Having spent decades of my life teaching at universities, I was dismayed to read that UniversitiesUK (the body of heads of universities) had been minded to find that segregated seating at a lecture or event was OK. It isn’t, and I have lectured at Gresham College about how supine UUK is in the face of extremism and hate speech on campuses – http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-universities-under-regulation. UniversitiesUK obtained legal advice, but the advice concentrated on freedom of speech, whereas it might have been more advisable to examine the rules about equality, non discrimination and education. Universities have a proactive legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to foster good relations between different groups on campus, to advance equality of opportunity and protect against victimisation. Moreover, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which is now incorporated in the Equality Act, there is a special provision that permits single sex schools, but where a school is mixed, it is not legal to apply a condition to one sex that does not apply to the other. I mention this, because some of the misguided persons in the media trying to defend segregation did so by reference to the continued existence of single sex schools. There are stringent duties on universities under the Equality Act requiring them not to discriminate in any way in relation to admission of students, their treatment and access to facilities. Even if the segregation were regarded as “voluntary”, we know that women may well be bullied into appearing to accept it; and the universities should forbid it even if it appeared to be voluntary because of their special duties to promote equality. They are public institutions, not private spaces where segregation might be the traditional practice.
So why on earth would anyone try to defend this practice, so thoroughly contrary to our laws and the codes of our great universities? In my Gresham lecture, referenced above, I noted that there has been a substantial influx of money into British universities from Arab states to support Islamic studies. It is of course much needed, but cash-strapped universities may feel under pressure to pursue this philanthropy: LSE’s ties with Libya led to the resignation of its Director. A blind eye has been turned to the use of the name of Oxford in this website – http://oxfordphdcollege.co.uk/index.asp, whose sponsors include the heads of several Middle Eastern states. I hope there is no willingness to accept practices inimical to good education in the pursuit of funds.
What lies behind the demand for segregated seating? I think these are the reasons, and I object to them if they appear in any religion. First, going back thousands of years, there is a distaste for women who might be menstruating and a prohibition on going near them or letting them near holy places. Second, women are regarded as inherently seductive, and therefore needing to be kept under wraps. A Muslim cleric once compared unveiled women to uncovered raw meat. Thirdly, men are regarded as so lustful and uncontrollable, that if they get close to a woman, they will take advantage of her. All of these reasons are insulting and completely false, about both sexes. Boys brought up to believe this may find it hard to have a normal egalitarian relationship with women at home and at work. No educational institution should proceed on that basis. We women have fought for centuries for respect and equal access to education and we must not let go now.
I fully agree. UUK’s position is ludicrous. To suggest that it’s necessary to impose any conditions the speaker asks for before he will speak on the grounds that not doing so removes his right to free speech is ridiculous. If speaking is so important, he can say what he wants. It isn’t a licence to break any other laws he wants to. What if a speaker would only give a lecture if he was allowed to give a live human sacrifice beforehand? Would UUK also approve of that? Also, a particular university will only ever invite a limited number of speakers, so why should this hypothetical speaker be invited, and not you or me? Not inviting someone to speak on grounds other than his message is nothing to do with free speech either. Finally, if seeing a mixed audience really offended the speaker so much, perhaps he could give a transcript for someone else to deliver. Again, the same message is delivered, so free speech is observed. Or of course he could just go and speak at a boys’ school.
Hmmm, I detect an anti Muslim rant.
Why haven’t you been ranting about jews?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_separation_in_Judaism
If anyone tries organising a meeting where the audience is segregated, asking people to just boycott the event is a good start, or for them to pointedly go in and congregate in mixed groups as a way of demonstrating rejection of the segregation idea. I’m sure that if it had suggested segregation along racial lines, there would have been some sort of meltdown by now, why should this be any different?
I’ve always thought that the reasons given for why women must remain covered and segregated says more about the men putting forward those reasons and using them as an excuse for their behaviour.
I was careful to criticise any and all religions that insist on separation – in a public place. Arguably all the major religions have rules that are rationalised as pertaining to purity and fidelity, but actually have the effect of keeping women submissive, focused on motherhood, non-competitive, sexually available and exclusive only to their husbands.
I would be interested to know your ladyships thoughts on Freemasonry which, discriminates against women and normalises sexism in our country.
A multi-faith, national organisation that promotes its value of fairness and prides itself on being open to all regardless of religion or ethnicity still refuses to consider ending this antiquated practice.
This entire scenario is risible. Why has it been allowed to fester this way in a Western civilisation? Why has Islamic policy of this kind been allowed time of day in a society that has a strong, thriving, feminist driven political body?
