If Steven Greer had been critical of Christianity or Christians, would there have been a campaign to get him fired? Would he have been investigated? Would his course have been canceled? You know the answer to all those questions. While the establishment media works hard to portray Muslims as victims since 9/11, in reality, they’ve become a privileged class, as this sorry incident illustrates.
“University clears don of being anti-Islam but then cancels his course anyway after students launched ‘vicious and militant’ campaign,” by Jake Ryan, Mail On Sunday, September 13, 2021:
A professor has hit out at cancel culture after his lectures were axed following a ‘vicious, militant’ campaign by students who branded him Islamophobic.
University chiefs rejected complaints that human rights expert Steven Greer had expressed ‘bigoted views’ after a five-month investigation – but have still pulled his module from their syllabus.
He accused senior academics of ‘capitulating’ to the threats of students who had called for the module at Bristol University’s law school to be scrapped over his ‘reported use of discriminatory remarks and Islamophobic comments’.
An online petition which was launched by members of the university’s Islamic Society, Brisoc, attracted 3,700 signatures.
Meanwhile, Prof Greer said he had to flee the family home amid fears for his safety following the campaign against him.
Critics claimed a lecture slide that mentioned the 2015 terror attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that had published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, was ‘Islamophobic rhetoric’.
Prof Greer also highlighted the inferior treatment of women and non-Muslims in Islamic nations, and the harsh penalties handed out under sharia law.
But he believes he largely came under attack because he supports the Government’s Prevent programme to stop radicalisation, which critics have branded anti-Islamic.
Prof Greer, who has worked at the university since the 1980s, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Brisoc’s campaign has been vicious and punitive and has put me and my family under intolerable stress. It has been very threatening and frightening.’…
Although a formal investigation came down in favour of Prof Greer, he received an email from academic chiefs last week which said his module on Islam, China and the Far East was being dropped so Muslim students would ‘not feel that their religion is being singled out or in any way ‘othered’ by the class material’.
Prof Greer said: ‘Militant minorities are increasingly intent on dictating the content and delivery of university education through vilification, intimidation and threats.
‘Their purpose is to silence lawful and legitimate opinion simply because they disagree with it.
‘The law school has capitulated in a manner which is at variance with the result of the university’s inquiry into my case.’
Prof Greer faced particular criticism over his defence of Prevent, but said the allegation that the programme was Islamophobic had been ‘resoundingly discredited by the best and most recent research… it simply doesn’t stack up against the evidence.’…
Toby Young, of the Free Speech Union, said: ‘Bristol’s treatment of Prof Greer is outrageous.
‘By kowtowing to the Islamic Society, the university has issued a gold-embossed invitation to activists to submit vexatious complaints about its employees.’
Yeah.
CogitoErgoSum says
What a sick joke that Muslim students don’t want to feel their religion is being “othered” when all the while Islam is built around “othering” those who are not Muslims. They call those outside their religion “Infidels” and then force these “others” to submit and comply or else pay a price set by the Muslims themselves.
mortimer says
A large number of Muslims who migrate to the West have actually accepted that Western people have constitutional rights to criticize whatever ideology or religion they choose to criticize without government restriction.
It is thus a minority of Muslims in the West who are clambering for blasphemy laws. Most are willing to put up with it for the privilege of living in free Western countries.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, can you point to any Muslims in the West who have actually said this? I’ve never heard a single Muslim say that Infidels have the right to criticize Islam.
And as you know, even here in the US over 50% of Muslims openly say that they want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law–which always includes blasphemy laws.
Also, the idea that Muslims are “willing to put up” with freedom in order to get Western bennies is actually quite appalling.
mortimer says
TO GI:
Opinion polls and surveys 2017:
Center for Security Policy
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
“… nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
(You are welcome. And I do not humbug about Islam … I get the facts.)
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
Your post stated:
“the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
So 37% of those sampled did not agree with freedom of expression if it offended muslims.
37% is a very significant percentage – and includes a very large number of muslims.
gravenimage says
Mortimer–with all respect–the implication that my asking this perfectly reasonable question is “humbugging” is grotesquely insulting.
Then, you present the results of a poll (I suppose we are supposed to be grateful that even more Muslims don’t believe they have the right to use violence against us for daring to say anything critical of Islam, including its being violent).
But this is *not* the same as Muslims actually saying that they have “actually accepted that Western people have constitutional rights to criticize whatever ideology or religion they choose to criticize without government restriction”. In fact, you have not pointed to any Muslim who has said this, or anything like it
I ask again if you can point to any Muslim affirming the right of Infidels to criticize Islam. I have actually not found any examples myself.
bill says
Christians are being murdered in varying numbers in African countries by Muslims weekly now, simply because they are Christians, so how is Islam a religion of peace?
When I hear that mass demonstrations of Muslims against such campaigns of murder against non Muslims then I will believe the ROP claim. BTW the Tban’s take over of Afghanistan has received massive support from ‘peaceful’ Muslims and their clerics.
gravenimage says
All grimly true, bill.
Kenneth J Johnson says
When does 2% of the population dictate university curriculum. What has happened to “the majority rules, with consideration for the minority” not appeasement of the minority.
KEN
rubiconcrest says
Of course in a sane world those who put forth the petition would be asked to withdraw it or be expelled from the University. The University investigation demonstrated that the professor did not do what the petition claimed he did. The petition was designed to falsely accuse the professor and intimidate him.
