I was pleased to read last night that the Festival of Dangerous Ideas decided to cancel the talk they had scheduled with the title "Honour Killings are Morally Justified" (the page for the talk has since been taken down. The apology said:
As I said here I thought this was not a point of view worthy of a platform or worthy of our patronage. Since then it has been fascinating to watch the story evolve.
Speaker Uthman Badar responds - does he have a cause of action against FODI for defamation?
Uthman Badar, who was scheduled to give the talk, has been reported to have said on Facebook that he didn't originally want to speak on the topic, but did so at the organisers' insistence:
He also said on twitter that:
What's worse is that it seems Badar doesn't agree with the title that the speech was given. He says he doesn't agree with honour killings. Why, then, did the title of his talk say that they were 'morally justified'. I think Badar should seriously consider suing FODI for defaming him.
What makes even less sense is that the talk was cancelled in response to the backlash against its title. If it is true that the content of the talk was not nearly as objectionable as its title, why not re-name it and let it go ahead. Give it a reasonable title that reflects what Badar planned to say and I'll buy a ticket.
Channel 7 News interviews me, I don't talk about religion, they run a clip of Alan Jonesinstead as well
Stranger still was the fact that I was contacted this morning by a producer from Channel 7 news this morning, who wanted to interview me about this controversy. I said that I wasn't sure why they'd interview me - I have no connection or expertise... I just wrote a blog post. Besides, I said, I'm at Whale Beach for work so it's hardly worth sending a camera crew up here just to interview me.
Well, they didn't think so, and did send a reporter, camera operator and sound guy up straight away. And so I thought that, since I do have an opinion on this, I'd take the chance to share it.
To me, as you'd see from my original blog post, this has never been about religion. It was about violence against women. I think it clouds the argument to bring into the discussion Badar's faith or any faith of any of the people that practice honour killings.
That, it would appear, was not what Channel 7 wanted to hear. I did a few pieces to camera; I said that I thought Badar had a right to speak (assuming at the time his content aligned with the title) but that we also had a right to organise as a community to refuse to attend and give the views a platform. I said said that there were plenty of sources online that justified this kind of violence, and it wasn't necessary to broadcast them to further the debate.
The reporter, David Richardson, said to me he thought we were a fundamentally Christian nation and these views didn't have a place here, even though honour killings and genital mutilation take place overseas (or words to that effect). I told him point blank I didn't care about religion - that this was about opposing violence against women, and that we should stand against it regardless of where it occurred and whether it was committed by Muslims or anyone else. At that point he said "Oh, you don't see this as a religious issue at all?" I said no, and the interview promptly ended. The camera guy filmed me pretending blog (lol) and they left.
The four pm Channel 7 news then ran a story on this issue and didn't use any of my grabs (which in retrospect I'm really happy about). Instead they played a grab from Alan Jones in which he engaged in what I'd describe as dog whistling Islamophobia.Says a lot about Channel 7 news, really. Though it appears they ran grabs from me on the 6pm bulletin: grab is here (and fairly represents my views).
This isn't the only FODI talk this mistakes a provocative idea for a truly dangerous one
This isn't about religion - at least for me. This is about correcting the idea that 'dangerous' (as in provocative) ideas are ones that promote violent or hateful views. The reason they're not 'dangerous' is they're not challenging on a global scale. In our inner city bubble it is unusual to hear someone saying it's okay to stone women to death. But globally, it's a practice that is still shamefully prevalent. And while it prevails, the incidence - and its justifications - are literally dangerous and shouldn't be treated as worthy of intellectualising or worthy of using to shock festival-goers in Sydney.
Finally, it's worth noting that FODI features other talks this year that make the same mistake (they have since change the titles of these talks - does anyone have a screenshot of yesterday's titles?) with talks titled 'Gay Marriage is Bad for Children', 'Women are Sexual Predators' and 'Male Culture has Been Emasculated by Women'. You have to live in a massive lefty bubble to think that arguing 'gay marriage is bad for children' is a 'dangerous' idea. It's actually commonly used, hateful libel that gets massive airtime in our culture.
Giving them a platform isn't drawing out a new perspective, it's trolling inner city progressives who live such sheltered lives that they can go out and be 'challenged' by views that are actually used by actual people to spread and justify hate against other actual people. (Though, the fact that FODI has quietly changed the titles of these talks suggests perhaps they've realised this - which is good).
As I said here I thought this was not a point of view worthy of a platform or worthy of our patronage. Since then it has been fascinating to watch the story evolve.
Speaker Uthman Badar responds - does he have a cause of action against FODI for defamation?
