Academics afraid of fighting for Academic Freedom ...

They prefer instead to attend futile and long-winded seminars run by Dennis Hayes rather than avail themselves of the simple expedient of asserting it.

They are, it appears, too thick to realise that freedom of expression is something you ASSERT, rather than await to have conferred upon you.

Still, such is the spinelessness of these middle class academics.

http://afaf.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

is the website of this august and principled body.

Dennis Hayes, my former Facebook friend, is one of the spokesmen for AFAF. This is rather curious since he is the one most known for skirting around issues and beating around the bush and shushing people when they get to the heart of the matter.

Yesterday, on Facebook, I initiated a discussion on what the vague references to be found at

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=72034301491&ref=ts

could possibly be about. I tagged him and Rania Hafez at the Cass School of Education so that they could contribute to the discussion. They were not obliged to do so, of course. It was a mere invitation they both had the option of declining.

Firstly, Dennis refused to even discuss the subject when I asked for details and clarification.

He then begged me to delete the entire status on my wall, just because it mentioned his name. I was just about to decided not to because someone had responded and the discussion was getting heated.

Here it is below, in case anyone's interested:

Claire Khaw
Can anyone tell me what this is about? Do you get the impression that these academics are so scared that they hardly dare tell us what they are complaining about? I tried asking what sort of "odious opinions" and "toxic topics" they must avoid expressing and received a deafening silence. It seems they are too afraid even to answer my question! Wow. Dennis Hayes Rania Hafez

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=72034301491&ref=mf

Shaun Pilkington
It's going to be about Israel, Jews and anti-semitism...

Claire Khaw
I bet it's a whole host of other stuff as well. Feminism and the girlification of science come to mind. You would have thought that some academic could prove that single motherhood is bad for society or that we live in a matriarchy which means the end of our civilisation unless we do something about it, but no .... they are too scared.

Claire Khaw
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/05/girlifying-of-science.html
Yesterday at 3:18pm

Claire Khaw
The BBC refused to discuss this at http://www.facebook.com/pages/BBC-So-You-Want-to-Be-a-Scientist/116570741697536?ref=ts after a female producer grandly pronounced that science can also be psychology.

I pointed out that it is surely not a good idea to dumb down science since this would put this country at a disadvantage with other countries that did not, but they ignored that.

I also suggested that the BBC could make a documentary about why there are never any matriarchies we hear about, perhaps with the pretty and engaging anthropologist Dr Alice Roberts, but I was told by the female producer that she could not possibly have a rational debate with me because of my known views.
Yesterday at 3:31pm

Claire Khaw
People are under the impression that a matriarchy has to be headed by a female leader. Not so. The important thing to note is that a matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.

A patriarchy is of course a society where male promiscuity is condoned. Margaret Thatcher was part of the patriarchy.

My point is that the British are in decline because their government has decided to embrace feminine and proletarian vices when previously they at least played lip service to aristocratic and masculine virtue. I don't suppose there is much any of us can do about it except convert to Islam en masse, but it is as well to know where we are heading, even if no academic dares raise the subject.
Yesterday at 3:38pm

Shaun Pilkington
I do feel you are making a category error, mistaking those who are in charge for those who are free to fuck. Yesterday at 3:42pm

Claire Khaw
Please elaborate your point.
Yesterday at 3:45pm

Shaun Pilkington
Being free to fuck who you like, when you like, is not indicative of being in charge of a civilisation. Read 1984. Yesterday at 3:50pm

Shaun Pilkington
Or Brave New World.
Yesterday at 3:55pm

Claire Khaw
I have read 1984.
Yesterday at 3:55pm

Claire Khaw
No one is talking about being in charge of a civilisastion, Shaun. We are talking about whether certain practices help or hinder the health of a civilisation.
Yesterday at 3:56pm

Shaun Pilkington
And did you understand that 1) It's not an instruction manual, and 2) It shows how alcohol and sex can be used to control the lower orders?
Yesterday at 3:57pm

Shaun Pilkington
Consequently your argument vis-a-vis female sexuality is without basis.
Yesterday at 3:58pm

Claire Khaw
I haven't read Brave New World. I still don't get your point. Mine is very simple: always choose the lesser evil.