It is a perfect example of how a violent minority can seize control of the narrative which then sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who crosses them in the future. The non violent majority are cowed into submission.
mortimer says
It was slander, but the slanderers may be carrying weapons or bombs or may engage in automobile jihad, etc. Terrorism works.
mortimer says
What they have done to Prof Greer is called the ‘Poisoning the Well’ fallacy.
mortimer says
The university has admitted that the Islamists will win, even when their facts are wrong, because the university sees the Islamists are prepared to do physical harm to people and to the university.
This mechanism is called the HECKLER’S VETO, defined as ‘an illegal content-based RESTRICTION on speech where the speech is prohibited due to an ANTICIPATED DISORDERLY or VIOLENT reaction of the audience.’
The heckler’s veto is an attempt to overthrow free speech which is the law of the land, and in its place to set up mob law, lynch law, and to substitute lawlessness for the law enforcement which obtains in civilized countries.
In practice, it is often a calculated assault on free speech characterized by loud, one-sided conversations, shouted interruptions, JABBERED FALSE FACTS, THREATS and PERSONAL INSULTS.
But the Islamic version of the heckler’s veto goes further and includes vigilante murder of critics of Islam. That is precisely what the university fears may happen and wants to avoid. So they have caved in to the terrorists’ veto.
The intent of the Islamic society and the Leftists was to deprive Prof Greer of his livelihood and they may have done just that. The university did not want bad press that made them a target for Islamic terrorism, so the rulers of the university caved in. They decided to observe the ISLAMIC HECKLER’S VETO.
The Left is clearly joining in with Islamists to enforce Sharia law imposed by secular means.
Sharia law requires that no kafir speak about Islam or its prophet, and not ‘mention something impermissible’ about them. The mullahs decide what is or isn’t ‘impermissible’.
In Islam ‘slander’ is defined as ‘saying something the other person does not want to be known’. That could be ‘John snores loudly during his sleep.’ The statement is 100% true, but John doesn’t want people to know.
Muslims don’t want anyone to learn the FRIGHTENING, BRUTAL and BACKWARD teachings of Islam, because it will make Muslims appear to support brutality and backwardness.
In fact, polls regarding the freedom of expression do not show that Muslims in West generally oppose freedom of expression. In the US, a survey found that a 63% majority of those Muslims sampled agreed that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
gravenimage says
UK: University clears prof of charges of ‘Islamophobia’ but cancels his course anyway after orchestrated campaign
…………………
Just appalling.
Note that Steven Greer even mentioning the Islamic oppression of women and the murder of cartoonists is enough to get him “canceled”.
And he has also had to flee his home due to death threats–don’t say that Islam is violent or we will kill you…
Are any of these threateners going to be prosecuted? I would not hold my breath.
And the next teacher considering saying anything critical of the horrors of Islam is apt to remember this case and stay very, very quiet.
mortimer says
Questions for those who say ‘Islamophobia’:
-Is there, in your view, ANY criticism of Islam that is valid and not ‘Islamophobic’, and what would that valid criticism be?
-Why exactly do you insist that there is no valid criticism of Islam?
-Do you consider Islam a ‘perfect ideology’ and therefore above ciriticism?
gravenimage says
Good questions, Mortimer.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
I personally know of the medical school Dean who was overheard saying truthful things about islam during a private conversation.
The medical school has a relatively small percent of Muslim students as well as a muslim students association.
He was fired.
gravenimage says
Just appalling, James.
mortimer says
The Red-Green Axis is using ‘Islamophobia’ in the sense of the Definist Fallacy.
-The Islamophobia smear is a ‘Definist Fallacy’ used to take a cheap shot at the opponent. In this fallacy, a propagandist defines the terms in the argument to create prejudice, thus giving himself an unfair advantage even before the opponent’s argument has been presented. This technique was perfected in the communist USSR by the KGB. The ‘Islamophobia’ slander is thus an example of this Stalinist technique.
-Definist Fallacy (defined in Oxford Dict) – ‘The illicit insistence on defining a term in a way that is favourable to one’s own side of an argument. Thus a libertarian may insist on defining taxation as theft by the state, or a pro-life supporter may insist on defining a foetus as an unborn person.’
-The use of ‘Islamophobia’ poisons the well and demonizes Prof Greer, even before Prof Greer was allowed to make his case and defend his ideas.
-In the ‘Islamophobia’ Definist Fallacy, a propagandist slyly defines the terms in the argument so as to create PREJUDICE against his opponent, thus giving himself an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, even before the opponent’s argument has been presented.
-The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a labour-saving device thrown about by lazy scoundrels.
-‘Islamophobia’ is a word that bypasses the laborious presentation of evidence, namely to imply that a person who is thereby slandered is guilty of a crime. ‘Islamophobia’ allows the ‘judge’ to simply skip the whole trial process and go directly from an accusation to the sentencing, leaving out the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt prior to applying condemnation and punishment. ‘Islamophobia’ is a perfect term for the unscrupulous.
-In Islam, the use of ‘taqiyya’ and ‘kitman’ to muddy the waters of thought is an acceptable tactic for winning an argument in favour of Islam.
Rob R (Brit stuck in Britainistan) says
Reporting from the UK (or most places in Europe) is now like a series of running reports from an insane asylum.
“here’s the latest, the patients have now taken over the East Wing which has the treatment beds and the medical supplies storage…”
OLD GUY says
UK Universities are probably loaded with Islamic money in their endowment funds and are afraid they will lose those dollars if they say or do anything that offends their big islamic money contributors. Same thing in America.