The Student Room Group

LSE soc intimidated over "offensive" and "harassing" t-shirts

A row over free expression has broken out at the London School of Economics after members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society were told they would be physically removed from the annual Freshers' Fair unless they covered up t-shirts deemed "offensive".

Student Union officials removed materials from the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society stand and demanded that the group removed t-shirts they were wearing featuring satirical Jesus and Mo cartoons. When asked for an explanation, LSESU officials stated that several students had complained about the t-shirts.

After a period of consultation a member of the LSE Legal and Compliance Team and Head of Security told the members of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society that the wearing of the t-shirts could be considered "harassment", as it could "offend others" by creating an "offensive environment".

After challenging the actions of LSE officials, members of the Society were told they were not behaving in an "orderly and responsible manner". The group eventually complied by covering the t-shirts, but were closely followed by security guards for the remainder of the day.


http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/10/lse-student-society-intimidated-at-freshers-fair-over-offensive-t-shirts

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/10/03/lse-what-happened-to-freedom-of-thought/

The students' response:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I find the burka offensive, perhaps I can demand that they ban it?

What, we live in a secular country inwhich you cant just go banning things because it's "offensive" ? Could have fooled me :rolleyes:
Original post by GrumpyCat
I find the burka offensive, perhaps I can demand that they ban it?

What, we live in a secular country inwhich you cant just go banning things because it's "offensive" ? Could have fooled me :rolleyes:


The word 'secular' refers to the separation between religion and the state.

What does that have to do with freedom of expression being compromised in a university, a private building? You can't go around waving a Nazi flag in most universities, so neither can you insult people's religions: especially in the case of Islam, where depiction of the Prophet is seen as deeply offensive. I personally don't believe it is wrong to depict Mohammad, but I do believe it is wrong to deliberately caricature Him in an open forum when such a thing is clearly meant to provoke a reaction among Muslims.

We don't have total freedom of expression in the UK (nor does any country for that matter), and I don't see why we should allow the rights of Muslims to be compromised when we can easily avert the latter by simply not deliberately offending them.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 3
Original post by Copperknickers
The word 'secular' refers to the separation between religion and the state.

What does that have to do with freedom of expression being compromised in a university, a private building? You can't go around waving a Nazi flag in most universities, so neither can you insult people's religions: especially in the case of Islam, where depiction of the Prophet is seen as deeply offensive. I personally don't believe it is wrong to depict Mohammad, but I do believe it is wrong to deliberately caricature Him in an open forum when such a thing is clearly meant to provoke a reaction among Muslims.

We don't have total freedom of expression in the UK (nor does any country for that matter), and I don't see why we should allow the rights of Muslims to be compromised when we can easily avert the latter by simply not deliberately offending them.


I understand it's private property, but it's also a university which typically allows people to debate, and voice their opinions in many ways, not limited to using spoken word. If we are to start banning clothing because we find it offensive, I find the burka an offensive piece of clothing, so why isnt it banned?

Btw why should we ensure we dont offend people? It's offensive being told im going to burn in hell, yet nobody blinks an eye.
Reply 4
Original post by Copperknickers
The word 'secular' refers to the separation between religion and the state.

What does that have to do with freedom of expression being compromised in a university, a private building? You can't go around waving a Nazi flag in most universities, so neither can you insult people's religions: especially in the case of Islam, where depiction of the Prophet is seen as deeply offensive. I personally don't believe it is wrong to depict Mohammad, but I do believe it is wrong to deliberately caricature Him in an open forum when such a thing is clearly meant to provoke a reaction among Muslims.

We don't have total freedom of expression in the UK (nor does any country for that matter), and I don't see why we should allow the rights of Muslims to be compromised when we can easily avert the latter by simply not deliberately offending them.


As an ex-Muslim, I find scriptural hatred against unbelievers and instructions calling for my execution deeply offensive - are my rights "compromised" and do I have a "right" to demand the banning of such religious creeds?
Pretty stupid to harass them about their t-shirts because the shirts could create an offensive environment. It's pointless antagonising one group because they might antagonise another ("you might upset someone, so to help this situation, we will definitely upset you" where's the logic in that?). I understand the shirts might have offended some people, and that some people supposedly complained, but it was handled exceedingly badly by the Student Union.
(edited 10 years ago)
I've seen this posted before, with references to racism. Islam isn't a race, it's a belief, and should be treated as such.

