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.

Gosh - presumably also, moderate Muslims see Sharia law as applicable to muslims? Its the idea of it replacing or in any way overriding UK law which Islamists promote which should be clearly rejected.

There's nothing to stop people settling their own disputes in any way they choose provided it doesn't break UK law.

Why do you think that the BNP have only been on Question Time once in their entire existence
I reckon it was because Griffin got thoroughly trounced and laughed at, being shown up for what he was. I really doubt they ever want to expose themselves to that scrutiny again.

It may be that part of the problem is that politicians are always fair game but people are too cautious about being 'respectful' of religion.

I also don't think the BBC etc are quite so unbalanced as is being suggested - Newsnight often has moderates eg people from Quilliam on it.

(total tangent but very amused by claigs assertion 'They won't show you many climate change sceptics on TV' when in fact they get a disproportionally large amount of coverage in the name of 'balance')

Errol, the Question Time appearance helped the BNP.

"Support for the party has increased in the last month, a survey for The Daily Telegraph indicated.

The findings will lead to accusations that the BBC’s decision to invite the far-Right MEP on to its flagship current affairs programme may have backfired by giving him a national platform.

The YouGov poll was taken hours after Mr Griffin’s appearance on Thursday, before which anti-fascist protesters rioted outside BBC Television Centre in London.

The survey found that 22 per cent of voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP in a future local, general or European election. This included four per cent who said they would “definitely” consider voting for the party, three per cent who would “probably” consider it, and 15 per cent who said they were “possible” BNP voters."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html

...

So why did the BBC do it for the first time ever and allow the BNP on Question Time to which 8 million viewers tuned in, which is probably more than usually tune in?

“ Bio-Dimbleby ” acknowledges his robotic Twitter alter ego during riots debate"

...

'The 3.5m audience figure is Question Time's second biggest of 2011 so far. '

www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-08-12/dimblebot-helps-question-time-special-draw-35m-viewers

A quote from the Guardian says

"Last night a senior BBC source told the Guardian the decision to invite Griffin on to Question Time now had been motivated by a fear that the BNP would have a stunning high court victory against the BBC if the corporation refused to allow the party on the show between now and the general election."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/23/bnp-poll-boost-question-time

If the BBC were interested in ratings, then you would expect them to invite the BNP on Question Time more often.

So why do they invite Choudary on, since he won't get any more ratings and he can't challenge the BBC in the high court about any lack of access?

The BBC gave access to Choudhary and also gave access to the EDL and to Quilliam etc etc, but they are all unrepresentative and publicity for all of them just creates more conflict. They don't have a politicial mandate, they do not have many supporters.

''They won't show you many climate change sceptics on TV' when in fact they get a disproportionally large amount of coverage in the name of 'balance')'

I've seen many more polar bears and BBC Newsnight 'ethical man' climate reports than any involving climate sceptics. There are lots of save the planet slebs, popstars, actors, Lords, OBEs, Sirs and comedians and even the odd right-on revolutionary like Russell Brand, but you don't get many climate sceptics in case they tell the public the truth.

I am wrong to say that publicity for Quilliam causes more conflict. They are a think-tank founded by three former members of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and they oppose extremism.

You don't get many climate sceptics because there are very few who deal in much more than opinion versus the number of actual scientists dealing in facts. They're disproportionately well represented whenever there's a climate-related news story. (claig will obviously never agree on that... sorry don't want to derail this discussion so will try not to further engage on that)

On the BNP - 'According to the BNP's statement of accounts in December 2012, its membership was 4872, compared to over 12,000 in 2009'. Whatever the poll said, the actuality is that the Newsnight appearance coincided with the decline of the BNP. Which may be coincidental but it really doesn't seem to have done them much good.

In case anyone missed the Daily Mail a few years ago, this was Choudhary in earlier times with pictures of him enjoying a drink or three

"One former friend of the Muslim extremist said: ' I can't keep a straight face when I see fundamentalist Muslim Anjem Choudary in the papers attacking the British for drinking or having girlfriends

'When I knew him, he liked to be called Andy, would often smoke cannabis spliffs all day, and was proud of his ability to down a pint of cider in a couple of seconds'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240691/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope--secret-past-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary.html

His former friend probably can't keep a straight face when he reads about the 'forty lashes' and the panto of Choudhary today

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523658/Muslim-campaigners-protest-sale-alcohol-popular-East-London-area.html

yes I'd like to see Choudary on QT but knowing the BBC if anyone in the audience asked him something arkward or made an insightful comment that wouldn't do.

I agree Gosh Anne about the Sharia you keep as it is personal and not forcing it on others. I have a problem if someone tried to make someone else who didn't want to obey it as in Choudary's case.

Re: Climate Change - David Bellamy reckons that's why the bbc dropped him, he didn't support it.

I'm shuddering at the thought of Choudary on QT. We have several Muslim M.P's who at least have a democratic mandate, they would surely be a better choice.

Tbf, I think QT have had James Caan of Dragons Den on there previously, who is considerably more of a positive and relatable figure.

I suppose I would like him to be given a hard time by the public and exposed for what he is. Would that diminish his following? or is that just wishful thinking.

Late to this and not read the whole thread but what pisses me off about it more than anything is our pathetic inability to stand up and say here are the values we believe in. We are building a society based on equality and this is non-negotiable. And yes I'm making a value judgement.

Katie Hopkins has been on Question Time. I don't think positive and relatable figure is really the BBC's criterion.

RE BNP

When I was a reporter it was union guidelines that the NF/BNP were not given the oxygen of publicity as union members did not want to be used a promotional tool.

