Just a quick note re story of anti-sharia activist being barred from publicly voicing the opinion in Warwick Uni.
The line for refusal:
*possible* inflaming people.
Apart from the question of “rights” vs “rights” – and indeed the “right” to upset people in a conversation – i think that there are meta rights issues as well.
Meta-rights?
Well, perhaps issues that allow everyone, or the process of an an inclusive conversation – that of widening conversational p[articipation – which are beyond “rights”.
Beyond?
Yes, because if the opinion is that of how to allow contrasting ideas to interact – even when upsetting one another – then this opinion, or theory if well developed – is to do with allowing people with sharia ideas to tell people about whatever it is they think without having to fear. Having the ability to advocate sharia, a code of rules I personally object to, should also enable the opposite. Both positions – and lots of others – should be given the ability to Be visible in public – and that shutting of possible visibility for one, will shut that very possibility for another..
The student union might want to be “good” and keep things rather calm, however by that very action of barring an opinion, they fail. Sometimes damns have to be open for water to flow calmer in the long run..
No?