Wednesday, 4 February 2015

Universities, Stasi students and Islamism

It's the world turned upside down. When I were a lad, it were the University Senate and the VC who were the evil enemy opposed to free speech and the gallant Students' Union who fought to achieve it. It is, after all, the job of the conservative establishment to obstruct change and development and the job of the disenfranchised to promote it. How can it be different? Well, it is. 

In relation to the new 'Prevent' duties being brought in to restrict Jihadism funded by the higher eduction budget, the Human Rights select committee notes 
6.6 Universities are already under a statutory duty to "take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers". That duty includes the duty "to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with the beliefs or views of that individual or any member of that body, or the policy or objectives of the body"
However, they've failed miserably so far - Tom Slater, Assistant Editor at Spiked writes in the Telegraph today on shocking results that some 61% of Students' Unions have blocked free speech, and that University administrations have widely colluded in doing so - with only 20% of universities gaining a clean bill of health on the censorship front. Slater writes
Anyone who’s been anywhere near a campus recently knows that students’ unions have come to resemble a kind of playskool version of the GDR: all the speech-policing, dissent-quashing, behaviour-regulating inclinations, just without the guns.
Now any idiot will realise that the rights to free speech don't include the rights to incite, promote and support criminal acts or behaviour; you can't claim a free speech right to speak in support of sawing people's head off for being the wrong faith. You can claim a free speech right to speak in support of immigration controls, or banning non-stun slaughter, or cutting student numbers. 

But what students are supporting is the right to breed Islamic radicalism in their midst and ban UKIP, the Tory party, people who eat meat, anyone who rides a horse, car drivers and any arbitrary category of speaker they happen to dislike. Yes, they support a violent, patriarchal, authoritarian, dogmatic and inflexible mediaeval belief system over post-enlightenment democracy. 

It's madness I tell you. Madness.

12 comments:

right_writes said...

This is probably the first time that I have had a good word to say for Nick Clegg...

Once upon a time, we taxpayers used to pay for every hour misspent by these "students"....

Now we at least get relief on the first £9000 though.

Rush is Right said...

When I was at university to invite Enoch Powell to address the Conservative Association was to guarantee mob violence. It's no different now.

Weekend Yachtsman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Weekend Yachtsman said...

Rush is Right is right.

Students have never been interested in freedom of speech - only in freedom for the approved ideas they already agree with.

Anonymous said...

When I was a student most of us thought that that the purpose of the Students Union was to provide cheap beer and entertainment.

A few students thought the purpose of the Union was to stop the rest of us banking and working for Barclays and to provide themselves with a fast-track to the Labour front bench via a free 'sabbatical' year as president.

Budgie said...

Weekend Yachtsman, I fear you are right. The student unions in the 1970s had a "No platform for fascists" policy. This meant that anyone to the right of the Liberals was effectively banned, an action that statists love to this day.

G. Tingey said...

WY
Not so
When I was at Manchester in the 60's it was not like that, though the debate got "vigorous" shall we say?

However, the rot set in during the late 80's early 90's - probably in reaction to the madwoman & some of her followers who were even madder.
I did a mature MSc in the early 90's & ran across Hizb-ut-Tahrir (before they were banned) - they were given a very free rein for their vileness - until they overstepped the mark, I'm glad to say.

There is half a case in what Budgie & WY say - but only half a case...
It SO EASY to label people fascist or racist, because then you don't have to bother arguing with them, particularly if they are NOT actually fascist or racist, of course ....

Agree re "cheap beer" of course ....

john miller said...

"freedom of speech within the law"

This rather chilling statement tells you all you need to know about the 21st century in Britain.

Anonymous said...

I left school at fifteen - I was from that last generation who received a full 5 year engineering apprenticeship (craft) with college thrown in (day-release) for good measure.

My older sister went to a red-brick university from Grammar School and she studied sociology to the age of 25 - then practised it to age 60.

I'll leave you to guess which one of us didn't get brainwashed.

Steve

Mr Ecks said...



Wrong Raedwald--there is NO reason urging people to cut other people's head off should be outlawed. Free speech means just that FREE--not free unless it upsets leftist pukes --or any other group.

Just because someone urges you to cut off someone else's head--that does not MAKE you do so--you still have freewill and the power to refuse to commit an aggressive and evil act. A suggestion is just that--it has no power unless you give it power. And once free speech can be restricted it will soon be wiped out altogether.

Budgie said...

G Tingey, No, the "No platform for fascists" started in the 1960s. It did reach its full flowering in the 1970s - that most unlovely of decades.

Things started to improve in the 1980s and 1990s, mostly I suspect because Mrs Thatcher's governments paid no heed to the overweening multi-coloured Marxists.

The statists never forgave her for ignoring them and, unable to argue coherently, responded with personalised hatred, which is still the hallmark of the weak headed statist to this day.

anon 2 said...

Whæt! Come on, Rædders! With a "nama" like yours, how can you say a ðing like: "dogmatic and inflexible mediæval belief system" about Þin own culture?!?

Ich mean. Ich really am getting deeply offended and icky and ðat by the misnomer applied to the times that produced the most brilliant language and literature that yet liveÞ :(

Surely you know that the multi-cultie marxists are way behind the times ... We set the pattern (e.g: Hebrew+Aramaic+Greek+Latin+Celtic+Anglo-Saxon et al.)!!! Now, however we're in the DARKest Ages; so the poor idiots can't even see how make stuff work, is all!!!

SoÞlice