Maajid Nawaz Suggests We Call Out Those Who Advocate Islamic Theocracy

[rug]

While referring those who advocate Islamic theocracy during a recent discussion with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz recommended that we "call them out" in order to make their ideas "a taboo."

Posted by Jack Vance
May 11, 2016

After watching a recent discussion on Islam between Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see the video below), I found myself pondering a question that should be relevant to atheists and freethinkers who value the free expression of ideas. Someone asked a question from the audience about how the discussants would balance the right to free expression (i.e., our right to criticize Islam) with concerns over "hate speech" (i.e., some of the critics of Islam may be motivated by racism and/or xenophobia). I think this is an important question and one with which many of us have struggled. But what prompted me to post about it is that something in Nawaz's response caught me off guard.

Not surprisingly, both he and Hirsi Ali came down on the side of free expression. I believe Hirsi Ali even described herself as a "free speech fundamentalist" or something along those lines. Starting right about 36:58, Nawaz said that he opposes no-platforming and "safe spaces" and that he believes that the answer to hate speech is more speech. I couldn't agree more. When it comes to dealing with bad ideas, I think it is a mistake to attempt to stifle their expression.

But then he said something that seemed to go in the other direction. He said that the way to handle non-violent extremists is to "call them out" like we did with racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. Our goal, he said, should be "to make it a taboo." Now, he was referring to "Muslim theocrats" when he said this. That is, he was saying that he wants to make advocating Islamic theocracy as taboo as racism and the like; however, it sounded to me like the general principle he's advocating is that make whatever we consider hate speech socially unacceptable through call outs and condemnation. Would public shaming fit here too? Aren't these tactics designed to reduce speech we don't like rather than encourage more of it?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding or reading too much into this, but it seems like Nawaz was suggesting that the antidote to hate speech is more speech and then recommending that we bring social pressures to bear in order to make what we consider hate speech socially unacceptable. I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile what strike me as contradictory approaches. It seems that trying to make something a taboo is about trying to prevent the expression of ideas we do not like.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2016/05/maajid-nawaz-suggests-we-call-out-those.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtheistRevolution+%28Atheist+Revolution%29

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. "designed to reduce speech we don't like rather than encourage more of it?", Duh, yes.

To state the bleedin' obvious, we do not want to encourage more advocacy of theocracy, Islamic or otherwise. Vance seems to have misplaced the argument.

One does not have to respect bigotry, or encourage it; Vance (I presume) doesn't think that one should encourage more racism. He would counter racist speech by arguing how it hurts people, treats some people as 'lesser', and so on. And so people should put forward the arguments against theocracy, hoping that everyone will then see what a bad idea it is, because it oppresses people, and so anyone advocating it would indeed become ashamed of doing so.

[rug]

2. Here's what he posted about public shaming.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2015/08/in-condemnation-of-public-shaming.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. There's nothing wrong with shaming those who want to oppress others

I'm all for the public shaming of Donald Trump, for instance. Or Ted Cruz, who does basically advocate a theocracy. Or the Saudi monarchy, who run one.