Sharia creep at the LSE

Ah, the venerable London School of Economics. According to its web site, the elite social science institute was “set up to improve society and to ‘understand the causes of things.’” The  LSE, continued the bulletin, “has always put engagement with the wider world at the heart of its mission.” What better way to accomplish that than by censoring free expression about sensitive topics? Here we have it, folks: an institution that prides itself on being on the cutting edge of all things modern — and devoted, what’s more,   to understanding n”the causes of things — resurrects that icon of medievalism: a law against blasphemy!

Don't believe me?  Check it out here: “The London School of Economics [LSE] Student Union has passed a motion effectively making it impossible for students on campus to criticize Islam.”

Ouch.  Remember the Danish cartoon saga?  Cartoonists lampoon Muhammed, Islamists go wild, burn embassies, kill a few score infidels, and generally exhibit the extreme anti-social behavior that has made Islam synonymous with insanity wherever reason prevails. The LSE’s bargain with the barbarians was also provoked by a cartoon, though I suspect just about anything less than total acquiescence might have set the, off.  A touchy, thin-skinned bunch, these followers of the “religion of peace.”

The LSE has recently been embroiled in another scandal on campus – notably the shutting down of a union-affiliated “Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society” for the posting of a cartoon entitled “Jesus and Mo.” The cartoon depicts Jesus and the Prophet Muhammed having a drink together in a pub and is a regular cartoon shared within the atheist community.

In response to the cartoon being posted, students at the London School of Economics forced through motions denouncing “Islamophobia” which defined the act as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an [i.e., the Koran to us infidels] as a manual of hatred.” Critics have argued that the loose terminology — i.e. Islamic culture — makes parody or criticism of Islam impossible.

The critics, of course, are 100 percent correct.

Another detail, the motion passed with only 6 percent of the student body turning out for the vote.

Yet another detail: the motion also disenfranchised hundreds of students by revoking the ability to vote on line, a provision that Raheem Kassam, director of the an organization called Student Rights, called “Putin-esque.” “This is an extremely worrying day for the London School of Economics,” Kassam observed. “Shutting out people from voting online, effectively leaving the Union in the hands of political extremists who turn out day-in day-out, and passing what is a flimsy motion on Islamophobia means that freedom of speech, expression and effective representation is being curtailed on campus by those with a distinct political agenda.”

Exactement, mon brave.