Isn’t it obvious to those who are supposed to be the intellectual cream of our society that what is taking place is a takeover? Why was this kind of cultural practice against women not outlawed from the start? Or, are these ‘cream’ too dumb to understand what a takeover is? Even when this kind of clap has been carried out time and again in various countries throughout the world.
University is a place for learning. If some organisation had wanted to give a talk on their particular practice that suggested each race had to be contained within themselves, ie: A Chinese allocation, aisle, Indian allocation, aisle, African allocation, aisle, European allocation, aisle, mixed peoples allocation, aisle, gay allocation homosexual and lesbian group, and so on, would it have been tolerated? You bet it wouldn’t. Not for a minute. Because it would be illegal and charges would have been brought against it.
However, what this is really about is the ingrained idea that humans who have a vagina are akin to the poor group. Those who are ‘undeserving.’ Those who are seeking to hit above their weight. Those who have ideas above their station. So, a religion that puts them in their place is only doing the ‘right thing.’ Keeping them intellectually ignorant is in the best interest of the planet because we all need a whipping boy we can use to turn the wrath on. Women are the criminal Goldstein. They are easy to subdue because of their physical frailty. And a great deal of this attitude stems from women not believing in their right to be different and their constant pursuit of masculine parity. Rather than promoting their difference and how wonderful that being is in itself. The example, once again being, Lara Croft, violent kick boxer and equal in brutality as any man. She too can jump on genitals and crush them as viciously. Obviously a very desirable trait.
The idea that women are responsible for the male sex drive and not the nature of the species is what is at the back of it. The ‘Jezebel’ made me do it or Delilah will entrap you. Salome will have your head on a plate. Had she been covered head to toe and all I could see was her eyes, I would not have got this incredible erection that leads me into entrapment by her. And this instinct runs deeply throughout mankind. Which is instilled in most religions one way or another. Which is why religious practice and its customs must be banned from the protocol of any civic organization. Secular is the name of the game.
The custom of Islamic organisation has been to promote mistrust of the reproductive system to the point of subjugation and brutality toward the bearer of children. Many religions adhered to this custom one way or another, which is an indication of it being inherent within the psyche, but, through the ages, as needs changed, it lessened the cruelty and became more tolerant. Why this didn’t happen in Islamic culture is primarily as a result of little change within the economic society where it reigns highest. Absolute rulers, poverty and lack of education breeds a society of subjugation. For some reason this background keeps a need in the human species alive. Now why is that?
Regardless, it must be stopped in Europe here and now. No toleration of any of it is acceptable in a Western democracy. So, those who rule must make it unlawful at once and those who don’t want live in this kind of society must remove themselves from its land. Or, be removed from it by force. There are countries with societies that will accommodate such notions comfortably and those who follow this practice will be far happier and fulfilled within that environment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF35Qr2v5Os
@LB:
I feel I have to reply regarding your quip about not mentioning the Jewish contingent.
I lived for many years in a deeply orthodox Jewish area of London. The full scenario with forelocks and fur trimmed hats and not once did I feel threatened or expected to succumb to that cult or way of life. I was embraced as the woman I was. I was invited to many religious festivals and not shunned or pressed to behave in any way other than the way I ordinarily did. No one made me feel uncomfortable or less than.
My lifestyle was not threatened and I never once felt afraid to walk down the street any time of day. I was not made to feel an outcast in my own country. I was not told I had to eat kosher food or should eat kosher food, even though I shopped often at the local Kosher Deli. I was treated with utmost respect as a woman and helped in every way possible. And I loved the paternal role I saw taken up by the Jewish community. Their children were not afraid or warned with death or brutality should they stray and their daughters were loved as much as their sons. Educated and lauded for their achievements.
The orthodox practice was of their choosing. It was not a requirement of life.
There is an enormous difference. And no I’m not Jewish. Just in case you harboured the thought that I must be.
Maude, you don’t get it do you?
Either segregation is allowed or it isn’t.
If the state dictates, then the state has to dictate equally against all who trangress their laws.
We’ve got Deech and yourself coming up with laws that target one group, but ignore others who would break the law.
Why don’t you just come out with it? Why not have a law that says we will discriminate against Muslims (or blacks) or whatever the flavour of the month is.
That’s why we should not have the unlected dictating to us.
See my reply above. The distinctions to be drawn are about public/private, and apply to all religions. Under current law, equality trumps all religious beliefs, and if that is correct, it should be so across the board in the UK. Christian owners of a B&B were not allowed to discriminate against two men who wanted to share a room, even though it offended their beliefs; Christians who objected to gay marriage were given short shrift; Catholic adoption agencies had to close down because they refused to place children with same sex couples. This is not about discrimination but the triumph, like it or not, of the human rights agenda.
