Britons afraid to challenge radical Islam, says former Obama adviser – Telegraph

44

British people are too afraid to offend a “vocal and aggressive” section of the Muslim community who demand that their cultural values are accepted by wider society, according to a former adviser to Barack Obama.


Professor Lawrence Krauss said he had been shocked when taking part at a debate hosted by an Islamic group at a leading British university to find that men and women were segregated.

The professor, a leading physicist and prominent atheist, threatened to walk out unless organisers agreed to let men and women sit together, which was eventually agreed – but was then astonished to find himself being accused of intolerance by angry members of the audience.

He said there had been no such problems when he recently took part in a similar debate in Australia.

But he suggested in Britain people were often too polite to object to such practices as well as being cowed by those eager to protest whenever they felt “their cultural norms are not being met”.

He said: “People are not only afraid to offend, but afraid to offend a vocal and aggressive group of people.

“There is a segment of the Islamic community that is very vocal about this.”

The professor said: “I think the notion that these cultural norms should be carried out within a broader society that not only doesn’t share them but that is free and open is a very serious problem.”

Authorities at University College London have launched an investigation into the event last Saturday, at which people who attended were separated into men, women and coupled seating areas – with women at the back.

Professor Krauss said he was later told by one woman who attended that she went into the lecture theatre holding hands with a male friend and pretending he was her boyfriend to be able to sit in the mixed section.

Richard Dawkins, the prominent British atheist, has claimed that the university allowed “sexual apartheid” to take place and said “heads should roll”.

Written By: John-Paul Ford Rojas
continue to source article at telegraph.co.uk

44 COMMENTS

  1. of course you are 100% correct professor.We have a government and an opposition who are united in their fear of offending muslims,in spite of the fact that we recognise their cultural norms are about 1500 years worth of progress and enlightenment,behind our own.

    • In reply to #2 by sunbeamforjeebus:

      of course you are 100% correct professor.We have a government and an opposition who are united in their fear of offending muslims,in spite of the fact that we recognise their cultural norms are about 1500 years worth of progress and enlightenment,behind our own.

      Right on the money there Sunbeamforjeebus! The official lack of a pair does however mask a growing tide of anger amongst the population that this isn’t being dealt with more firmly.

  2. I have recently been in India for a couple of weeks, It was quite noticeable the contempt (in the form of impolite staring) the average Hindu passer-by shows against any muslim in a burka or full muslim uniform.
    I have always admired English politness, but the religious nutters are abusing british culture. The time has come to object and challange religious bigotry, I hope we can do so, … perhaps over a cup of tea.

    Also – Where and when can we see or hear this debate?

    • In reply to #4 by McCourt:

      Note to Muslims: the phrase “heads should roll” is just a figure of speech in civilized countries. Please don’t take it literally.

      But they have, and they will take these expressions litrally. Not because Richard or any other mortal says it, but because Allah says it

  3. Go get ‘em LK. And intolerance is the only rational response to the intolerable. There are sadly many places on this planet where subjugation of women is the norm. If they wish to carry on these dreadful practices, they should pick one of those places and relocate.

    It is not logical for Britain to stand as an exporter of freedom and yet allow itself to import and accept at home what it rails about abroad. Richard needs to start cranking out some “Grow a Pair” tee shirts.

  4. The fact that the gender separation was organised by stealth reveals Islam (and iERA) for what it is. An oppressive anachronistic dark age cult made of myth and magic. We are too polite and should not suffer this ugly unpleasant religious ideology which seeks respect for its very backwardness and misogynistic dark oppressive nature

  5. These men mean business, and I think that Sharia Law and incidents such as this are the first beginnings of attempts whittle away at our hard gained freedoms; freedoms which Muslims also enjoy!

    But I suppose that if you are not used to freedom it can be a little frightening to have to think for yourself, and not simply wait to be told what you can and cannot do.

    And of couse, these abuses are being carried out by men who are frightened of women; I was too when I was a little boy.

    We have far too much to be proud of in this country to allow it to slip away; huge sacrifices have been made in order for our freedoms to be gained and we are duty bound to protect them.

  6. Why a scientist of Krause’s standing, sits on the same platform and gives credence and status to ignorant, shallow and backward people, who will not hesitate to using thuggery to enforce their warped norms on the rest of society, is beyond me.

