AIBU to think that it is outrageous even to think that universities should be able to segregate men and women

[LoveSewingBee]

Sorry for the long title.

Link to BBC article

For once, I agree with Cameron.

Friday the argument is (as I suspect you know) about advice handed to universities which advises that seating can be arranged for gender segregation if requested by the speaker in line with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

This has now been challenged.

The crux of the matter is whether the university has a policy which enables gender segregation, which agrees to facilitate gender segregation and possibly enforce it.

But yes, Abs this would make it illegal - but doesn't that have ramifications for people who want women only sessions etc ?

this has no issues for single sex sessions, because there are legitimate issues which may be best handled in single sex sessions, such as why the cultural conditioning that has led you to accept/insist on segregated seating is wrong.
There are no legitimate reasons to split a group by gender who are listening the same rant at the same time.

Friday - You keep saying things like this:

"The sort of events at which segregation is taking place are ranty speeches by lunatics with a taste for killing the kuffr, homosexuals, women who don't know their place, westerners, etc."

It is a matter of public record that the event that started all this was a debate between atheists and Muslims that featured Hamza Tzortis and Laurence Kraus.

I think Hamza Tzortis would object very strongly about being accused of being a "lunatic with a taste for killing the kuffr (sic)". In fact, I think he would go so far as to claim that this is libellous.

It would be very easy to get a list of who the ISOC at your institution have invited to give lectures. I am certain that most, if not all of them would strongly object to being labelled as "lunatics with a taste for killing the kuffr, homosexuals, women who don't know their place, westerners, etc."

Again, libel laws are for everyone, including Muslims and to accuse someone of being a violent extremist is a hugely serious accusation.

I would strongly suggest you either back up your statement that such people saying such things are giving lectures/speaking at events at your university, or that you ask for your comment to be edited, because as it stands now, you are committing libel.

How exactly are they going to stop the "wrong" gender from attending?

I don't know how you could make asking for people to sit in certain places according to gender a criminal act.

You don't have to make asking for it a criminal act - what is needed is to clarify the law so that any institution who is asked can simply say, 'sorry, no can do, it would be in violation of the equalities legislation 2014 section 1'. Whereas at present the law is unclear - although it appears that the UUK may have misinterpreted it.

But surely the universities have their own equal opportunities policies, in addition to any laws?

However, three men took it upon themselves to protest against the segregated seating by sitting in the women's section and objected when they were asked to move (obviously this is not at all male entitlement and the Muslim women should've felt grateful for the men wanting to liberate them).

No, it isn't "male entitlement". They were protesting for their own right not to be segregated too. I'd have protested equally by sitting in the men's section.

It is a matter of public record that the event that started all this was a debate between atheists and Muslims that featured Hamza Tzortis and Laurence Kraus.

Nonsense. It's been an issue to my certain knowledge (ie, appearing in political conversation I've an interest in) since 2008 (comments 16 et seq) and it came to a head in a debate between Douglas Murray and Anjem Choudary (of the now-proscribed al-Muhajiroun) at the South Place Ethical society in June 2009 which even made The Daily Mail. The Independent ran a story on the problem in universities in 2010. You're welcome to claim Andy Choudary hasn't engaged in ranty speechs about the kuffr, but the Home Secretary disagrees with you, which is why almost any organisation he's associated with is now proscribed. This is not a new problem.

because as it stands now, you are committing libel.

If MNHQ think that it's libellous, they can take it down (I'm sure you've already reported it). It isn't, of course. Defamation Act, 2013, S.1(1) (requirement for "serious harm") and S.3 ("Honest Opinion").

But surely the universities have their own equal opportunities policies, in addition to any laws?

Yes, but those have to operate within the law, and it appeared that they thought that they couldn't legally proscribe segregation if it could be deemed to impinge on 'free speech'.

Which is my other beef with all of this ... surely 'freedom of speech' doesn't imply 'freedom to speak in any public building I wish to under my own terms'.

Friday - you are being extremely disingenuous. This current debate is linked to the Tzortis/Krause lecture. Also, you were speaking in the present tense, as if such lectures were currently happening. They are not.

Also, I would certainly argue that branding someone a "violent extremist" does leave them open to serious harm.

Also, I would certainly argue that branding someone a "violent extremist" does leave them open to serious harm.

Then it's a very good thing you're not a libel lawyer, because you'd be losing a lot of cases.

The test is serious harm to their reputation. As no speakers other than the leader of a proscribed organisation have been named, other than by you, and this is the comments section of a parenting website and not, say, the op-ed page of The Times, I think we can safely assume that no reputations capable of being harmed were harmed in the making of this thread. Especially as you are producing the extraordinary legal theory that you can libel people lumped into a category without actually naming or identifying any of them in more than the vaguest terms. A libel action starting "when they referred to violent extremists they meant me, but I'm not a violent extremist" is likely to fall to the "if the cap fits" defence, once the laughter has subsided.

