Pages: 1 2
Why they bothered with the phrases “any particular religion” and “one religious group” is unclear, since Islamophobia is not about Lutheranism or Hinduism or reformed Zoroastrianism, but obviously about Islam. It’s also not clear how Islamophobia can be “a form of racism” if Islam is not a race; apparently they are simply stretching the definition to fit politically correct parameters. Also unexplained is how it’s possible to assert freedom of speech and thought, and the right to criticize religion, and yet be intolerant of anything or anyone that has “the effect of being Islamophobic.” According to their definition below, anything short of fawning flattery of Islam and Muslims will likely have “the effect of being Islamophobic.”
Refusing to let a lack of logic derail their momentum, the LSESU proceeded to make the following resolutions:
- To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonization or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred.”
- To take a firm stance against all Islamophobic incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.
- To publicly oppose actions on campus that are Islamophobic based on the aforementioned definition,
- To ensure that all Islamophobic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School,
- To work with the Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address Islamophobia and other forms of racism on campus and methods to alleviate it,
- To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of Islamophobia on campus.
So LSE students can’t discuss the rampant Jew-hatred or exhortations to violence against infidels in the Koran, or they will be “dealt with swiftly and effectively.” They can’t express a dislike of Islamic architecture or they will be condemned as racist. They can’t label a Muslim as a barbarian or terrorist, even though many Muslims are doing a grand job of stereotyping themselves as such on a daily basis. Once again, it’s unclear how restricting free speech by enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws on non-Muslims will “enhance legitimate debate” about international conflicts.
Like many of the London School of Economics graduates of decades past, the students currently enrolled there may very well go on to become prominent and influential figures, if not actually world leaders. If they then bring to bear the same submission to Muslim hair-trigger sensitivity and the hostility to free speech that they have displayed in the Student Union resolution against “Islamophobia,” then their international impact will be devastating.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2