Great debate issue 8: Were the UCL atheists right to publish the prophet? No side

The UCL Atheist Society claim to be the bastion of rational thought and open debate, and yet the use of an image depicting the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus having a drink in a pub to advertise a social was entirely to the contrary.

It is common knowledge that the consumption or purchase of alcohol is strictly forbidden in Islam. To depict Prophet Muhammad in such a way is not only grossly insensitive, but outright offensive and intentionally inflammatory. It instantly alienates a huge proportion of the university population, and stifles genuine open debate.

But what of freedom of expression? The first point to make is that absolute freedom of expression does not exist. As a society, we draw a line – we are able to justify arresting individuals for inciting hatred or banning football players for racist abuse. While there may be no legal grounds for stopping the use of such images, it does not change its moral dubiousness. If the organisers of this event were not astute enough to realise that the image was disrespectful, despite attending an institution that prides itself on being globally diverse, they certainly knew the impact it had after receiving polite requests from concerned Muslim students to remove the image.

It is extremely difficult to convey to someone who does not have faith just how offensive such actions are, because for atheists, there is nothing which is sacred. The only analogy that may be of some use, although still remarkably inadequate, is as follows: this image is on par with me using a cartoon which depicts obscene illustrations of a fellow student’s parent. While no one could legally force me to remove that image, I doubt there are many people who would agree that it is right for me to use such an image. Moreover, the wrongness of that action does not depend on whether I made the original image – even if it was taken from a comic strip, it would remain morally repugnant.

So what was to be gained from all of this? I agree that there are certain circumstances where the offense caused to a few by a particular action is outweighed by the overwhelming gain to be made. It is for that reason that I would encourage protests and speaking out against the injustices carried about by military forces and governments in many parts of the world, despite potentially causing offence to the citizens of those countries. Far from being intellectual or academic, this image was entirely devoid of any point whatsoever.

The Atheist society showed a surprising lack of maturity. If they wanted to discuss aspects of Islamic teachings with which they had issue, they could have arranged for an intellectual debate in a civilised environment. Regardless personal opinion, such a discussion would have been inclusive rather than divisive, and which furthermore, would foster a greater degree of understanding and mutual respect, rather than confrontation and alienation.

This wasn’t about debate – this was thoughtlessness and a chance for a few students in the committee to gain instant fame and a place on Richard Dawkins’ christmas list. In doing so, it is unfortunate that they have done a considerable amount of damage to image of UCL Atheist Society. They did so merely because they could. Freedom of expression became a convenient guise to demonstrate a complete disregard for the consequences of their actions.

What is perhaps most alarming about this whole episode is that had this been about another group, there would be no divided opinion. There is consciously or subconsciously, an acceptable face of Islamophobia that, since the last decade or so, has pervaded our society.