    • In reply to #9 by Basees:

      Why a scientist of Krause’s standing, sits on the same platform and gives credence and status to ignorant, shallow and backward people, who will not hesitate to using thuggery to enforce their warped norms on the rest of society, is beyond me.

      Yes, why can’t scientists just do science? Why is science even being equated with atheism (should be a non-issue) and pegged against religion? Why can’t scientists freely teach, research, discover, and explore? I’m starting to get really tired of this.

      • *In reply to #23

        Yes, why can’t scientists just do science? Why is science even being equated with atheism (should be a non-issue) and pegged against religion? Why can’t scientists freely teach, research, discover, and explore? I’m starting to get really tired of this.

        A.C. Grayling suggested that the debate between religion &
        science had become a quarrel. I have to agree. Given the platform, however, it does give the religious an opportunity to display their ignorance and pathetic reasoning, for all to see.

        It would be easy for someone of Lawrence Krauss’ stature, to simply rest on his laurels and only share his wisdom with the like minded . When an opportunity , that could possibly result in a true believer questioning his/her views,comes up, it’s great that an LK or RD is there, to sow the seed.

        Personally, I’m glad that forthright scientists are there to stir the pot.

      • I can’t help but think this sort of bad publicity is most damaging to moderate muslims, which is incredibly unfair on them. I’m not saying I agree with the tenets of any form of Islam, and I certainly think it’s worth questioning why such decent people would want to associate with Islam at all. However, that aside, there are moderate muslims who are no better or worse than moderate christians, and every time their crackpot neighbours do stuff like this, it gets them tarred with the same brush. If anything, it’s likely the ones who would be most interested in stopping these loony muslims from misbehaving would be other muslims.

        In reply to #23 by QuestioningKat:

        Yes, why can’t scientists just do science? Why is science even being equated with atheism (should be a non-issue) and pegged against religion? Why can’t scientists freely teach, research, discover, and explore? I’m starting to get really tired of this.

        Well, on the face of it, neither necessarily have any connection with the other. The facts discovered by science do not demand that one be an atheist, since it’s possible that the hypothesis of theism, deism etc. could be vindicated, which puts it on par with any other fact that started out as a hypothesis.

        The trouble is that this NOMA-like state is superficial at best. It relies on a combination of ignorance, hypocrisy, self-deception, and outright untruths to even be conceivable, because the conflict is in the fact that the methods used to get to scientific truths are irreconcilable with those used to prop up theism. Also, since science is a subset of reason, which also covers mathematics, logic, philosophy (at least the less crazy parts of it), observation, and how we make sense of personal experience, and since reason and faith necessarily conflict, then science and faith-based claims will conflict in many ways.

        TL, DR; science isn’t equated with atheism, per se, but it does provide one of the strongest rationales for being an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”, to use Dawkins’ words, and it’s no coincidence that atheism and an appreciation for science and reason often (though not always) go together.

  7. the mealy-mouthed deference given to people who knowingly flout the basic rules of our society is very troubling. if you wonder why in some elections you find some frighteningly racist and intellectually incompetent candidate suddenly getting votes you need never wonder what went wrong.

    since the choice politically is between the spineless and the bigoted it comes down to individuals to make a stand and have the balls to speak up. thanks for the waku up call

  8. This feigned politeness / respect meme is unbalanced and toxic.

    Why should I be polite to anybody that tries to excuse and minimize the horrific crimes against humanity religion excels in?
    Why should I even pay their twisted beliefs any respect?

    What right do they have to demand that of the rest of society that does not share their delusion, why should anyone show them courtesy and special privilege because they drool to a cult or to a fairy tale that cult peddles?

    Religion, both main cults, have made the world an anguished and dangerous place, what good they supposedly do is outweighed by the harm, bigotry and sheer unadulterated misery they spread around liberally whether asked or not.

    All about a fairy tale from 2000 yrs ago, a fucking mythological piece of wishful thinking formulated by bored goat-herders before the advent of explanatory science and that the acolytes today use as a tool of social control.