What you have missed, LB, is I have no objection to how a section of people wish to live life. What I object to, and strongly, is the aggressive and blatant expectation of a any community in demanding this Western country accept and conform to oppressive ‘religious’ and ‘cultural’ rules.
I object to our schools and hospitals being used to push Halal meat. Which is killed in an inhumane manner. I object to the Muslim obsession with male/female separation within ‘my’ community as in this quest pursued at university lecture halls. I object to the subjugation of women and little girls in ‘my’ society through the wearing of clothing that eliminates their identity as well as their soul. Not to mention the physical discomfort and inconvenience it creates for the wearer that ‘I’ am forced to witness. Additionally pressing this as something I ‘must’ accept and agree with or find I’m berated as ‘racist’ if I do not. Especially when it encompasses school age children who are forced into this mind bending at a very early age. Both the wearers and non wearers of such garments are affected psychologically when such an anomaly is condoned by their society. Thereby polluting the minds of any children ‘I’ or ‘my’ family may have in a State school.
I object very strongly indeed to the mutilation of genitals of female children for religious or cultural requirements, without the State taking severe action to end it immediately. The same goes for the cover up of so called honour killing and even the use of that term, when in fact it is murder outright and has nothing at all to do with honour but everything to do with oppression, control and subjugation of entire families. At the same time opening this barbarism up to ‘Western children’ who had little or no knowledge of such practice until relatively recently.
However, I am in agreement with you that government is indeed culpable for such acceptance and that they, collectively, must be held accountable for their actions. They cannot claim lack of knowledge on this being the expected outcome when they sanctioned their mass immigration policy without the consent of the people. Lack of knowledge is not accepted as a lawful plea.
And put this in big writing, because this is ‘mostly’ carried out by the Muslim community it has nothing to do with my opposition to it. I would be equally disturbed, offended and distressed no matter which section of the population was taking up such inhumane practices, whether toward males or females. To me, boys are just as important as girls. I do not discriminate. So, if other sections were trying to segregate, humiliate, mutilate and murder in my name, which is done when the State permits such acts to take place in full view of us all, I would be as against it as I am with this contingent.
The very fact that these speakers felt they could bring this on and get away with it shows how far they have taken over control of the Western culture. And they are pushing for more using our democracy to do it. And they are pushing for it under the guise of religion. Thereby using the Human Rights Act against its intended purpose.
And what that is doing is creating hatred for an Act that was set up for the benefit of us all. It was implemented in order to protect us from a possible oppressive government and to give citizens the right to lawfully dispute a brutal ruling class. Which I have no doubt at all this takeover by a controlling class is intended to rid us of.
“into British universities from Arab states to support Islamic studies”
He who pays the piper may well be calling the tune. Perhaps if everybody wore trousers it would help (including the men).
“We women have fought for centuries for respect and equal access to education and we must not let go now.”
It is more to do with the numbers of women rather than the fact of the ‘fight’. Certain kinds of women have had such respect since time immemorial in these islands.
The distinctions to be drawn are about public/private, and apply to all religions.
=========
And in public places, whether that be a Synagogue or a mosque, discrimination is applied.
Hence because you want to target the Muslim, you kept quite about Judaism.
Very simple test, go to a local Orthodox synagogue and see how far you get with where you want to sit.
A mosque or synagogue is a private place, not like a university. If one does not like the seating arrangement in an orthodox synagogue, one can go elsewhere, lots of choice of all sorts of synagogues, and nobody disapproves of your choice. But once one is a student at a university, the university has the statutory duties I mentioned to treat everybody the same and to take action against discrimination.
Indeed. “The Equality Act 2010 has made specific exceptions for religious organisations to have exclusive practices in certain situations; these do not extend to the delivery of a speech at a university. ” (Declan O’Dempsey in http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/university-segregation-guidance-manifesting-not-imposing-beliefs/ – another good blog on the subject)
Thank you, Baroness, for your explanation of British civil-rights laws.
Baroness Deech, Some very good points here, but on the narrow point of ‘separate seating, I worry when some people equate this to ‘apartheid’ when no-one has been protesting against ‘same-sex’ schools in both the private and state sector [although they are fewer in number these days].
As with many debates, one has to pick one’s arguments carefully – simply objecting to ‘separation’ per se, when this has always been a feature of education since time immemorial is not good enough – as your arguments about submission and subjugation show.
Same sex schools are allowed by law. You choose to go to them if you want to. The university in question is co-ed, and therefore has to treat all equally. I believe there do exist single sex universities somewhere in the world – S Arabia no doubt – and one can go there for total segregation if that is what is required, but you cannot impose it on a public co-ed institution here.