The matriarchy is the greater evil.

The patriarchy is the lesser evil.
Yesterday at 3:58pm

Claire Khaw
What isn't an instruction manual?
Yesterday at 4:00pm

Shaun Pilkington
1984.

As for your proclamations of evil, I can only say 'proof or STFU' as the online vernacular has it. I can show you plenty of evidence that female promiscuity is NOT linked to matriarchy (rule by women). Sorry.
Yesterday at 4:08pm

Claire Khaw
You don't quite understand, Shaun. Female promiscuity will always occur, whether in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

You know you are living in a matriarchy when female promiscuity is condoned.
Yesterday at 4:16pm

Shaun Pilkington
Again, I ask you for proof of your assertion, so that I may better examine your purported evidence.
Yesterday at 4:20pm

Claire Khaw
Do you agree that in a patriarchy it is male promiscuity that is condoned?
Yesterday at 4:22pm

Shaun Pilkington
No. In a Patriarchy *all* power and privilege is retained by males. Matriarchy is the female reflection of that.

You have a strange hangup about people having sex without your permission or blessing.
Yesterday at 4:27pm

Shaun Pilkington
To me, being more libertarian than you, I believe that it's up to individuals who, when and how they have sex. You oppose that liberty and prefer some bizarre system of 'sanction' and are thus fundamentally anti-freedom.
Yesterday at 4:28pm

Claire Khaw
No, they are free to fuck, as long as they don't expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer. I would abolish child benefit for all.
Yesterday at 4:38pm

Shaun Pilkington
Then it's not female promiscuity that you have a problem with, but female reproduction. Since, you say, you are okay with fucking.
Yesterday at 4:39pm

Claire Khaw
Of course. A whore can be technically not promiscuous by my definition, if she escapes unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

On the other hand a girl who just had sex for the first time could suffer from both.
Yesterday at 4:45pm

Shaun Pilkington
And yes. I did see your earlier deleted comment about 'whores'. Carry on!
Yesterday at 4:46pm

Claire Khaw
Which one?
Yesterday at 4:52pm

Claire Khaw
I have deleted nothing.
Yesterday at 4:52pm

Shaun Pilkington
Ah okay - it's just that the notification mail for your 'whore' comment arrived twice which is usually a sign that the original comment was quickly deleted and then reposted. Apologies.
Yesterday at 4:55pm

Claire Khaw
So, do you agree with me that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, Shaun?
Yesterday at 5:14pm

Shaun Pilkington
No, I don't. You still haven't shown me any evidence for your 'female promiscuity' proposition, so why should I take any of these claims seriously when then are all unsupported by evidence. If I wanted faith to trump fact, I'd have voted Labour, after all...
Yesterday at 5:19pm

David Toube
In answer to your first question: this appears to be run by a group that used to be called the Revolutionary Communist Party (from about 1990 onwards, it was neither), which is now Spiked Online.
Yesterday at 5:42pm

Salman Khattak
Is this one of clair's famous vile views /? More freedom the better we are being controlled by not nice ppl . Yesterday at 6:31pm

Claire Khaw
Shaun, I am just asking for a simple YES or NO answer.

Would you say that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity?

Yes or No will do. There is no need for evidence.
Yesterday at 7:19pm

Claire Khaw
AFAF is run by Commies??
Yesterday at 7:19pm

Shaun Pilkington
Since you can provide, or rather, refuse to provide, any evidence for your assertion, I have no choice but to say 'no'.

