sexual segregation in UK universities

[carlajean]

I don't know if i've missed any threads on this, but i'm horrified to have just learnt that some UK universities are going to allow sexual segregation in some lectures. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown commented on it in today's Independent, and Polly Toynbee wrote about it in the Guardian.
Why hasn 't the NUS objected?
I'd be interested to hear what other mnetters think about this. As i've said, I object strongly to this, but would be interested to hear what others think.

Back, they report what they want to report and what they want you to hear and they don't report about what they don't want you to know. They didn't report about the rumours about Savile for decades when it was common knowledge in some media circles what he was doing.

Baroness Warsi is not part of the problem, she is part of the solution and is asking the legitimate question of why Choudhary, who is totally unrepresentative, gets so much airtime.

And the media ignored her didn't they. Which they were always going to do because we don't have a state controlled media here.

Everyone knows they will carry on showing what they like and the only difference is that they know now that Baroness Warsi wants it kept quiet. Do you not see how that makes it worse?

And you didn't say if you thought it would be better had the woolwich thing had been kept quiet.

Surely that must have been worse than showing Choudhary?

Of course the Woolwich murder should not have been kept quiet, because that was an atrocity that needs reporting worldwide. That is news.

Choudhary, a totally unrepresentative go-to man of the media, is not newsworthy at all. He should not get media access.

"Her comments were made before Choudary's appearance on BBC2's Newsnight on Thursday, which also drew fire from Murphy, who criticised the decision to give airtime to the the cleric, who is banned from entering France by the nation's interior ministry.

" Banned from France but welcome on Newsnight ," he wrote on Twitter. "A mistake of the BBC to invite Anjem Choudary onto the telly tonight."

On Newsnight the cleric refused to condemn the killing despite repeated requests by presenter Kirsty Wark."

...

The Channel 4 News interview also sparked a row on Twitter, with Warsi telling Newman that the interview should not have been broadcast because it "undermines the painstaking work community organisations do every day to create understanding". She also wrote on Twitter: " We know his vile extremist views. How many times do we have to hear them ? He simply incites hatred and community tension."

...

How many times will the BBC show us this bogeyman and why are they showing us this bogeyman since he represents no one and is not newsworthy, whereas Woolwich was news?

"Baroness Warsi wants it kept quiet. Do you not see how that makes it worse?"

Baroness Warsi does not want real news like Woolwich to be kept quiet, but she asks why the BBC gives airtime to Choudhary who "undermines the painstaking work community organisations do every day to create understanding". Why are the BBC and other media outlets making things worse?

I suppose the media have to have a panto villain substitute now that Captain Hook has gone to the Never Never prison in the USA.

Exactly, alemci.
They need panto villains in order to insult and anger the people. They put Choudhary on shortly after the Woolwich murder and insulted the British public by making us listen to his vile words that disgraced the BBC and the pantomime actor/villain that he is.

Most people don't understand why he is on TV, they think he is for real and therefore they get angry and insulted and that makes things worse.

Understand why he and the EDL are on TV and you will see through the act and realise why it is on your TV screens.

How many people watched it I wonder. I bet it was a lot.

they think he is for real You thought he was an actor hired by the BBC?

Btw you are wrong about not showing the BNP as I remember seeing the guy who runs/ran it being interviewed. It's just that Choudary is more current news.

And you know why don't you? Choudary and the likes of the Muslim Patrol are saying let's take over here and make it like back home, and we all remember the atrocities. We don't want him or others with similar plans to succeed. We don't want to live under sharia law and under the control of gods whose belief system leads to the kind of things we've seen.

In any case since the media is not under my control, your control or Baroness Warsi's control this is pointless. If you want a solution then think of a way to stop the likes of Choudary and the Muslim Patrol because then there will be nothing to report.

Back - asking why does the media continue to select such an unrepresentative figure is not the same as censorship.

Baroness Warsi is not asking for censorship, merely that when TV news shows want to select someone to represent the Muslim community, they choose someone who actually does represent the Muslim community - there are enough of us out there without them having to continually rely on one man.

Of course the media have to cover events like the Woolwich murder, but there is nothing wrong with asking that they do so in a responsible fashion. The vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims were absolutely sickened by Lee Rugby's murder and that should be reflected in the media coverage.

The BBC don't hire him, they just give him publicity.

The BNP gets on about once every 6 years and yet they are a political party with European MEPs and many tens of thousands of voters. Choudhary gets on TV far more often than them and he represents nobody.

"Hate preacher pocketing £25,000 a year in benefits calls on fanatics to live off the state
Anjem Choudary called benefits 'Jihadseeker's allowance'"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279972/Anjem-Choudary-Hate-preacher-pocketing-25-000-year-benefits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html

Can't you see that he is used to wind up decent people and that is why he gets publicity?

'We don't want him or others with similar plans to succeed. We don't want to live under sharia law'

I agree with you. So why do they keep giving him publicity and putting him in interviews with one of our leading news interviewers, Jeremy Paxman. Why give him any publicity or credibility?

Have they asked him for an interview at the job centre to see if he is searching for employment? Have they put him on workfare?

Back - as a taxpayer, I entrust the police to uphold the law for me. They have done so in the case of the Muslim patrol. Good.

