everyone else.
          What Islamist “preachers” do is just what Hitler did.
          It does not inform and it is not for debate.

          • shaft120

            “What Islamist “preachers” do is just what Hitler did.”

            This is nonsense now. So, if I get this correctly, you are saying that because Hitler went on to become a despotic war criminal, responsible for the deaths of millions and the ethnic cleansing of a large part of his own population, and because he gave empowered speeches inciting the German people to rise up in war, this somehow justifies curtailing freedom of speech, as it would, to your mind, prevent other potential Hitler’s?

            And you don’t see a flaw in your logic anywhere there, do you? I hope you never serve on a jury.

            This is the problem with all of the left’s, paternal ideology. Its belief that if only they can protect the people from themselves and stop them becoming the potential animals they are, then everything will be ok. That even if they infringe the rights of the majority, it is justified in order to deter the minority.

            To take your logic to its conclusion. Why not stop anyone who has expressed a nasty sentiment in a speech from being allowed to vote? How about stopping them claim benefits? How about stopping them run a private members club, or indeed be a member of a private club? And why stop at speeches, why not people who have expressed this nastiness in written words? Leaflets? Email? Twitter? Or perhaps even in conversation down at the pub?

            An inherent freedom isn’t a freedom if it is granted, conditionally by the state. The enlightenment was a period where the individual demanded the law limit the role of the state, less his/her freedoms were curtailed. It seems the lessons of this time need to be learnt again, due to the ignorance of those who owe their place in this country to it.

            • cartimandua

              It isn’t nonsense Hitler used Demagoguery (specific verbal tricks) to in a sense hypnotize a lot of people into believing there was a plot which had made them poor.
              Islamist preachers blame the West, Jews, women ,take your pick anything other than reflect on what primitive customs (gender apartheid) has lead to over population ,violence ,and poverty.

              • shaft120

                “in a sense hypnotize” [sic]”

                This is the problem with your ideology. You are taking individual responsibility away from people. That is what freedom is all about. You have the freedom to see and hear what you want to. You also have a responsibility to live within the law of the land in which you are a citizen. Instead you would rather treat people like animals, lest their simple, no doubt less enlightened in your opinion, minds are ‘hypnotised’ into killing people.

                As for “making people believe there was a plot to make them poor”. This wasn’t exactly difficult to do, since the Allies were rather short-sightedly, in retrospect, imposing punative measures on the German nation. Now as for the moral justification for doing this, that is another matter, but I’d wager that this fed into the cause and effect calculation of the origins of the Second World war a darn sight more that the lack of curtailment of free speech in Germany at the time, as you seem to think was the major driver, judging from your previous comments.

                I had guessed you lived in the UK, but from your American-English spelling I presume you are European, which explains a lot. The European, continental, history is far removed from the enlightenment, and was founded on totalitarian ideals. If you are actually American then I worry even more, as American’s, even more that the British know why freedoms of the individual and restriction of the reach of the state is so important.

                • cartimandua

                  I have science not “ideology”. People raised in abusive cultures (In Muslim cultures woman and child abuse is routine to the point of nearly universal). They then “finish the job” by making children rote learn the Koran while rocking and being beaten.
                  The top few % escape all of that of course and all those who are “not religious”.
                  There is no Muslim country which doesn’t have very high levels of domestic abuse.
                  There are a lot of people then with very accessible triggers.

  • Adam Carter

    Speech that does not incite violence should not be banned.
    RoP preachers should be given ‘the oxygen of publicity’ so that those on the side of civilisation can see them for what they really are, so that we can demonstrate the true nature of the RoP and counter it.
    And so that, when Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etc. talk about ‘distortions’ of Islam we can see that they are wrong.

    • cartimandua

      The trouble is it does incite violence with trigger phrases and repetition. the audience are people who have been forced ,often with violence, to rote learn.
      We should get Derren Brown to deconstruct it.

      • MikeF

        “trigger phrases and repetition” – like ‘bigotry’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘homopohobia’ and ‘hate’.

        • cartimandua

          A great many Germans who listened to Hitler had been raised in an abusive child rearing system which said you could “master” the baby (with cruelty and neglect).
          Child beating was widespread well beyond our Victorian spare the rod and spoil the child.
          Muslim cultures are abusive to women and they become either traumatized and dissociated so cannot attach to infants or they become abusive themselves.
          The people who hear Islamist hate preachers have ALL been raised to rote learn with beatings if they didn’t as well have an abused Mother.
          Sieg Heil doesn’t work on “normal” people.
          If however you are failing in life , need certainties and a way forward in some way Islamist hate preachers are all that.
          The English “reverts” are not the whole ticket. They are several sandwiches short of a picnic etc.

