Union invites banned anti-Islam activist

first_imgJan Nedvidek, who authored a letter last term criticising OUSU for supporting a protest against the far-right French politician Marine Le Pen, also defended the Union’s decision, commenting, “Robert Spencer is of course a very unsavoury character, as is Anjem Choudary. Their views are of course very objectionable and dangerous.“However, as much as we might dislike that, they are views which shape many people’s worldview. I think it is important that Oxford students are exposed to those views: you must know your enemies to fight them. Giving them a ‘platform’ is not about legitimising their views, but about exposing them to critique and rejection.“The Union has hosted a great number of very controversial speakers: a chap who denied Stalin’s actions in the 50s in the USSR, for example, spoke in one of the debates in my first year. Not great, but it was good to see how everyone immediately realised that guy was a joke and not worth listening to.”However, Imran Naved, President of Oxford University’s Islamic Society, commented to Cherwell, “We feel that it is not appropriate for hate preachers, whether Robert Spencer or Anjem Choudary, to be given a platform to express their views at Oxford University.“Similar to the invitation of Marine Le Pen last term, it is typical of the Oxford Union and also disappointing that certain controversial and unrepresentative characters are repeatedly asked to speak. We understand the need to promote free speech and fully support this, however, for such speakers it is sometimes a point of pride speaking at the Oxford Union and they do not deserve such a platform.“It seems unlikely that anything constructive would come from this, however we hope at least it was the Union’s intention that it did”Nikhil Venkatesh, OUSU’s BME & Anti-Racism Officer, said the Union was courting controversy for controversy’s sake, remarking, “It is disappointing that the Union continues to invite speakers for the sake of ‘shock value’ and publicity rather than informed and free debate.“Inviting such speakers as Spencer and Choudhary intimidates many students in our community, mainly those from already marginalised groups. Good debate requires an atmosphere in which every participant feels comfortable – at the moment, sadly, the Union is not that atmosphere.”The Oxford Union could not be reached for comment, while the Home Office told Cherwell that since the pre-election period had started, it could not provide a comment either.[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11347%%[/mm-hide-text] The invitation sent to Robert Spencer In a post on the Jihadi Watch website, which was taken down almost instantly, Spencer commended the Oxford Union for extending the invitation, and called for it to appeal to the Home Office to get the ban lifted.Spencer’s associate, Pamela Geller, was banned at the same time, and yet the Oxford Union also sent an invitation to her in 2014, asking her to speak in favour of the motion ‘This House Believes Islam Is Incompatible with Gender Equality’.It is unclear whether, on either occasion, the Union was aware of the Home Office ban affecting Spencer and Geller.Spencer told Cherwell, “The letter to me from the UK Home Office specified that I was barred from the country for noting that Islam had a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers. Obviously many, many Muslims worldwide believe that as well, including many imams who are admitted into the UK with no difficulty. Right around the time I was banned, the British Government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. “Al-Arefe has said, ‘Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.’ So apparently one can get into Britain while believing that Islam has a doctrine of warfare against unbelievers, as long as one is in favor of that doctrine.”[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11340%%[/mm-hide-text]Nathan LeanNathan Lean, a scholar at Georgetown University and the author of The Islamophobia Industry, told Cherwell, “Robert Spencer is a Catholic Deacon and former homeschool administrator who poses as an educated and authoritative voice on Islam. In his books and on his blog, he advances a one-dimensional portrait of Muslims that presents violence as a normative tradition within Islam. “Spencer is an extremist in every aspect of the word: he’s fanatical about his beliefs that Islam must be singled out for critique and scorn; he’s unwilling to consider alternative positions that undermine his own; he advocates a worldview that’s been praised by a global terrorist (Anders Breivik); his phony organisation, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, marginalises Muslim communities in the United States through various public campaigns; and he has a history of fraternizing with neo-fascists and hardline European racists.“Spencer should not have been invited to speak at the Oxford Union for precisely the same reason that Anjem Choudary should not have been invited: they are both cut from the same ugly cloth of fanaticism. Choudary believes that his extreme version of Islam is true Islam, and so does Spencer. The normative experiences of Muslims all around the world matter little to either of them. Why is it important to amplify the voices of any extremists through a well-regarded debating society?”[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11341%%[/mm-hide-text]But Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League (EDL), and sometime associate of Robert Spencer, defended the Oxford Union for the invitations to Spencer and Choudary, and called for the Home Office ban to be lifted, telling Cherwell, “I think it’s about time we heard some people who were honest. Anjem Choudary’s very honest, and so is Robert Spencer.“Robert Spencer tells the truth; that’s all he does, he tells the truth. He’s never called for violence, never incited any hate, he’s just told the truth about an ideology. And the only reason he was banned was because they were fearful that it could provoke terrorism.“So what they’re doing is limiting not just his freedoms but they’re limiting what freedoms we have to listen to people in this country, because of what the violent reaction could be from Muslims. It’s absurd, he should never have been banned in the first place.“Not just the Oxford Union, but everyone who stands up for freedom of speech in this country should be appealing to turn over the ban. The only reason they did give a ban was to appease a fundamental and radical minority of a minority.”center_img In one of her first acts as President of the Oxford Union, Olivia Merrett has invited American author and leader of the group ‘Jihadi Watch’ Robert Spencer to take part in next term’s ‘This House Believes Radicalisation is Born at Home’ debate, along with the radical Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary.Robert Spencer, who also co-founded the group ‘Stop Islamization of America’ (SIOA), is banned from entering the UK, following the Home Office’s 2013 decision that his visit would not be “conducive to the public good”, and that his views would be likely to “foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence”.The ban was issued after he was invited to speak at an EDL rally in Woolwich, where drummer Lee Rigby was killed. At around the same time, Anjem Choudary infamously declared himself “proud” of Michael Adebolajo, one of Rigby’s killers, and insisted that Rigby would “burn in hellfire”.[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11339%%[/mm-hide-text]Choudary has also been pictured with AdebolajoAnother EDL rally is scheduled to take place in Oxford on April 4th, when a counter-protest has also been planned by the Oxford Anti-Fascists group.Spencer has previously claimed that “there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists”, and has described Islam as a “threat to the peace and well-being of the Western world”.In the invitation, seen by Cherwell and reproduced in full below, Merrett told Spencer, “Your knowledge and experience will be of huge interest to many in the University.Though projects such as SIOA may be appear [sic] somewhat questionable, we would like to hear your reasons behind it.”Merrett also intimated that Spencer would have control over which media outlets would be allowed to cover the debate, telling him, “The level of media coverage is, of course, entirely at your discretion.”last_img read more