    People so ‘effing dumb and comatose they apparently cannot act ethically or morally without ‘guidelines’ being twisted and gutted from a compendium of nonsense which funny enough always seems to fit in with their own crass bigotries and fears,…therefore god!

    If the Abrahamic religions all agreed fine, they do not even do that mostly, some want gays to be imprisoned, some want to deny them legal protection some want to burn them, some do not want to recognise them…but one thing they all do agree on…atheists are scum!

    Absolute raving insanity, and then government compounds the insult by passing laws that are designed to promote these fairy tales and protect them from any written or verbal criticism.

    Even rational debate is an anathema to their delusion, the claims of intolerance and hatred against their make believe runs rampant, and the government wets themselves in abject humility and changes more laws or introduces more ridiculous ones ?

    There is an old adage that suggests…’Give ‘em enough rope and they will hang themselves’

    And one thing is for certain the length of that rope is being extended and stretched year on year, when it finally jerks taunt it will rip their metaphorical heads off, because one day soon they will be so encouraged by the lack of common decency and will go far to far!

    And that day is fast approaching because even the moderate folk that are not interested in the atheism theism debate at all are getting extremely tired of the continuous whining from one side of the Rubicon.

    Lawrence Krauss is correct…

    “I think the notion that these cultural norms should be carried out within a broader society that not only doesn’t share them but that is free and open is a very serious problem.”

    It is a damning indictment of political cowardice and false fear of intolerance claims being lodged against them.
    If it is not addressed properly and with supreme rationality and resolve then it will end in tears, it already has in the London Underground, and will do so again…because they can, and because society is powerless to stop them, because the government makes it so by concentrating on the peripheral shadows and not the nucleus of the problem!

    Oil…simple is it not?

  9. Way to go, Lawrence! Never accept the abuse of democratic privileges to condone an undemocratic conduct. Democratic freedom does not include the freedom to act in an undemocratic fashion. It is a widespread misunderstanding that it would.

  10. muslims must comply with the social norms and the law of the uk and behave in a morally acceptable way or suffer the consequences. The bigmouth islamic hate-mongers who do not have the moral fibre to accept that they are in no way privileged to inflict their primitive beliefs on those who have not been brainwashed into thinking that their way is the only way and that all kaffirs should be subjugated or wiped of the face of the earth will soon find out what decent people think of them. They should fuck off now and go live someplace where they can practice their dirty religion with like minded fools. But at the same time they will have to put up with the dangers, poverty, disease and deprivations that are endemic in such places. Will they go. Of course not when they can live comfortable lives leeching off those of us who work hard to realise a better world than that from which these cretinous jihads were spawned in. I cannot express the magnitude of my contempt. Prof Krauss did nearly the right thing. He should have walked away but I respect his right to decide. University College London must look back on this and stop recurrence of this awful episode.

  11. “British people are too afraid to offend a “vocal and aggressive” section of the Muslim community who demand that their cultural values are accepted”

    I read that far and decided the rest of the article was most likely nonsense. I’m scared of putting my point across and ending up in jail for a hate crime, not facing retribution!!!

    Double standards exampled by:

    Muslim man rapes a 13 year old and our legal system says, “oh dear, the poor guy didn’t know that sex with a 13 year old is wrong because he was brought up a Muslim. Let him go.”

    Two Muslim girls hospitalise a non-Muslim girl for being non-Muslim and our legal system says, “oh dear, the poor girls didn’t know how to handle alcohol because they were brought up as Muslims. Let them go.”

    The double standards and institutional cowardice are what I’m afraid of!

    • In reply to #17 by Virgin Mary:

      Double standards exampled by:

      Muslim man rapes a 13 year old and our legal system says, “oh dear, the poor guy didn’t know that sex with a 13 year old is wrong because he was brought up a Muslim. Let him go.”

      Ignorance of the law isn’t usually an allowed defence in British jurisprudence. This sounds like a massive miscarriage of justice. Could you give some specifics on the case: links to any news articles, trial transcripts, that sort of thing. Thanks in advance.

      Two Muslim girls hospitalise a non-Muslim girl for being non-Muslim and our legal system says, “oh dear, the poor girls didn’t know how to handle alcohol because they were brought up as Muslims. Let them go.”

      Ditto for this one.