    • Penny

      I take your point, Adam, re: seeing this type of cleric for what he is, but that rather depends on who sees him, surely? If the meeting is limited to young Muslims – and it is very likely to be – then there is very little by way of “oxygen of publicity” in terms of wider society.

      I would also question your incitement to violence point. There may be no immediate riot and young men may not feel stirred up such that they swiftly carry out a violent act. But an introduction to these ideas on a drip-drip basis is what has caused many young men to break the law and in so doing, wreck their own lives or worse – die either through an act of terrorism or fighting in some far-flung religious conflict. Innocent lives have been lost both here and abroad and the root cause very often found to be a fundamentalist cleric. There is a reason these clerics target this particular age group – they are, through lack of life experience, ripe for the picking. I would suggest that even though the product of incitement isn’t immediate violence it can be delayed violence.

      I am two-thirds of the way through reading a book about Abu Hamza and while I do understand the concerns you and others raise about free speech, there were governments around the world that were tearing their hair out at our lack of action over him and the way in which we refused to stop the “suicide factory” (name of the book) occurring at that mosque. It was supporting terrorism in their countries. Committee members of the mosque Abu Hamza took over (by intimidation) sought police help to no avail. Clearly, the Muslim community, under-cover agents and so on were fighting this – they saw the danger – but our institutions did not support them.

      Doing nothing about them in the hope the oxygen of publicity will do for them seems to me like dropping a stone in the middle of a pond. The impact is not merely at that point but ripples outward, affecting so many others.

      • Adam Carter

        Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
        You have raised the level of discussion.
        I’m not on the computer for most of today, but will be thinking about this.

        • Penny

          Cheers, Adam.

          The book I’m reading – The Suicide Factory – is written by two journalists whose past employers include the Times, Telegraph and BBC. Their career history includes covering the Matrix Churchill affair, Scott Inquiry into arms to Iraq, Soham murders, Northern Ireland and reporting from conflict zones (Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.) I set out their credentials only so you know that the authors appear to be serious journalists as opposed to those who seek to agitate by portraying a particular view (not that this can’t be said of certain journalists, though!)

          It’s worth the flumpence you’d likely pay on Amazon for a used copy and it has certainly enlightened me – not least with regard to the efforts of the mosque committee to get rid of Abu Hamza and the British authorities disinterest in helping them, but also the sheer numbers and names of those recruited to jihad from Finsbury Park Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui and Kamel Bourgass (ricin/cyanide terror plotter and murderer of DC Stephen Oates) among them. The 7/7 bombers had also heard Abu Hamza preach. Our bill for policing his pavement speeches was some £900K.

          Perhaps equally notable is the number of governments around the world who were, as I mentioned above, tearing out their hair over our failure to act on him and others – it is how we acquired the name “Londonistan”. Our capital was practically a guest house for radical elements from around the world. Our inaction in 1998 a cause of real consternation by the French who were trying to manage threats to their staging of the World Cup.

          So we have much to consider in the dabate about freedom of speech when it comes to radical preachers like Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada and Anjem Choudary (followers of whom include the murderers of Lee Rigby). Including our duty to other countries whose citizens may, in the future, be affected by our lack of action.

    • GordonHide

      How about speech that makes credible threats?

  • zanzamander

    Whatever Murtaza Khan is saying about homosexuality, brutal punishments, non-Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. is not something he has just made up. He is reiterating what he has spent lifetime learning, memorising and teaching from a source that came, according to his beliefs, from higher up. As such he is doing his duty.

  • Cyril Sneer

    “Uthman Lateef has stirred hostility towards non-Muslims and gay people,
    and denounced democracy and social integration. He has repeatedly
    referred to non-Muslims using the insulting word ‘kuffars’.”

    Deport them, deport them both or hang them I don’t care.

    I don’t want to share a country with this type of filth.

    They’re not Brits, and can never be Brits. They are not welcome here, and we should make their time here as unpleasant as possible.

    They’re religious bigoted Nazis and the left has given them a free pass simply because they have brown skin.

  • Denis_Cooper

    How come that Peter Tatchell is allowed to write this article, but on Saturday in Winchester when somebody was voicing Churchill’s thoughts on this general subject he got arrested?