This changed when people started to vote for them and once they got council seats and started general election campaign the rules of impartiality forced the media to start covering them. This is why they appeared on QT - I think the BBC just decided to let them hang themselves.

Re Segregation:

O often see the argument that muslim women may feel oppressed by having a man sat next to them at a debate - but I work with muslim women who spend hours and hours sitting next to a man, chatting and working, I sat through a nursery nativity with a fair few muslim women, sitting next to men, their children taking part - that is multiculturalism in action. I don't see why we should start pearl clutching at the thought that muslim women may have to sit next to men in ordinary life - so many muslim women live and work in a multicultural world and don't seem to suffer as a result

'When I was a reporter it was union guidelines that the NF/BNP were not given the oxygen of publicity as union members did not want to be used a promotional tool.

This changed when people started to vote for them and once they got council seats'

Why is Choudhary given "the oxygen of publicity" by union members and journalists and media when no one votes for him and he has no council seats?

Apparently, Choudhary used to drink beer and down cider and smoke dope, according to the Daily Mail, and now the Daily Mail quotes him as saying things like

"People who commit adultery would be stoned to death"

"Anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public"

"Every woman, Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a burka and cover all but their face and hands"

and yet he goes on our most prestigious news programme and is asked serious questions with a straight face.

It is obvious what he is all about and for. His purpose is to frighten ordinary citizens that the things he talks about may become a reality some time in the future and to make the more credulous ones believe that this is what Islam is about.

Why don't they interview his former friend who said

' I can't keep a straight face when I see fundamentalist Muslim Anjem Choudary in the papers attacking the British for drinking or having girlfriends'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240691/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope--secret-past-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary.html

That way the more credulous members of the public, who are frightened by Choudhary's antics, might realise that he is not as real as he seems.

Why is Choudhary given "the oxygen of publicity" by union members and journalists and media when no one votes for him and he has no council seats?

He gives good TV/copy

QT is all about ratings and no longer about discussion

The unions are no longer powerful which means there is no consensus among journalists on this matter

But I agree with you, it is a sad state of affairs when idiots such as Choudary and Katie Hopkins are given a platform to spot nonsense views. I can only think that QT has a tabloid agenda.

I'm shuddering at the thought of Choudary on QT. We have several Muslim M.P's who at least have a democratic mandate, they would surely be a better choice.

Indeed - it would be far more informative and useful to have issues debated between people who have real power - but that is not QT's function anymore. It's a sort of political Jeremy Kyle.

'It is obvious what he is all about and for. His purpose is to frighten ordinary citizens that the things he talks about may become a reality some time in the future and to make the more credulous ones believe that this is what Islam is about. '

How does this help his cause in the long run though? Does he think that by talking about these things that they will come to pass, that people will be convinced that it's the sort of laws they want to live under?
He is gaining support for anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and for a generally increased climate of intolerance in Britain. How is that good for Islam?
We're going to hear more and more of 'It's the thin edge of the wedge' 'Give them an inch and they'll take a mile' and from people that used to see themselves as accepting and liberal and now feel threatened. However misplaced that perception.

'He gives good TV/copy'

This is the problem. Good copy for whom?

I remember seeing a Channel 4 News report once, where Jon Snow went to interview one of these Muslim fanatics at his office. I can't remember which one it was. But I do remember that while this fanatic was spouting the usual threats against all and sundry, there was a huge banner behind his head with letters so big that you couldn't miss them saying "Islam will rule Britain".

Whom is that good copy for? Why show it?

I think it frightens the ordinary citizen or the good Daily Mail reader who has just put the kettle on for a nice cuppa. The good old granny who has just finished the Daily Mail crossword must be thinking what on earth is going on? Why is Jon Snow interviewing with a straight face this raving fanatic who has got a huge sign behind his head leaving the Daily Mail reader in no doubt of his belief that "Islam will rule Britain".

Is it panto?

x-post claig.

SilverApples, I don't think it is meant to be good for Islam. I think he is panto and not for real. If he was for real, I don't think he would be invited onto news programmes to spread his message. If he was for real, I believe that what Ubik1 said about the BNP would be applied to him by unions and journalists and the media

"When I was a reporter it was union guidelines that the NF/BNP were not given the oxygen of publicity as union members did not want to be used a promotional tool."

The increased violence against Muslims isn't panto though, or the withdrawing of sympathy and tolerance by many who were previously neutral or supportive to minority communities.

I agree that there are real consequences to the media access and oxygen of publicity given to people like Choudhary and the EDL who are invited on to debate with Paxman.

I believe that the media allowing access to Choudhary to spread his poison and what I believe is his act with statements like "People who commit adultery would be stoned to death" frightens many members of the public and makes some of them believe that they are under threat.

That's why I think the media should give no access to Choudhary who is totally unrepresentative of the millions of Muslims in this country because the publicity he gets may distort the image of Muslims for some members of the public.

'what pisses me off about it more than anything is our pathetic inability to stand up and say here are the values we believe in. We are building a society based on equality and this is non-negotiable.'

Quangle is exactly right. There should be fewer 10 minute discussions on Channel 4 News or BBC Newsnight about this and a simple, quiet defence of our values instead. Because 10 minute discussions only frighten the old grannies even further about what is going on and when Choudhary pops up with the talk of '40 lashes' some good Daily Mail readers actually believe he is for real.

I think what's bothering me more than the DM reading grannies is that I'm hearing opinions that bother me from friends and acquaintances of mine.
I'm a lefty, lentil-weaving treehugger eco-type, as are many of my friends, and many of them are now uncomfortable or becoming more insular in their views about Muslims, immigration and supporting aid requests for victims in countries in conflict, like Syria.
It's disturbing.