Just a day after it was revealed that the government was to ask universities to clamp down on Islamic extremism we get this. The Guardian reports that the Philosophy Society of Trinity College Dublin has organised a debate between radical Muslims and moderate ones on the subject of Islamic terrorism.
The university says they are not involved in this debate; but this is precisely the sort of thing they should be getting involved in. The organiser said "people are saying that we are giving the extremists a platform to preach hatred but to not allow freedom of speech is to go against everything that this society stands for". Surely, as a budding philosopher, this man has heard of a non sequitur.
However, the biggest problem is the panel. For the extremists we have Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and other Al Ghurabaa members. For the moderate we have some moderates but also a certain David Pidcock, head of the Islamic Party of Great Britain.
Browsing their website I came across this statement as their policy on foreign affairs:
But the overriding concern of such a party, as also of other Muslim organisations,wherever they may be, can only be the brave struggle of the Palestinian people against military occupation. It is on this matter that the Islamic Party would hope to make its voice most effectively heard.As if this wasn't bad enough they also have an article published just a week after 7/7 that suggests that the whole thing was a government conspiracy, like 9/11. There is even the hint that Mossad were involved.
Which side of the debate should this man be on?