Prove to me the link between female, and not male, promiscuity and matriarchy and perhaps we'd have something to talk about but your inability to produce any evidence whatsoever tends to render your assertions valueless.
Yesterday at 7:21pm

Claire Khaw
Why don't you just confine yourself to answering the question, which is only about how you would identify a patriarchy. It is very simple:

Do you think that, in a patriarchal society, the tendency is to condone male promiscuity?

Yes or no?...

I think you are refusing to answer this very obvious question because you already know where this will lead.
Yesterday at 7:25pm

Shaun Pilkington
Because, Claire, you question (as usual) is loaded with assumptions that you cannot, or more likely, will not prove.

Show me the proof of a connection between Matriarchy and female, but not male, promiscuity. Then show me a link between that and poor civilisational outcomes. I bet you can't because this is just another idea you've had lazing on your sofa, with no reference to reality at all.
Yesterday at 7:27pm

Claire Khaw
Just answer the question instead of avoiding it. You don't need loadsa evidence. Logical inference will get you there.
Yesterday at 7:28pm

Claire Khaw
Since Shaun is determined to avoid the question, I am hoping David and Salman will answer.
Yesterday at 7:36pm

Shaun Pilkington
So you say, Claire, and yet it is you who refuses, repeatedly, to provide any evidence for your own question's operating assumption. So once again, I challenge you to show me evidence connecting Matriarchy with female promiscuity, let alone poor outcomes. Show me the evidence or else admit that you're just spouting your usual bigoted ideas.
Yesterday at 7:59pm

The exchange ended there.

Next thing I knew Rania had defriended me.

I wrote to enquire the exact reason, convinced that Dennis had put her up to it. It turned out that quite a number of her friends had put her up to it too, namely one Salma Khan who works in PR and a friend of Rania's. Salma is divorced and cannot possibly have approved of the talk I gave below about single mums though she has defriended me ostensibly on the grounds that I am a member of the BNP.

This is how the unscrupulous Left and the spineless operate. They ostracise and then they isolate and denounce , as a lesson to others who might be thinking of asserting their freedom of expresson.

It appears that academics do not even have the freedom of association to have me as a Facebook friend. Can this really be true in our much-vaunted liberal democracy?

Not that long ago, Rania very kindly allowed me to give a talk on the subject of Islamic Principles in Education a transcript of which is below:

It is a great honour to be invited to address Muslims on the subject of education and Islam, especially as I am neither Muslim nor in the teaching profession. What, you may well ask, is a Secular Koranist, which is what I call myself? It is a new concept that I came up with, which I hope will be useful in bridging the distance between atheists and monotheists. A Secular Koranist basically believes that the Koran is a good enough guide, whether or not you believe in God or not. It is therefore an ideology that wishes to make the most of our agreement on morality and politics, where it can be found.


I asked Rania for some guidance of the Islamic principles she wanted me to talk about, but she told me that it was for ME AS A SECULARIST to tell you all what I understand by Islamic principles, and how these could be applied to the field of education. I shall do my best to articulate these principles, as I understand them. The Koran could be regarded as a contract between God and Man. If you agree with this view, what, you may well ask, was it that God wanted Man to contract to do for Him? The deal, if we can call it that, is that if we follow the Koran, we will be rewarded in this life and the next. If we examine the principles of all the Abrahamic faiths, a common thread can be discerned. It is about being kind to each other and telling the truth. The other thing is family values.


It means marriage of course and only having sex within marriage. Extra marital sex – another term for recreational sex with partners of either gender - is prohibited. It also means, logically, that illegitimacy is to be condemned, because that would be evidence of extra-marital sex.


Why are family values so important to social conservatives? After all, the Old Testament prescribes the penalty of death by stoning to pregnant unmarried ex-virgins. The quality of the next generation is of course dependent upon the parenting ability and resources of their parents. Even now, in the 21st century, after half a century of liberal policies, single parenthood has a negative effect on a child’s life by disadvantaging it socially, economically and educationally.


Here are two frightening statistics, ladies:


46% of babies born in Britain are born out of wedlock.


