Why is Birmingham University Students’ Union Promoting Hizb ut Tahrir?
Birmingham University Students’ Union - which is officially known as the “Guild” to avoid being mistaken for a real Union, with actual workers - appears to be promoting a debate organised by the fascist political party, Hizb ut Tahrir.
Actually, that may be slightly unfair.
Specifically, the promoting is being done by a woman called Yasmin Patel, in her capacity as Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Officer: a post to which she was “elected”, unopposed, having “run” as the Islamic Society candidate, on a slate put together by the Student Broad Left group, which I believe includes the Socialist Workers’ Party and Socialist Action.
Yasmin Patel has been working hard to encourage people to attend this Hizb ut Tahrir event: including writing to various lecturers, suggesting that they advise their students to attend.
A few years ago, very few people knew that much about Hizb ut Tahrir. The party’s political programme, which includes the creation of the theocratic caliphate, which would impose a form of religious and gender apartheid, in which sexual minorities and religious dissenters would be executed, was only really known to Islamists and those of us who follow the extremes of the political spectrum. All that has changed.
The convictions in Denmark for incitement to racial hatred earned by the party’s representative, the association of those who have gone on to commit acts of terrorism, the racist propaganda, and the relationship of the party to the Al Qaeda supporting Al Muhajiroun are all common knowledge. Hizb ut Tahrir is treated by the National Union of Students, quite rightly, as the equivalent of the British National Party, and covered by that organisation’s No Platform policy. It is, in fact, rather more extreme than the BNP.
As readers of this blog will know, I oppose the banning of Hizb ut Tahrir, as long as the organisation does not engage in, or directly incite, acts of terrorism. I am also in favour, generally, of taking on fascists in debate: the better to defeat them.
However, students of Hizb ut Tahrir will know that the party’s central mission in recent years has been to represent themselves as a respectable, mainstream political party. Unusually, this event is billed as a Hizb ut Tahrir meeting. The party operates, more usually, by creating front organisations which then organise debates to which respectable political figures are invited to discuss aspects of theology with members of this fascist group. By putting on meetings to which prominent figures from outside Hizb ut Tahrir participate, the party creates the illusion that they are the authentic political voice of British Muslims. Successful past events enable Hizb ut Tahrir to encourage other organisations to host them, and the media to take them seriously. The fact remains that in reality, Hizb ut Tahrir are a tiny fringe group with little traction in this country.
Make no mistake. This is a Hizb ut Tahrir debate: billed as such. This is how Hizb ut Tahrir builds the profile of the organization, and recruits new members.
I can guess why Yasmin Patel is promoting Hizb ut Tahrir. There is little to say about her: except that I would have thought that her actions are utterly incompatible with her office. BME Students Union officers should not be promoting racist totalitarian organisations. A union officer with responsibility for standing up for minorities should not be promoting an organisation which seeks to attack and discriminate against them. Can you imagine the furore if - say - a Womens’ Officer were to promote a ‘debate’ with a British National Party member: let alone an event organised by it?
I’d hope that the Guild will no confidence and remove Yasmin Patel as soon as possible. If she had any shame, she’d resign immediately.
The full story is at the Ministry of Truth blog. Go and read it.
Comments
| 11 May 2008, 10:27 pm |
I am confused. If David supports tackling the likes of Hizb ut Tabrir on in debate, why is he attacking Yasmin Patel for organising a meeting that err allows people to confront Hizb ut Tabrir?
| 11 May 2008, 10:35 pm |
Are you still here?
Do you have a Google Blog Alert set up to remind you to come her to post whenever Socialist Action is mentioned?
| 11 May 2008, 10:48 pm |
whats going on with Hassan Butt?
| 11 May 2008, 10:50 pm |
Evidently dear David.
As far as I know Socialist Action no longer exists, although I could well be wrong. And if Yasmin Patel is a member or not - I haven’t a clue.
However the point remains all she seems to be guilty of is organising an event which in principle David would support - so why the vitirol?
| 11 May 2008, 10:54 pm |
Trial coming up… Shiv deserves immense support. I’ll blog that on another day.
| 11 May 2008, 11:00 pm |
Richard
Personally, I only debate with people when there is a point.
As Ken Livingstone has gone, it really matters very little now what his little helper trots have to say.
So do excuse me if I just ignore you from now on.
| 11 May 2008, 11:13 pm |
So what job is Boris going to give you David - Swimming Tzar?
| 11 May 2008, 11:49 pm |
Not surprising: Islamist groups are infliltrating Students Unions up and down the nation. In Leicester, H-u-T managed to hijack the ethnic minority slots for their own gain, since members who boasted of H-u-T membership would campaign under front of the Islamic Society. One of their favourite guests was Khalid Yasin, friend of Omar Bakhri, 9/11 troofer, and apologist for the Bali bombings.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/koranic-tv-next-step-for-radical-sheik/2005/08/19/1124435144954.html
It proved impossible though for the secular society to get this creature banned from speaking - most non-Muslim SU execs naively trusted whatever the Islamists told them.
| 12 May 2008, 2:11 am |
Richard,
let’s cut to the chase:
what is your view of Hizb ut Tahrir? what do you think of their policies?
| 12 May 2008, 5:23 am |
“most non-Muslim SU execs naively trusted whatever the Islamists told them.”
