Muslim students find their speakers slandered as 'preachers of hate' and legitimate criticism of Israel is treated as hate speech
In the UK, there exists legislation to protect minorities from incitement to hatred. It is clear, concise and unwavering: break it and face jail. Look no further than the Public Order Act 1986: you're guilty of an offence if you intend to stir up racial hatred; or the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, by which you would be guilty of an offence for using threatening words or behaviour to stir up religious hatred; there is also the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and other statutes besides.
As the leading body for Muslim students, we affirm freedom of expression, except that which incites to violence. It is the same freedom of expression that sets British universities apart from many others worldwide: uncensored bastions of intellectual fervour that energise and shape the minds of millions. Section 43 of Education (No 2) Act 1986 clearly states that higher education institutions should "take steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees and for visiting speakers". Yet Fosis and Islamic societies (Isocs) are sometimes lambasted as peddling "preachers of hate" on campuses, despite none of the visiting speakers being charged with any statement contravening the law.
We as an organisation will not tolerate any speaker who breaks the law, but neither will we allow for the constant debasement and vilification of speakers invited by Islamic societies. It is easy to character-assassinate based on little or no evidence, and conflating the issue with concerns about violent extremism or antisemitism. But the core problem remains the censorship of freedom of expression and an unwillingness to engage in meaningful debate.
We need more understanding, not more censorship. Religious texts are easily quoted out of context or treated too literally – in all the Abrahamic faiths. Thus Numbers from the Old Testament teaches us: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"; while Leviticus says: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"; and the Chapter of Dispensation in the Qur'an preaches: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them." Of course, for Jews, Muslims and Christians, such verses are just very isolated pieces of intricately interconnected theological jigsaw puzzles, interpreted and acted upon in a wide variety of ways by billions worldwide. In British universities, our liberal democracy must permit us to seek truth without censorship, and draw conclusions as we see fit.
The path that requires courage is for us sometimes to hear views we find thoroughly distasteful on campus: justice lies in consistency. As the umbrella body for Islamic societies, our stance has been clear for years and is perhaps best represented by our response to Benny Morris, whom many of us view as a justifier of ethnic cleansing, being invited by the Cambridge University Israel Society. While we abhor the views he espouses, we would not seek to prevent him from addressing students on university campuses. Rather, we would implore and encourage students who disagree with him to arm themselves with facts and information to engage in debate and publicly challenge his views. We believe this to be the most constructive, mature and appropriate way to respond to those whom we disagree with, not to start calling for them to be banned.
This was reflected in our proposal for an NUS-led event with the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) to discuss freedom of expression. But what followed instead was a tirade of unsubstantiated attacks on Muslim speakers, with UJS's post-conference statement clarifying their hostile intent.
This might quite possibly have been a groundbreaking moment with the two student societies engaging in respectful, critical and constructive discussion and debate for the first time. We felt that the UJS did not live up to the spirit of the event.
And despite claims of growing antisemitism on campuses, the UJS has provided no evidence; nor once approached Fosis to highlight its concerns. Instead, choosing to highlight their cause in the media, it seems to prefer whipping up fear with inaccurate and decontextualised quotes from invited speakers. This only aids division and makes reconciliation more difficult.
When it comes to the argument, the UJS operates double standards: speakers such as Ilan Pappe, an Israeli academic, or even Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, are not free from their outbursts and have sought to be banned, while controversial figures like Shimon Peres are honoured. The same organisation defends the actions without compromise of the state of Israel. Further, it deflects objections by conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Judaism. In recent years, it has allegedly provided opportunities for Jewish students to volunteer with the Israeli army, a scheme that is coming under greater scrutiny. One can only imagine the furore if such an advert was produced by Fosis for a similar scheme in a Muslim-majority country.
We must champion the notion of legitimate freedom of expression as a platform for discussion – especially in universities, where students have long been at the forefront of change. And we must resist those who seek to clamp down on open debate.
• Comments on this article will remain open for 24 hours from the time of publication but may be closed overnight