    • DrCrackles

      From Cranmer:

      While Richard Dawkins frequently rails quite unpleasantly against Muslims (he rarely distinguishes between extremists and moderates), Paul Weston quoted Churchill’s criticism of “Mohammedanism”, “Mohammedan law”, “the faith of Islam” and “the influence of the religion”.

      http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/arrested-for-quoting-winston-churchill.html

      • Fergus Pickering

        He can’t rail too unpleasantly for me. More railing, Dawkins. Show you are not a complete prat.

      • Denis_Cooper

        It’s strange that there has been no article about that here, given that this journal is a fierce defender of free speech.

    • zanzamander

      Because Mr Tatchell is playing a game with us and deluding himself in the process by blaming everything on Murtaza Khan for his utterances and avoiding the “I” word from where Mr Khan derives his beliefs. The guy in Winchester got arrested because he correctly quoted Churchill by mentioning that word.

      I believe we can’t mention that word here either.

  • WatTylersGhost

    Peter, the BNP are not right wing, they are leftists.

    • Shazza

      As is islam.

      • Kitty MLB

        Indeed shazza, which is why they get so much support from lefties.

  • Cooper1992

    Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith, and Alan Johnson.

    Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries of what was once the United Kingdom, TAKE A BOW.

    5.5 million new migrants from 1997 to 2010, a good 30-50% of them Muslim. No surprise that thus Muslim extremism has also been imported into Britain too.

    This is a pandemic problem that will NEVER be cured. Goodbye Britain. Hello Islam.

    • Cyril Sneer

      There is one cure….

  • Ricky Strong

    Extremists should be allowed to spew their bile, but more importantly we should be allowed to tear them to pieces with logic and reasoned debate. To my mind the restriction on criticising Islam is of far greater concern.

    • cartimandua

      Extremists operate in a tautology. No logic science or evidence will ever reach them. They are people who need certainties and they need to feel superior to others.
      We see it with Islamists and we see it with anti abortionists.

      • Keith D

        They need the certainty of a 0.38 through their already damaged brains.
        And Islam needs destroyed.

        • cartimandua

          Well we kind of did that “sorting it out over there” rather than just saying no to failed state customs here.

      • MikeF

        We see it at the extremes of almost all political movements. Your swipe at people with a principled opposition to abortion I fear demonstrates little more then your ‘need to feel superior’.

    • Cyril Sneer

      You’re wasting your breath with logic and reason.

      They listen to violence, this is what they should get tenfold.

    • Fergus Pickering

      I think just tearing them to pieces will do. A la lanterne! as the French were wont to exclaim.

  • La Fold

    Universities should be places of discussion, even with those who espoused views as abhorrent as these fundamentalists who want us to all go back to living in caves in some Salafist Wahabist dystopia.
    What is shocking is the complicitness of many of the so called Liberal intellectuals who not only give these Islamists a platform with absolutely no argument but how they bend the knee even down to segregating the audiences by gender.
    This mentality belongs back in the foothills of the Punjab, not in our learning institutions.

    • cartimandua

      Reasonable people in comfortable places just cannot imagine other people are not reasonable.

    • FrenchNewsonlin

      Indeed and most shamefully, academic freedom has caved in without a fight under the jackboots of the PC police abetted by the shallow memories of student leaders.

  • RavenRandom

    Quite right. If we are to enforce the various hate speech laws then they should be enforced against all.

  • zanzamander

    Has Spectator introduced censorship?

    • Chris Bond

      Pretty much. I tried to post a point that the genetic explanation of homosexuality was bunk. Also pointed out that if you fail to apply the rules of nature to man then your opinions are fundamentaly religious. Eg claiming sterility in a male horse is bad, but in humans it is wonderous. Not about anything in particular obviously. (Sarc)Dont want this post blocked.
      Long live our Gay overlords.

      • cartimandua

        But you get it right? If you claim being gay is a choice you can imagine changing your own orientation by force of will .

        • Chris Bond

          I think choice isn’t part of it. I think something biological has gone astray. I think it is not unreasonable to think it is pathogen based issue (think toxoplasmosis in mice) or side effect of some other issue prior to sexual maturity. I suspect even if the issue is found it would not be curable as it is likely a part of the section of the brain dealing with sexual atraction getting messed up. As for preventing it – I will leave that to the ethicists to sort out that issue. But trying to stamp out discussion around the issue and the overal stalinist style stupidity accompanying the issue is infuriating.

