Hate preaching cleric’s visit cancelled

Mufti Ismail Menk

Menk had previously made statements saying:

• Gay people are worse than “animals”.
• Consenting to gay sex is as bad as “rape”.
• He has also described gay people as “filthy” and worse than “dogs and pigs”.

Mufti

The Tayyibun Institution released a statement not long after the cancellation was announced.

It said: “It is our duty to promote peace and tolerance, equality and justice, acknowledging the presence of the diverse faiths and inclinations in our midst.

“As we travel and develop we learn more about the cultures and ways of others and respect their right to follow what they wish to and vice versa.”

The homophobic cleric was invited to the University by the Islamic society and in the short amount of time since the announcement and cancellation of the tour, numerous societies belonging to the university caused uproar about the visit.

Both the Feminist Society and the LGBTQ Society raised their issues on the matter by sending emails to the President of the Students Union, Dan Flatt making reference to the unions ‘no-platform policy’.

The ‘no platform policy’ is part of NUS policy and allows universities “not to allow any individual who is known to hold racist or fascist views to speak at a Union event”.

Whilst Ismail Menk’s views are not necessarily associated with either of the two ideologies listed, student groups at the university have raised the point that the university should not provided a platform for someone who holds views such as Menk’s to spread them.

The societies were particularly outraged due to the fact that the University takes pride in being a ‘safe environment’ to students; thus, inviting a figure who was so publicly homophobic, proclaiming ‘consenting gay sex is as bad as rape’, was surely going against the policies they have in place to avoid ‘legitimizing homophobic propaganda’.

Despite the positive news of the cancellation, the societies that were fighting against the talk happening at the university are still waiting to hear what the unions decision on the matter would’ve been and whether they would’ve stood by their ever important policies or not.