Maryam Namazie: "Criticising religion is not incitement of hatred against people."

Why Warwick university was wrong to ban ex-Muslim speaker Maryam Namazie

There are numerous countries, especially in the Middle East, that have laws against "defaming" or "insulting" God and religion. Some of them – most notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – have spent years lobbying at the United Nations in an effort to get similar laws adopted by other countries. Saudi Arabia took this a step further recently when a government official, speaking at an international conference, called for the worldwide introduction of anti-blasphemy laws, as a matter of urgency.

Needless to say, these moves have met strong resistance at the international level. On what grounds should religion be protected from questioning, criticism or ridicule when other forms of ideology – Communism and capitalism, for example – are not? The answers usually given are basically tautological: that religion is "holy" and believers might be offended. 

Unfortunately, though, many in the west have been persuaded that religions – and Islam especially – should be protected from criticism in the mistaken belief that by doing so they are combating Islamophobia. This seems to be what happened at Warwick University in Britain, where the students' union has banned Maryam Namazie of the Council of Ex-Muslims from speaking at a meeting of the Atheists, Secularists and Humanists' Society.

In a blog post, Namazie quotes a letter from the students' union setting out their reasons for rejecting her as a speaker:

"After researching both her and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised ... There a [sic] number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus."

It is unclear what articles the letter is referring to. I have heard Namazie speak at a couple of previous events. I also interviewed her for my book, Arabs Without God, and while Muslims might be offended by her views on religion, I have seen nothing support the charge of inciting hatred.

Namazie's response to the claim is this:

"Criticising religion and the religious-Right is not incitement of hatred against people. If anything, it’s the religious-Right, namely Islamism in this case, which incites hatred against those of us who dare to leave Islam and criticise it.

"The Student Union seems to lack an understanding of the difference between criticising religion, an idea, or a far-Right political movement on the one hand and attacking and inciting hate against people on the other. Inciting hatred is what the Islamists do; I and my organisation challenge them and defend the rights of ex-Muslims, Muslims and others to dissent."

In Britain we have a legal right to say things that "offend, shock or disturb". That was made clear by the European Court way back in 1976. Freedom of expression, the court said, applies not only to ideas "that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population". 

This is an essential right because without it ideas could be suppressed simply because someone – perhaps only one person – claimed to be offended by them. Without such a principle there would be a general licence for censorship which would also infringe the rights of religious believers. Non-believers, for example, would be able to demand the banning of the Bible or the Qur'an on the grounds that they found them shocking or offensive.

But having a right to offend does not mean people should exercise their right at every opportunity. There is a difference between causing offence gratuitously and causing offence in order to make a serious point. A test proposed by the EU's Venice Commission in 2008 is to ask whether the ideas being expressed "contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs" – and by any reasonable yardstick robust questioning of religion and religious practices definitely falls into that category.

However, Warwick student's union seems to have confused this with Islamophobia or incitement to hatred, even though Namazie clearly recognises the distinction herself. She also makes the point that Islamophobes normally miss: that Islam is not a monolithic bloc and being a Muslim doesn't necessarily mean being an Islamist or a supporter of Isis.

One of her organisations' pamphlets specifically attacks those on the right who stir up "bigotry and paranoia concerning Muslims" for their own political ends. A paragraph in the pamphlet says:

"Whilst it is crucial to combat Islamism and Sharia law and defend citizenship and universal rights and secularism, it is equally vital to discriminate between genuine allies and those who would arrogate such efforts for their own ends, namely the far-Right, which has attempted to hijack legitimate criticism of Islamism to further its racist agenda."

Warwick's behaviour in banning Namazie is one example of a growing trend. Universities are becoming much more timid where controversial ideas are concerned and, in the words of one Twitter user, the attitude seems to be: 

"Let's not discuss anything, ever. That way no-one gets upset. Or educated."

Namazie previously had a similar run-in with Trinity College Dublin, and I had a peculiar experience of my own last year with Westminster University in London. 

I had been invited to take part in a question-and-answer panel at the university organised by the Westminster Law Review. I received a list of the topics for discussion in advance and, very oddly since none of them directly concerned religion, I also received a statement about the university's Religion and Belief Policy along with a request to signal that I would comply with it.

To the university's credit, the document did make clear that the rights of humanists, agnostics and atheists were to be respected along with those of religious believers, but much of it was swathed in cultural relativism. Among other things, I was asked to avoid "disparaging other people's beliefs and practices" and to respect "the convictions of others about food, dress and social etiquette" – apparently regardless of whether such practices might be abhorrent or the rules of etiquette discriminatory.

I ignored the request for a while, but after receiving a reminder I wrote back saying I couldn't agree to it. In the meantime, the event was cancelled for unconnected reasons.