          • cartimandua

            The very last thing over populated humanity needs is “more” breeding adults. We are on the verge of an extinction level resource war all the time.
            If anything “not breeding” is doing something quite right for the species.

          • Lamia

            As for preventing it – I will leave that to the ethicists to sort out that issue.

            The only logical inference here, since you also say you believe it is not ‘curable’, is that by ‘sort out’ you mean you would like to see gay people killed.

            You don’t have the guts to say that, but you want us to understand that, and to respect your belief that a group of people should be killed. And you call your opponents ‘Stalinists’, and yet none of us are insinuating that you should be killed. It must be tough for you.

            • Chris Bond

              Not really. You can prevent HIV spread, or any other non fatal disease without recourse to killing all those affected. Or to use the example of brain damage caused by meningitis. The brain damage will be impossible to cure (with present medicine) but preventing it is possible. The only difference with homosexuality is it doesn’t kill you, and everyone seems to think it’s the bee’s knees!

      • Kitty MLB

        People who are gay are born gay the same as people who are straight. You do not chose your sexuality and its not a disease that can be cured. I have read of the degrading examinations that gay people had to go through to ‘ cure them’
        Complaining about gay overlords, what about your really dangerous
        Islamic overlords.

        • Chris Bond

          Might be caused by a disease directly or indirectly. Think toxoplasmosis in mice (go google). As for cure- couldn’t care less. Thats for gay people and ethicists to discuss.
          But as for trying to shut down the discussion and investigation with censorship and bullying – they can all shove it.

  • Scradje

    The loathsome individuals referred to here are the direct result of Labour’s policy of deliberately importing hoards of people who hate us. Did Peter support that policy of his party at the time? He says his organisation would take an equally robust line on the BNP. Why does he feel the need to say that? The BNP is small and non-violent, the Islamists are large, well-funded and extremely violent in both thought and deed.

    • cartimandua

      He wants to sound even handed because the meme about “not being racist” is so ingrained here now calling a gardening implement a gardening implement is a dangerous thing to do.

    • Shazza

      I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. When will people like Peter realise that all we are doing is reaping what he and the rest of the Loony Left insisted on sowing when they deliberately flooded the country with a primitive culture in their desire to turn the once peaceful, homogenous British society into their idea of a multiculti ‘paradise’ with the added bonus of ‘rubbing the right’s noses in diversity’.

      They have yet to realise that the policies of these extremists who now threaten the civil liberties and freedom of gays, women, non-moslems actually reflect the tenets of islam.

      They have yet to realise that to refer to ‘moderate’ islam is an oxymoron.

      They have yet to realise that when the killers of Lee Rigby reacted so violently to the judge who said they had misrepresented islam was that they were infuriated at the charge that they were ‘bad’ moslems.

      They have yet to realise that the more they appease this ideology the faster will be the establishment of an islamic state here with the subsequent treatment for gays/women that this will entail.

      They have yet to realise that this is a classic case of the chickens coming home to roost and no amount of demonising the BNP is going to detract from the situation they find themselves in.

      They have yet to realise that their dire policy of restricting free speech by demonising telling the truth as ‘hate speech’ is what has ensured that these extremists have flourished and will continue to flourish unchallenged.

      • Scradje

        Indeed Shazza. Paul Weston has been arrested for quoting Churchill from a nineteenth century book!

        • Shazza

          Dan Hannan has just written a blog over at the Telegraph about this decrying the fact that Paul was arrested for quoting Churchill. However, he shoots himself in the foot describing Paul as an ‘oaf’.

          It really is worth reading the comments under Dan’s ridiculous blog – they are very enlightening.

          It is quite scary that such an intelligent man as Hannan can be such a dhimmi.

          • bluescruff

            It’s because Paul is standing against him in the EU elections!

        • Mocks Idiots

          Paul Weston was just arrested for his own safety, doncha know.

          Remember when the Pope quoted someone else there were calls for his head from the nutters? What chance would poor Paul have?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy

      • Chuckster 52

        Yes , you poor folks are in real , deep , Camel Dung ! And we here in the U.S. of A are right behind you .Watch your backs !

  • jesseventura2

    What would EU referenda asking citizens do they want muslim immigrants return?

  • Blindsideflanker

    Meanwhile someone reading Churchill’s writings is arrest for hate speech.

    You just couldn’t make it up.