Nature to let potential authors try a doubleblind date

first_imgThe marquee research journal Nature and almost all of its sister publications this week announced that they will offer authors the option of participating in double-blind peer review, where both submitters and referees remain anonymous. The practice, which is common among humanities journals, has long been debated in the sciences, and several journals have recently taken the plunge. Some observers, however, remain skeptical of the value of double-blind systems and note that other journals are heading toward greater transparency.Traditionally, scientific journals have adhered to a single-blind system, in which authors don’t know the identity of those reviewing their paper. But that system has led to concerns that it may contribute to bias against some authors, including women, minorities, and those from less prestigious institutions. In the last decade, publishers have tried to address those concerns by introducing various tweaks to the reviewing process.Nature Publishing Group (NPG) began testing the double-blind system with Nature Climate Change and Nature Geoscience in May 2013, after an author survey indicated significant interest in the model. “We’re here to serve the needs of the research community, and it’s become increasingly clear that they want to have the option … to choose double-blind peer review,” said Véronique Kiermer, director of author and reviewer services at NPG. Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrycenter_img “The trial in Nature Climate Change and Nature Geoscience gave us plenty to be confident about,” she says, but notes the option of complete anonymity will be “an ongoing experiment.” NPG “may find that different disciplines react in different ways,” she says, “and as practices evolve in the future, we will want to evolve with them.”Editors at other journals, including Science (publisher of ScienceInsider), are watching the experiment at Nature and elsewhere, but haven’t made the jump. In part, that’s because some have concluded that it would be hard to prevent reviewers from correctly guessing who authors are, particularly in small fields. Some reviewers can predict authorship by looking closely at a paper’s references; authors often build on their previous work and thus cite themselves extensively.“With double-blind, the inevitable guessing game will begin of reviewers trying to guess which group authored the research,” wrote Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science, in an e-mail. One upside to switching to a double-blind system, she notes, could be a lower number of self-citations (which are often frowned upon by journal editors). And she adds that “it will certainly be important to determine if double-blind improves … equality for women authors in the process.”“There is pretty good evidence for various biases in the way that articles are perceived by reviewers … and double-blind review is one possible way to avoid, or at least mitigate, these biases,” says Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-founder of the nonprofit open-access publisher Public Library of Science (PLOS). But, so far, PLOS has concluded that it is too difficult to mask authors’ identities in fields such as biomedicine, he says.César Hidalgo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge is skeptical of anonymity in peer review. “Unblinded reviews,” he says, are better “because they equalize the power between the author and the reviewer.”To address such concerns, some publishers are moving to highly transparent reviewing systems, in which both authors and reviewers are identified. And a few journals, such as F1000 Research, go even further by publishing referee comments alongside a paper and making the comments searchable and citable. The idea is to give referees, who generally work for free, some public credit for their efforts. But critics of open peer review fear it can also cause image-conscious reviewers to be less critical.Publicly recognizing reviewers won’t be possible in Nature’s system, but Kiermer notes that, “at the moment, reviewers can obtain a certificate of their reviewing activity for Nature journals.” And the publisher is continuing “to consider some form of open review as an option for the future, in response to author and reviewer feedback,” Kiermer says. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img read more