  12. Rhea Page was the girl who had 3 shades kicked out of her and Adil Rashid is the rapist. I am far too drunk at this moment in time to give you any more details, plus I’m on my phone which is just far too much of a pain in the arse to do anything productive on.

      • In reply to #20 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #19 by Virgin Mary:

        Both actual cases. I thought you were just making stuff up. My apologies.

        I hesitate to post links to the Daily Mail but the rape case is here.

        I don’t know fullfact.org but they seem to have tried to get to the bottom of the other sentencing but nothing is written down! It is not clear the magistrate took any account of the “not used to drink defence” Have a look here.

        Michael

        • In reply to #25 by mmurray:

          In reply to #20 by Katy Cordeth:

          I hesitate to post links to the Daily Mail but the rape case is here.

          I don’t know fullfact.org but they seem to have tried to get to the bottom of the other sentencing but nothing is written down! It is not clear the magistrate took any account of the “not used to drink defence” Have a look here.

          Michael

          Hi Michael.

          Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes you’re just harmlessly surfing the web and you click on some news link without taking account of the site you’re being led to and you find it’s the Daily Mail, the destination of choice for those seeking shots of 14-year-old girls in bikinis accompanied by the caption “all grown up”, and stories about how asylum-seeking gays are the main cause of cancer. I always feel that my laptop is slightly disappointed in me if I don’t immediately navigate away.

          The Mail article was actually the one I read when Virgin Mary revealed the names of the people he was talking about. Same thing with the Rhea Page case: Mail Online.

          From fullfact.org:

          We contacted the Judicial Office to find out more details about the case and they told us the judgement was given orally and therefore there was no written manuscript available. They did however point us towards an article written in the Leicester Mercury…

          This is indefensible. English law is based on precedent; everything has to be written down. This is why judges often seem out of touch when they ask questions in court which concern popular culture. There was a famous example some years ago in which a barrister arguing his case mentioned the soccer player Paul Gascoigne. The judge interrupted to ask who this was and was pilloried in the press as a result, ‘Gazza’ being the most famous person in the country at that time. But the guy knew what he was doing: he was getting it on record so that fifty years down the line when Gascoigne is long forgotten, some poor clerk won’t have to run off to find a history book if the case is cited as precedent.

          Saying “Ooh, we can’t really remember, but it was in the local paper if that’s any help” is pathetic.

  13. There was a case in Amsterdam a while back…

    Several Muslim lads raped a non-muslim 13 year old in the bushes at an outdoor swimming pool…then beat her up.

    The court turned around and said…’We have to understand their culture and the 13 year old in bikini was to much for their cultural expectations’…the court let them go!

    The beating charge was apparently forgotten about…

    It was partly that incident and the virtual beheading of the film producer that started the society to backlash and pre ordained the emergence of the likes of Wilders and the PVV.

    Dutch society has never been the same since, it is a pressure cooker out there, it will blow sooner then later.

  14. Apparently it’s causing real and very serious problems in Sweden as well. My uncle has had enough of the tension so is relocating back to the UK after 30 years over there. He thinks something’s about to blow and as a hippie he’s no interest in being there when it happens.

  15. Inaction in this case would be nothing short of institutional cowardice. Granted, this is coming from an individualist yank, but I will once again point out Dawkins’ call to action that we cease concerning ourselves with being polite to religious cultures who’ve taken such compliance for granted. This is exactly the boat we need to rock, until it capsizes if necessary.

    We have to defend civil liberties vigilantly in order to keep them, whether it is to sit where you want at a forum, or to not be subject to participation in institutionalized prayer or have your health needs honored despite an organization’s religious objection. And as this instance demonstrates, people and institutions will play on social propriety so long as it keeps working for them.

    I would expect intolerance of cultural values that are, themselves, intolerant or discriminatory of individual rights to rather appropriate. I remember something about rebellion against tyranny being obedience to God somewhere.

    The Islamic Education and Research Academy should be no less than banned from the UCL for at least of five years. (And half a decade would be lenient.) This needs to sting lest they are tempted to do it again.

    I for one am offended all the way over here. I expect better from you, London.

    I apologize for the TL:DR. I am fuming over this.