    • In2minds

      Let’s see what the new Culture Secretary does about this?

      • Blindsideflanker

        Not much for if I heard correctly Javid is a signatory to Roach’s cross party anti UKIP campaign , which attempts to claim people opposed to the EU are EUracists.

        • FrenchNewsonlin

          Yes and now watch Roche’s evil “euracist” concoction turn swiftly into legalised ammunition for the authoritarians who deploy “hate speech” as a preferred weapon of destruction when it comes to freedom of expression.

  • DrCrackles

    Tatchell the paedo-enabler. How nice!

    • Chris Bond

      How come you dont get blocked, but i did for talking science?

      • cartimandua

        Because your “science” is waay off topic and has the validity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
        This article is about how to restrain extremists. Tatchell doesn’t go far enough. We should insist women have equal access to the main hall of Mosques (with a divider).

        • Keith D

          Better still. Close down every one of those hate filled triumphalist monstrosities. I dont want to share any of my country with this vile scum.

      • DrCrackles

        Always trust the doctor! Besides Tatchell confesses his paedophile past here:

        http://bit.ly/1m7b6RM

  • itbeso

    “If we are teaching the way of life of the disbelievers, of the kuffar, Allah will bring humiliation on us’ and that Muslims should not be misled by those advocating Islamic modernisation, such as ‘democratic Islam’.”

    He sounds a lot like Medhi Hasan

    “We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”

    • Shazza

      It is the Medhi Hasans that pose the larger threat to this country than the extremists that Peter has got his kniokers in such a knot about. They are the ones who will inveigle their way into local government, government, all levels of the institutions and by democratic western laws, dominate and thereby implement their agenda a la the schools Trojan Horse plan.

  • saffrin

    How about a ban on western political extremists?
    You know who I mean, Obamey and others telling porkies about the Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and Syria.
    Where do all their lies and hate come from?

    • cartimandua

      Ukraine where peaceful Ukrainians have been shot and hit with baseball bats etc.

      • saffrin

        So?

  • you_kid

    Hate preaching.
    I am amazed to find no coverage whatsoever of that in the Spectator. The man who for 20 odd years influenced like no other modern day hate preaching in the British press landscape is about to do jail time and ab_so_lutely no word of it here.

  • Chris Bond

    Peter tatchell on extremism. Unbelievable.
    How about not providing a space/ voice to pro- gay bigotry?
    Or how about actually explaining a behavior which makes as much biological reproductive sense as suicide, without reaching into fantasy, lies, obfuscation or delusion?

    • cartimandua

      Nature produces non breeding adults in most if not all species. We don’t have enough non breeding adults.

      • Des Demona

        Hopefully the OP is one of them.

      • DrCrackles

        Ah Cartimandua! the high-priestess of Moloch.

        • cartimandua

          Nothing useful to say then eh “Crackles”?

          • DrCrackles

            I have plenty to say.

            Islam is your problem and Peter Tatchell’s problem. It is not going away. It believes in what it preaches unto death. It is breeding and then breeding again.

            Your answer is to abort our future defence and promote dead-end copulation.

            • cartimandua

              The answer is our house our rules. Gender equality is non negotiable. It is a core value of this society.
              We already have twice the population of Canada so no we don’t want competitive pro natalism.
              We are hugely at risk having problems managing water and having to import food.
              We just stop paying for people to breed on other peoples taxes.

              • DrCrackles

                This societies’ core-values are about to be swept away.

                • cartimandua

                  Not at all. We just have to insist people leave failed state customs at the door and boot multiculti into the long grass.
                  It harms everyone ,leaving Muslim men unemployed and unemployable, and Muslim women at risk of and subject to many abuses.

                • DrCrackles

                  Who is going to force this insistence? It won’t work.

                  Regarding these core-values, these if they are so precious have to be passed on from one generation to another. You would presumably marshal the apparatus and resources of the state to do this. The Muslims pass their values on within their mosques, schools and community networks and have been rather successful at doing this over 100s of years. Some areas of Britain are Muslim strongholds and these are growing. Tick tock tick tock.

                • cartimandua

                  Other countries have banned the burka. The evidence for the health harm from “covering” is overwhelming. We already have laws in place about access.

                • DrCrackles

                  If it gives you comfort I suppose.

      • jesseventura2

        Yes but why are the filthy dogs taking the wrong unnatural route?
        Why did nature send you perverts aids?