See also, "why an MP can't sue just because someone says politicians are all crooks".

Just answer this: do you have any actual proof that current Islamic speakers at your university are: "lunatics with a taste for killing the kuffr, homosexuals, women who don't know their place, westerners"?

Also, have you forgotten the Gina Ford case on here? People certainly can and do get upset about what is said on Mumsnet. You are stating that an ISOC invites speakers who incite violence.

gosh

Mr Tzortzis, although never personally accused of terrorist offences, has called for an Islamic state, expressed his hostility towards Western values and stated that: "We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even of freedom." from here

sounds a pleasant level headed gent

Gosh, this has wandered into other areas, but may I ask what your position is about a public meeting for adults where segregation is compulsory and imposed by the speaker?

I am concerned about the ramifications for safe spaces, too.

On a student forum near you, there are young men burning for the opportunity to cause trouble and stand up for their "rights" by reporting adverts that advertise vacancies in women-only flats.

I mean, how dare women decide who they want to live with? The fact that some men actively seek to only share with fellow males for their own reasons is irrelevant.

It will be all "but men get raped too, why are we excluded from this meeting?" Yes, so set up a men's support group focused on those victims needs, instead of using the issue as a weapon against women's support groups. Oh wait, you don't actually give a fuck about male rape victims, do you, you little mras?

These aren't lectures, in the sense of the thing that university lecturers do for a living, and continually referring to them as though they are is doing the nutters' work for them.

It's not clear what they are referring to IMO.

I had a lecture course which was compulsory part of degree where over half of the lectures were guest speakers certainly not professional lectures - they worked in various capacities within the relevant Industry/field.

My undergraduate degree had a department, same as my DH current department, where they have special open to anyone lectures and have guest speakers sometime lectures from other Unis/departments or past students or people from industry or anyone relevant who is willing to speak and who might be interesting.

I could see similar situations on religious degrees/ departments and when these guest speakers are lecturing - taking a lecture - their audiences religious beliefs shouldn't matter as they are there to impart knowledge not led a religious observance.

snowed I might agree with you, but the person you quoted specified that there was a mixed section in the middle.

If there was, in fact, a mixed section, then these men sitting in the men's section looks less like a protest for human rights, and more like some men deliberately sitting next to women who didn't want to be with men, in order to intimidate and upset them.

Think about a bus. If there's twenty completely empty seats, and one stranger sitting on their own upon a seat, do you take an empty seat, or go and squash up next to the one other person on the bus?

Also, have you forgotten the Gina Ford case on here?

As I say: if you think that what I've said is potentially actionable, you know how to report it to MNHQ. Do so. They've got skilled libel lawyers and a firm understanding of the law.

In terms of a concrete example of preachers with foul views on homosexuality and the kuffr being hosted by campus ISOCs, I give you theyorker.co.uk/news/campus/11677-anger-as-extremist-islamic-speaker. In the twelve months since those robust descriptions of the speaker legal action has not been forthcoming, by the way.

Carol - Google is a marvellous thing: www.hamzatzortzis.com/clarifications-and-responses/

Back - I think the ultimate responsibility lies with the organisation booking the speaker. I'm sure ISOC's will have different attitudes towards segregation. For the record, ISOC's are democratically elected orgs, so members of each branch have a lot of say in the direction of the ISOC.

For some, particularly those who focus a lot on outreach to non-Muslims and don't generally run segregated events, it wouldn't be an issue they would want to deal with, so they just wouldn't invite the speaker.

For those who do run events, generally aimed at Muslims, which are generally segregated, the speaker is just wanting what they would do anyway, so I can see why they would think it wouldn't be a problem, it would be seen as a club event for members of that club, which is run in a way club members like it.

I understand this analogy won't please some, but to Muslims who view segregation just as good manners and the way we do things, having a segregated meeting is no different to having a halal food at a meeting. It's just how things are done.

The men were protesting against segregated seating. They have the perfect right to sit next a woman, in any section at all. It might appear rude, it may even be intimidating, but they were right to do it. Men and women sitting together is an unremarkable activity. I sit next to men all the time. I have not yet turned into a frog.

From your link "It is understood that Chambers did not present any inflammatory views last night."

I repeat, you claimed that speakers are currently inciting violence on campus. You have yet to provide any evidence of this.

Maybe on buses we can have black seats, white seats and mixed seats. That will keep everyone happy then.

maybe we could mixed seats, male seats, female seats and trans-gender seats in the middle...but where would you put the buggies....

To this day monasteries and convents discriminate on your sex as part of their beliefs as religious organisations. Do we have a problem with that, or just muslim women sitting away from men?

There's a big difference between a religious organisation and a university, isn't there?