And there is the core of the issue. I’m tempted to say (especially based on the post above by Ben) that you Brits are the most credulous lot in the Anglosphere. This is not to say that Americans or Aussies or Canadians don’t have similar problems, but I have read enough British blogs and newspapers to see that you lot tie yourselves up in knots with arcane arguments over semantics whilst fascist forces array themselves against your nation and its people.
Is there any good sense left in Britain these days, or has the Kingdom so rotted from the inside that it simply -deserves- to be Islamized just to prove the point?
| 12 May 2008, 6:21 am |
Fuck off Farnos.
| 12 May 2008, 6:44 am |
DT: I am also in favour, generally, of taking on fascists in debate: the better to defeat them.
And not to mention that it is so easy to defeat fascists in a debate, as the facts and democratic values are so stacked against them.
But when violence is allowed (e.g. Hezbollah state within a state in Lebanon), defeating fascists armed with guns and bombs is very difficult, as they are usually motivated to die for their senseless beliefs, as their leaders so skillfully abuse their emotions.
That is why the idiotic Left is committing a historic blunder by trying to close down debate (such as on their comment boards) and by getting so cozy with Islamic fascism and postcolonial fascism.
| 12 May 2008, 9:55 am |
Interesting comment, Hamid.
David, lol, I didn’t know you had that venom in you. But Farnos is a deserving target, annoying as he is.
| 12 May 2008, 10:58 am |
He’s still a knob, David.
| 12 May 2008, 11:15 am |
I thought Farnos’ “Swimming Czar” riposte was excellent, though.
Yeah wasn’t it? If I were you, I’d take ownership of that diss, flip it, and start using it to refer to myself.
| 12 May 2008, 11:40 am |
Anyone else notice that Hassan Butt was arrested at Manchester airport (a couple of days ago) on terrorism charges?
Mrs Ben
| 12 May 2008, 11:56 am |
Yes.
| 12 May 2008, 12:17 pm |
This is a bit of a turnaround. When I was there (admittedly some time ago) HuT was banned from Guild membership for its anti-semitism.
| 12 May 2008, 1:28 pm |
this is actually good news…we need to force Hitz into the mainstream of policial life so they can be exposed for what they are…fascist idiots…if we try to ban/exclude them from civilised debate/holding meetings then we force them underground…which we all know is wrong
| 12 May 2008, 1:48 pm |
Hizb has two reasons to hold events like this.
1. So that they can say “We’re a respectable mainstream organisation. We represent the cream of British Muslim intellectual life. How dare you say we’re racists or fascists. Look! We just organised an event at which a prominent Professor spoke with us”
2. Hizb tries to debate with white liberals. Basically, they aren’t really up to a proper debate on Islamic theology with a mainstream cleric. However, by holding debates with white liberals, they’re able to create the binary of “the Islamic view” v “the Kufr view”. Essentially, this is an opportunity to appeal to the religious loyalties of Muslims in the audience, without exposing themselves to challenge from an Islamic perspective.
Obviously, only a few Muslims will be dumb enough to be fooled by this sort of ploy. However, they’re a cult. They only need a few members, utterly devoted to the organisation.
| 12 May 2008, 5:35 pm |
Having been responsible for proscribing Hizb-ut-Tahrir under the Guilds ‘no-platform’ policy some two years ago for their blatant discrimination, I was astounded to see the officer in question promote the event.
I attended this event yesterday, which amounted to the classic HUT meeting. Planted questions, an already converted audience, a speaker avoiding the subject an employing all manner of techniques to de-legitimise the opposition over dealing with eh substantive. This meeting far from tackled HUT, this meeting legitimised and promoted them as a credible organisation, for which they certainly are not.
| 12 May 2008, 6:50 pm |
I’m sorry - but unsurprised - to hear that.
I have spoken to the Professor of Sociology who participated in this meeting, who thought it had gone rather well.
He may be doing us a guest post in a week or two.
| 13 May 2008, 10:09 am |
I wouldn’t. Anything you say will be clearly libellous and should be taken down forthwith. As I will demand and threaten to email neo-nazi and fascist sympathisers.
| 13 May 2008, 6:19 pm |
I was actually at the debate and found it most interesting and informative. There was no call for blood in the streets and all people respected each others perspective. In my opinion the person from Hizb ut Tahrir actually won the debate (the irony).
I think sometimes people dont want to engage in a debate for fear of losing, yet (and again the irony) its these so called extremists who are more than confident enough to actually want to engage. Shame secularists are far less willing
| 13 May 2008, 10:55 pm |
Funny that - I had previously thought HuT was what the quarteback says up to three times before the snap to bamboozle the defence into moving too soon. At the snap he then slides his hands down between the cheeks of the centre’s arse (who has snapped the ball up between his legs), to grab it and throw it away as far as possible. I now know different.
| 14 May 2008, 6:09 pm |
I was actually at the debate and found it most interesting and informative. There was no call for blood in the streets and all people respected each others perspective.
Yes.
I would love to debate with HuT, although I wouldn’t do it as part of a HuT set up event.
I think I’d mostly restrict myself to reading from the HuT Model Constitution, which is a vicious document which essentially does call for blood on the streets (particularly those of religious dissenters), as well as apartheid against non-Muslims, and systematic discrimination against women.
Write a comment