        • cartimandua

          Well see there are things called genes. Genes (or rather epigenetics) result in sexual orientation.
          If you think people can “choose” who they are attracted to you must be able to imagine you could “choose” to be gay.
          So can you imagine it? Does (as studies suggest) your homophobia arise from latency?
          Genes also makes people stupid but in the case of stupidity there are actual environmental contributions.
          You do “choose” to be stupid to some extent.

          • Chris Bond

            Epigenics is pure rubbish. Fantasy. No proof on that at all. Genetics so far is not an explanation. I would explaib how your post is pure nonsense but the spectator is rabidly censorsing any serious response.
            IQ on the other hand is linked to genes. But again, i likely think the spectator being a joke of a publication would block my post if I elaborated.

            • cartimandua

              If you cannot understand science you have nothing useful to say about genes and epigenetics and you clearly don’t understand science.
              If someone claims being gay is a choice it must mean they themselves can imagine having a different orientation.
              Studies back up the link between homophobia and latency.

              • Chris Bond

                I understand genetics. I understand epigenics. I understand science. I would explain in detail why you and everyone who pulls the epigenics crap to salvage your ridiculous position is an idiot but stalinist spectator would not let me. I have even read epigenics articles as well as genetic articles.

                • cartimandua

                  Aah you are a leading expert in the field are you? I actually doubt that because of your poor use of language and your aggression.
                  In any case it doesn’t matter whether being gay is genes or environment including intrauterine environment. It doesn’t matter. By the time people have a mature adult sexuality it is a fixed sexuality and no “therapy” can pray the gay away.
                  This article is about how segregationist Islamists should be dealt with.
                  Your view on that is?

                • Chris Bond

                  A) I have no interest in curing gay people. That’s their issue. I have major issue with the lies and obfuscation being conducted by vast amounts of idiots from foucoult onwards.
                  B)don’t import and give residency to half the muslim world. Lots of countries manage that. its not difficult or particularly outthere. We did it for 1000 years odd…

          • DrCrackles

            Tatchell himself doesn’t agree with Born Gay. It was a device needed at the time. It isn’t now and you just haven’t caught-up.

            • cartimandua

              Its not all about him but in any case it doesn’t reflect the current science.
              It doesn’t matter whether people are born gay or not. They should still be treated as fully human.

            • Chris Bond

              Who cares what he thinks. He is a bigot and a fool. Go look up toxoplasmosis andits effects on mice for alikely explanation.
              Or you could claim it is nothing to do with nature. Then you should admit you are running a gay cult.

          • Kitty MLB

            That person is more then stupid, they are a vile bigot.
            he in his pomposity believes he is somewhat superior.

            • cartimandua

              He also seems rather nervous. Anyone who can imagine orientation is a choice must be insecure in their own orientation. They must be able to imagine choosing.

        • Fergus Pickering

          I believe in Africa they have lots of AIDS without resort to buggery.

        • Kitty MLB

          Oh yes, nature( or God) sends people diseases such as Aids and Cancer
          to reduce the population, then there is another group of people
          who Murder in the name of their God.
          Such intolerance is so very unhealthy for you.

  • cartimandua

    I would argue that even Mosques should not be permitted to ban women from the main hall. Just put a divider down the middle and religiously enfranchise women.
    That would be the Regents Park Mosque too. Upstairs and around the back has lead to some embarrassing rubbish preached in that “private” space.
    It was heartening to see on a program last night called “my brother the terrorist” that when extremists went into a Mosque in East London the congregation “ushered them out”. The chap they were talking to said “how do you talk to these people”?
    Thing is you can’t you literally just have to say no.
    We could also suggest (as well as divided Mosque halls) no unhealthy “covering” for women and never ever a face veil. Women have a civic duty to be fully present as individuals in public space(and in Mosques)..
    Where they are not fully present those spaces are more dangerous.

    • Donafugata

      I would argue that Islam should be expunged from Europe and sent back to the desert where it belongs.

      • cartimandua

        Its any version of faith which is literalist. Have been having a go round with a fundamentalist Christian on these blogs.
        She thinks she is “terribly nice” while refusing a service to gay people.
        She bases her bigotry on the 7 anti gay verses out of 33 thousand in the Bible. Those verses are mostly OT and refer to pagan rituals not homosexuality at all.
        Many of the other verses are about telling Christians how to behave towards others. Those she manages to ignore.

      • candace6

        This U.S. girl agrees. And we should do the same over here.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here