Uthman Badar, who was scheduled to give the talk, has been reported to have said on Facebook that he didn't originally want to speak on the topic, but did so at the organisers' insistence:
In a lengthy post on his Facebook page published before organisers bowed to public pressure on Tuesday night to cancel the talk, Mr Badar said the topic ‘‘was not of my choosing’’: ‘‘I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism (something like 'the West needs saving by Islam' - how's that for dangerous?), but the organisers insisted on this topic, which I think is still a worthy topic of discussion, for many reasons, as my presentation will, God-willing, show, hence I accepted.’’
He also said on twitter that:
Hysteria wins out. Opera house cancels my session at #FODI. Welcome to the free world, where freedom of expression is a cherished value.
— Uthman Badar (@UthmanB) June 24, 2014 And: .@dybrikat I'm with you on that. Calm down. #FODI
— Uthman Badar (@UthmanB) June 24, 2014This, I think, paints a very, very negative portrait of the organisers of FODI. Talking Badar at his word, they seem to have turned down a talk on 'the West needs saving by Isalm' (which I would be really keen to attend!) and instead insisted that the speech be about a far more provocative subject matter. They have no admitted that subject matter was inappropriate.What's worse is that it seems Badar doesn't agree with the title that the speech was given. He says he doesn't agree with honour killings. Why, then, did the title of his talk say that they were 'morally justified'. I think Badar should seriously consider suing FODI for defaming him.
What makes even less sense is that the talk was cancelled in response to the backlash against its title. If it is true that the content of the talk was not nearly as objectionable as its title, why not re-name it and let it go ahead. Give it a reasonable title that reflects what Badar planned to say and I'll buy a ticket.
Channel 7 News interviews me, I don't talk about religion, they run a clip of Alan Jones
Stranger still was the fact that I was contacted this morning by a producer from Channel 7 news this morning, who wanted to interview me about this controversy. I said that I wasn't sure why they'd interview me - I have no connection or expertise... I just wrote a blog post. Besides, I said, I'm at Whale Beach for work so it's hardly worth sending a camera crew up here just to interview me.
Well, they didn't think so, and did send a reporter, camera operator and sound guy up straight away. And so I thought that, since I do have an opinion on this, I'd take the chance to share it.
To me, as you'd see from my original blog post, this has never been about religion. It was about violence against women. I think it clouds the argument to bring into the discussion Badar's faith or any faith of any of the people that practice honour killings.
That, it would appear, was not what Channel 7 wanted to hear. I did a few pieces to camera; I said that I thought Badar had a right to speak (assuming at the time his content aligned with the title) but that we also had a right to organise as a community to refuse to attend and give the views a platform. I said said that there were plenty of sources online that justified this kind of violence, and it wasn't necessary to broadcast them to further the debate.
The reporter, David Richardson, said to me he thought we were a fundamentally Christian nation and these views didn't have a place here, even though honour killings and genital mutilation take place overseas (or words to that effect). I told him point blank I didn't care about religion - that this was about opposing violence against women, and that we should stand against it regardless of where it occurred and whether it was committed by Muslims or anyone else. At that point he said "Oh, you don't see this as a religious issue at all?" I said no, and the interview promptly ended. The camera guy filmed me pretending blog (lol) and they left.
The four pm Channel 7 news then ran a story on this issue and didn't use any of my grabs (which in retrospect I'm really happy about). Instead they played a grab from Alan Jones in which he engaged in what I'd describe as dog whistling Islamophobia.
This isn't the only FODI talk this mistakes a provocative idea for a truly dangerous one
This isn't about religion - at least for me. This is about correcting the idea that 'dangerous' (as in provocative) ideas are ones that promote violent or hateful views. The reason they're not 'dangerous' is they're not challenging on a global scale. In our inner city bubble it is unusual to hear someone saying it's okay to stone women to death. But globally, it's a practice that is still shamefully prevalent. And while it prevails, the incidence - and its justifications - are literally dangerous and shouldn't be treated as worthy of intellectualising or worthy of using to shock festival-goers in Sydney.
Finally, it's worth noting that FODI features other talks this year that make the same mistake (they have since change the titles of these talks - does anyone have a screenshot of yesterday's titles?) with talks titled 'Gay Marriage is Bad for Children', 'Women are Sexual Predators' and 'Male Culture has Been Emasculated by Women'. You have to live in a massive lefty bubble to think that arguing 'gay marriage is bad for children' is a 'dangerous' idea. It's actually commonly used, hateful libel that gets massive airtime in our culture.
Giving them a platform isn't drawing out a new perspective, it's trolling inner city progressives who live such sheltered lives that they can go out and be 'challenged' by views that are actually used by actual people to spread and justify hate against other actual people. (Though, the fact that FODI has quietly changed the titles of these talks suggests perhaps they've realised this - which is good).