  16. It’s got nothing to do with politeness !
    It’s oppressive Political Correctness arranged to stifle free speech.
    I want to see satirical shows on telly like Spitting Image squeeze the bladder of Islamic idiots; it would be a metaphorical breath of fresh air!

  17. I actually blame the daily hate mail and the express, in fact most of the tabloids, but these two in particular. As a rule if they say something you instantly want to oppose it on principle, because people don’t want to be associated with agreeing with them. As a result the few things they get right (monkeys and typewriters) I certainly feel deeply uncomfortable agreeing with (I agree, for example, that the UK should not be in the EU and that tolerance for Islam, and indeed most religions, has a limit; albeit in both cases for radically different reasons).
    I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people take a similar stance frankly.

  18. I actually blme the daily mail and express: no one wants to agree with them, even on the rare occassion that they get it right (monkeys and typewriters). I may agree with these papers that the UK shouldn’t be in the EU and that tolerance for Islam has a limit (albeit for vastly different reasons) but I fel deeply uncomfortable while doing so.

    • I think you have a point. The most vocal on this subject tend to be people or organisations that I have no respect for (the papers you mention and groups like EDF, BNP) so I sometimes find myself actively thinking of reasons they are wrong, even when I think they are right. Behind that is the fear that more general intolerance of islamic practices opens the door to less tolerance on other grounds (nationality, skin colour etc) and legitimises the very groups I have no respect for.

      In reply to #31 by littletrotsky13:

      I actually blme the daily mail and express: no one wants to agree with them, even on the rare occassion that they get it right (monkeys and typewriters). I may agree with these papers that the UK shouldn’t be in the EU and that tolerance for Islam has a limit (albeit for vastly different reasons) but I fel deeply uncomfortable while doing so.

      • In reply to #34 by paulmcuk:

        I think you have a point. The most vocal on this subject tend to be people or organisations that I have no respect for (the papers you mention and groups like EDF, BNP) so I sometimes find myself actively thinking of reasons they are wrong, even when I think they are right. Behind that is the fear that more general intolerance of islamic practices opens the door to less tolerance on other grounds (nationality, skin colour etc) and legitimises the very groups I have no respect for.

        In reply to #31 by littletrotsky13:

        I actually blme the daily mail and express: no one wants to agree with them, even on the rare occassion that they get it right (monkeys and typewriters). I may agree with these papers that the UK shouldn’t be in the EU and that tolerance for Islam has a limit (albeit for vastly different reasons) but I fel deeply uncomfortable while doing so.

        I don’t agree. Watch this and tell me that the problem is those groups, the problem is our spineless government. (Dispatches: Sex Gangs).

        http://youtu.be/YoSpe_nl5y8

  19. Down-under we now have ‘The Secular Party of Australia’. It is little known so far but growing. We need other nations including USA and Britain to quickly grow a Secular Party if they don’t have one already. (secular.org.au)

    I see this type of political party as the only way we are going to deal with religion in our countries because the other parties were not set-up for humanism and secular values.

  20. I’ve read in one of the posts on this web that iERA has been banned in UCL. It’s about time that somebody did something against those primitive morons. Does iERA stand for islamic education research academy? If so, it’s a blasphemy -if I may borrow this religious term- to see the words EDUCATION and RESEARCH used by this association of desert goat keepers.

  21. Rubbish.

    Organisers allowing for voluntary male, female and mixed seating areas at an Islamic debate seems perfectly reasonable to me, it displays understanding and quite frankly who cares. These were bright UK university students not goat herders and perfectly capable of complaint. When one of the Muslim girls did complain, about Lawrence Krauss insulting her values he suggested that she stay at home equating the event to a “football game” where one is expected to observe a mysterious wider cultural norm. Presumably that being imposed fan segregation, racism and violence, not the best analogy.
    As for Britons being afraid…. I’m guessing that headline doesn’t include those Britons of Arabic descent or those well educated, polite Brits at the UCL debate, future mathematicians, doctors, philosophers. I’m guessing it refers to Britons at football matches, Top Gear fans, White van drivers and some of the contributors to this website. To suggest that an unfamiliar seating arrangement is the thin end of the wedge to Sharia Law in Britain is not even an opinion, it’s just bizarre. Personally I’d like to see racist and non-racist segregation.

Leave a Reply