70% of our prison population were singly-parented.


However, because of the high proportion of illegitimacy and single mothers who make up our friends and family, we have all become very reluctant to discuss this, for fear of giving offence. In an earlier age, the phrase “single mums” and the phrase “who are a burden on the state” would go hand in hand. Now to criticize single motherhood is tantamount to criticizing every other friend of family member we have. Politicians, who are even more unwilling to give offence than the average person because of their great fear of losing, remain incorrigibly cowardly and refuse to condemn single motherhood.


A meeting I attended recently which Rania chaired concerned the unfortunate position of teachers who are overwhelmed by red tape and paperwork as well as the foul-mouthed indiscipline of their charges. This, I suggested, was because the government does not trust teachers to do their work properly because many children leave school with no firm grasp of the 3 Rs.


Employer bodies such as the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chamber of Commerce frequently complain about the educational attainments of the state-school-leaver.


Indeed, so badly educated is the typical state-school-leaver that most employers have voted with their feet and now simply avoid hiring British employees. This would be the reason why the government is constantly micromanaging what teachers teach, and why they are fretting about the rise of the Far Right. In my opinion, they are only dealing with the symptom but not the cause. Teachers can’t teach as well as they could and should because authority and discipline are now dirty words in the liberal lexicon. The children that won’t sit still and won’t shut up tend to be the badly parented ones. The badly parented ones tend to be the singly parented ones. But since no one is prepared to condemn single parenthood in strong enough terms for anyone to take notice and change their behaviour, the problem will continue to get worse.

How do Islamic principles come in?

The most important Islamic principle of all, in my opinion, is the exhortation to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. Single motherhood has evil consequences for children, the next generation, society and our future as a nation and a civilization. Rising crime and ever-lowering educational standards will eventually affect us all. The government and its opposition have abdicated their duty, I’m afraid, because they don’t want offend anyone and lose votes. So the responsibility passed to teachers. It is they who must point to the cause of their ills, at the risk of sounding Politically Incorrect and judgmental of women who do not bother to get married before they have children and then fail to bring them up properly.

To continue to ignoring this problem would mean condemning yet another generation of children to illiteracy, innumeracy and a life of crime on benefits.

While it is not within the remit of the teaching profession to fix the problems of society caused by bad parents badly parenting their children they must at least be prepared to point to its causes, even if they fear the criticism they will receive for pointing out the obvious. But it appears they cannot even bring themselves to criticize single mums either, because it would be Politically Incorrect to do so. The fact is that children with two parents tend to be socially and spiritually advantaged compared to singly parented children.

Once we have acknowledged this truth then all the other Islamic principles which are in fact universal virtues, of civility, charity, the cultivation of an enquiring reasoning mind, will fall into place.

To solve the problem we must work out what it is.

Only when we have pointed out the problem to the person in a position to fix it can we expect there to be a beginning of the end of the problem.

Anything else is just fiddling while Rome burns, which is most certainly not an Islamic principle.

If neither the political nor the educational establishment is prepared to condemn single motherhood, then I am afraid that this unpleasant task now falls to Muslims, if they care for the future of the country they and their children now live in. There is really no one left to do it now, and I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

It was even quite well-received at the time, but she may be having second thoughts now.

Oh dear. I hope that mere association with me has not ended both the academic careers of Dennis Hayes and Rania Hafez. I should also say that I am a member of the BNP and the Election Agent of Jeffrey Marshall, the BNP candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow.

The BNP is of course a legal political party. If they were banned, I would understand but they are perfectly legal.

Do academics have the right to associate with people like me without being demoted or sacked from their jobs?

I would like to think the answer is yes, but these days many would rather not test the law for fear of demotion and a termination of employment.

So we shall see, won't we, Dennis and Rania?

Since neither of them are prepared to test the waters I shall have to test it for them, in the name of academic freedom, my friends!