If Chaudry breaks the law, as I've already said, I wish for him to be prosecuted within the fullest extent of the law. I would also support the banning ofany marches/demonstrations by his group.

I don't think as a Muslim I have an extra duty to enforce the laws of the UK. I am a law abiding, tax paying citizen, that should be sufficient to demonstrate my loyalty to the UK.

And all that people are seeing is Baroness Warsi saying don't show muslims doing bad things because muslims don't do bad things so this can't be a true muslim.

She is saying this in a country that remembers some bad things indeed. Therefore I'm saying that's not doing the image any good at all.

I am also puzzled that people expect the media to be some kind of moral guardian. It's just a business you know.

Btw I said before that I hope the polls that showed large numbers of muslims eager for sharia law in the UK are biased and that really most Muslims don't want anything of the sort. May I ask if you do?

Choudhary makes things worse. He is allowed on our TV, he gets access to our most prestigious news programmes and he then insults the public and the country and he gets away with it and they even ask him back for more. He makes things worse and angers a lot of the public, so why do they let him do it and why do they ask him back on TV for more of the same?

As Baroness Warsi rightly said , and as millions of Newsnight viewers must be thinking

"We know his vile extremist views. How many times do we have to hear them ? He simply incites hatred and community tension."

'I am also puzzled that people expect the media to be some kind of moral guardian. It's just a business you know.'

Of course it is a moral guardian. Why do you think that the BNP have only been on Question Time once in their entire existence when they got more votes than the Greens in many seats where they stood.

'It's just a business you know'.
It's show business, and they decide the show and the showman like Choudhary.

tbh it does get on my nerves about his benefits. why is he not working in his local poundland.

shouldn't he be down the job centre updating his cv. how has he got time to be a vigilante.

may need some work on his people skills perhaps.

Yes show business. I've been saying that and you talk like I disagree.

Ok now we've established that what do you think we can do about it?

Exactly, alemci. What is going on? He even takes the piss out of the public and the country and he seems to be able to get away with it.

"In another video a grinning Choudary is recorded telling his disciples that it is justifiable to take money from non-believers.

He said: 'The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar (God is great).

'Hopefully there's no one from the DSS listening to this.'

Maybe no one from the DSS reads the Daily Mail either.

Incredible. You couldn't make it up!

'Ok now we've established that what do you think we can do about it?'

We stop qiving him publicity and we create laws that outlaw any discrimination or segregation etc. We defend the values of our tolerant society and we give no publicity and BBC access to people whose words undermine our tolerant society, insult society and harm community relations.

yes Claig it seems that the same rules don't apply to him. no worries about his N.I. contributions and about retiring with a pension?

wish he was challenged on news night about this point. does he get paid for his tv work?

We don't have a media where anything goes and where any fanatic is invited onto Newsnight. We have values and we stick by them and we defend them and we don't let them be undermined by people like Choudary and we stop rolling out the red carpet for him as he insults us and takes the piss out of us and the BBC allows him to do so.

'wish he was challenged on news night about this point'

I doubt they would challenge him on that, because then the panto might be exposed and it would all come to an end.

We stop qiving him publicity

Err there is no 'we' unless we nationalise all the media.

Ok enough already. This side track started because Gosh said Back - I don't understand, first you say Choudary is on tv, because that's how tv works but then say that all people see are the loud Muslims.

And you joined in also not understanding it. If either of you still don't I can't help you, but the answers are all there is the posts. Even in your own posts.

'Err there is no 'we' unless we nationalise all the media.'

There is a 'we', it is society, and it is made up of our views and even though our individual views don't count for much, in unison, as reflected in the newspapers we buy, they do count and they influence politicians who in turn influence the BBC Trust who in turn influence Newsnight producers who in turn tell Choudary to take a hike and tell him that there will be no more red carpets for him to take the piss and insult the public.

And Cameron is also influenced by our combined views as represented in the newspapers we buy or in internet forums and facebook and twitter and online petitions etc, and Cameron has come out and said he does not want sexual segregation in our universities.

We, as a combined community, do influence what happens because politicians have to listen to our voice.

Back -I've told you what the media can do about it. Stop having him on TV and chose someone more representative - easy.

As for sharia law, just to be clear, this is the term covering all the rules of Islam, so when I pray five times a day, give bacon the swerve and don't play the lottery,I'm following sharia law.

However, I sense those aren't the sort of sharia laws you're on about.

Key point - as part of Sharia, you should respect the laws of the country you live in.

Criminal - there should be no alteration to UK law on grounds of sharia.

Financial - Islamic finance is a growing industry in the UK. The govt has had to put in place particular VAT and tax regs to ensure that products and profits are taxed appropriately. I see no problem with this. Just to add, that Islamic financial institutions in the UK are bound by the same regulatory bodies as conventional banks.

Family law - bigamy to remain illegal in the UK. There are opt-in Sharia family courts in the UK that mainly deal with divorces and family disputes ( Note: they do not have the power to overrule or contradict UK law and generally act as a mediation service or to administer religious divorces). I feel these need to be either properly regulated and monitored, by an independent and impartial body or closed down.

I think that sums up everything.

Which is the same as C of E or Catholic religious law. Even the rules are different (eg marriage at 14 the religious rules go on to say or whatever it compliant with local civil law i.e. in UK 16 with parental consent).