Why Are Goldsmiths' Feminists Applauding the Silencing of Women?

There was another free speech skirmish on a UK university campus this week, when the ex-Muslim activist Maryam Namazie was heckled by students at an event at Goldsmiths College.
East London Lines, a online newspaper run by students including many from Goldsmiths, reported the incident after it happened, and have written a follow up in which I am quoted for English PEN.
I want to say a little more in a personal capacity.
The video of the event is available online.

Maryam Namazie gives an interesting and passionate speech. Personally, I would not describe the people who disrupted the event as ‘thugs’ as they did not seem to threaten anyone… but then again, I was not there and did not experience the atmosphere in the room.
Either way, they were certainly disruptive.  At one point, one gentleman begins speaking loudly and then, when one of the event organisers loses his temper and swears at the heckler, he and his friends become indignant! It’s a master-class in disruption and, for what it’s worth, a form of censorship.  The “heckler’s veto” stops the speech in its tracks.
Not only was Maryam Namazie silenced, but the freedom of expression of the audience was violated too, because they were denied the opportunity to listen.  It is crucial to note that most of the Muslim students present1 engaged constructively and politely with the speaker, but their time to do this was cut short because of the actions of a few disruptive people.
Protests can be both a form of free speech and a form of censorship. It is possible to protest and to picket without impeding a speech or shutting down an event. When this happens, it is counter-speech and is to be encouraged.  However, when a protest causes the disruption or cancellation of an event, it becomes a way to suppress voices and is illegitimate.  It is the responsibility of authorities, be they governments, the police, or university security staff, to facilitate the former and prevent the latter.  Goldsmiths University, it’s students union, and the students themselves, have a poor record in making the proper distinction.  Other universities are just as confused.

Yet Again, Women’s Voices Are Suppressed

What is striking about the video is that the people disrupting the event are men, and the people who stay to debate Maryam Namazie are women.  In behaving childishly, the boys who made a noise and turned off various pieces of electrical equipment reduced the time that the women had to critique Namazie’s speech.  In fact, ultimately the only people who were actually silenced on Monday evening were Muslim women: Namazie herself was able to complete her presentation, and it was the Q&A session at the end that was curtailed.
How strange, then, that the Goldsmiths College Feminist Society should issue a statement supporting the disruption of the event by members of the Islamic Society, an action which sought to silence one woman and ended up silencing other women.

Goldsmiths Feminist Society stands in solidarity with Goldsmiths Islamic Society. We support them in condemning the actions of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society and agree that hosting known islamophobes at our university creates a climate of hatred.

This blog often gets into the technicalities of free speech and its importance in the abstract.  It’s worth taking a moment to speak out against the Goldsmith’s Feminist Society’s claim that Maryam Namazie is an Islamophobe.  Say it loudly: this is simply not the case.  Namazie is an uncompromising critic of the religion of Islam…. but that is not the same as bigotry towards Muslims.  Her right to free speech should not only defended, but encouraged.
I think such categorical mistakes do real harm to the fight for equality. Concepts of intersectionality, and safe spaces are important and useful in ensuring that people who are victims of oppression are recognised as such, and allowed to express themselves freely. By declaring the entire university, (including an event hosted by the Humanist and Secular Society) as a ‘safe space’ the Islamic Society spokesperson has abused the term. In expressing solidarity with a group that claims to have been abused, when in fact it appears to be the group perpetrating the abuse, the Feminist Society are doing nothing for women and everything to keep them silent, out of a misplaced sense of solidarity.

1. Of course I don’t know exactly who in the video is Muslim and who was not, but the audience included many people wearing hijabs, and many people who identified themselves as Muslim, so assumptions in this regard are reasonable.

5 Replies to “Why Are Goldsmiths' Feminists Applauding the Silencing of Women?”

  1. I think it’s fair to call them thugs, intimidation was intense enough to worry violence was potentially always a split second away, and extended to gestures indicative of a direct death threat! ISOC are evidence of this tactic of claiming offence to shame critics, not the most gracious and severely abused speaker Maryam Namazie
    “Islamophobia” needs to be exposed for what it is: a highly successful device to silence critics of Islam in general and Islamist extremism in particular. The speaker is most definitely not, nor are the people proscribed as “Islamophobes ” repeatedly and always. I even worried briefly that I may becoming Islamophobic in my reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, such is the effectiveness of this invented word that exists more in the minds of Islamists doing their damnedest to make it a reality with an extremist exclusively Islamic view and desire for domination of the whole world via Jihad …. which is another word often previously manipulated to mean the opposite of the shocking lived reality.

  2. “By declaring the entire university, (including an event hosted by the Humanist and Secular Society) as a ‘safe space’ the Islamic Society spokesperson has abused the term.”
    This section is key. I was going to comment on your post the other day about “hooray for safe spaces” but couldn’t quite articulate what precisely I was uncomfortable about. This crystallises it.
    “Safe spaces” are indeed a good thing in theory, but I fear that they are being widely abused, hence the disquiet you note in this example.

    1. Thanks for the comment, PG.
      Something I’ve been mulling, but can’t quite articulate yet, is the degree to which the abuse is happening. I wrote the ‘Hooray’ post because there seems to be a little cottage industry developing in people writing articles lamenting the demise of free speech at Universities, and the authors always have a pop at ‘safe spaces’ and ‘trigger warnings’ as if those concepts are entirely without merit. That’s a mistake, in my view. Rather, its worthy concepts being abused.
      I do wonder whether the problem is as systemic as the naysayers suggest. There are other threats to free speech that are more acute, in my view.
      That said, one argument I often make with regards to free speech is that you don’t need a lot of examples of something going awry before there is a chill on free speech.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.