Making fun of something that can't be helped, like race, gender, sexuality or disability is not OK, in my opinion. But if we can't make fun of a belief, just because it might be offensive, well. I wouldn't want to live in a society like that.

Should we not be allowed to make fun of politicians, because they find it offensive? Conspiracy theorists? Racists? Who are we allowed to offend? Why should religion be special?

A person has every right to their view, and to express that view (as long as others aren't put in danger). But equally, others have the right to think that their view is stupid, and express that opinion. If the Muslim soc decided to wear t-shirts making fun of atheists, then I wouldn't be happy. But I would respect their right to do so.
Reply 7
Don't have too much sympathy for them because they had to have known this was going to cause issues. They really did bring it on themselves. Trying to make a point, but being typically studentish about it.



Ugh. I got repped by Al-Mudaari. I feel dirty all over.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 8
If i saw someone wearing a t-shirt like that, I would be offended. However it is up to them to wear it, not me, and I think it is wrong to ban them being worn just because some people can't handle it. It's a free country let's keep it that way :smile:
Reply 9
Anyone should be able to make fun of anything they want. Just because someone is offended by it shouldn't matter, a joke is a joke.

Plus, it could be argued that as an Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society, they would be offended by the presence of religious societies. They almost definitely weren't, but telling people they'll burn in hell forever because of their beliefs? How does that not come under harassment or even persecution? That would offend me and I'd kick up hell about it.

This is why I practice my religion in private and I think all religion should be a personal thing.
Reply 10
Lmao, good to see it resolved in a civil manner. I suppose people have it quite good in this country, try that in the elsewhere and see how civil things get.


Original post by Drewski
Ugh. I got repped by Al-Mudaari. I feel dirty all over.


I do apologise. This was a rare instance outside of your usual bigotry/Anti-Islam comments, which I thought deserved equaling the rep (that was -1 at the time).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by myzt1kal
As an ex-Muslim, I find scriptural hatred against unbelievers and instructions calling for my execution deeply offensive - are my rights "compromised" and do I have a "right" to demand the banning of such religious creeds?


You have a right to complain when the Islamic society in your uni starts wearing T shirts saying 'kill all infidels' and 'massacre unbelievers'.

There's a pretty clear difference in order of magnitude: depicting Mohammed is very offensive, demanding someone to take off a deliberately offensive T shirt is only slightly irritating. That's why one is harshly opposed, and one is perfectly fine in a private building.
Original post by Copperknickers
You have a right to complain when the Islamic society in your uni starts wearing T shirts saying 'kill all infidels' and 'massacre unbelievers'.

There's a pretty clear difference in order of magnitude: depicting Mohammed is very offensive, demanding someone to take off a deliberately offensive T shirt is only slightly irritating. That's why one is harshly opposed, and one is perfectly fine in a private building.


There is a difference. The secularist T shirts were not inciting violence whereas the T shirt you propose would. What is most cowardly was had those T shirts only had Jesus on them, no one would have said a thing. Shocking hypocrisy.
"Freedom of speech is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear". George Orwell.
Original post by Copperknickers
The word 'secular' refers to the separation between religion and the state.

What does that have to do with freedom of expression being compromised in a university, a private building? You can't go around waving a Nazi flag in most universities, so neither can you insult people's religions: especially in the case of Islam, where depiction of the Prophet is seen as deeply offensive. I personally don't believe it is wrong to depict Mohammad, but I do believe it is wrong to deliberately caricature Him in an open forum when such a thing is clearly meant to provoke a reaction among Muslims.

We don't have total freedom of expression in the UK (nor does any country for that matter), and I don't see why we should allow the rights of Muslims to be compromised when we can easily avert the latter by simply not deliberately offending them.


You seem to be only concerned with the rights of Muslims what about Christians. What about Atheists? The right to freedom of speech enshrined in the UN Delclaration of Human rights.
Reply 15
Original post by Copperknickers
You have a right to complain when the Islamic society in your uni starts wearing T shirts saying 'kill all infidels' and 'massacre unbelievers'.

There's a pretty clear difference in order of magnitude: depicting Mohammed is very offensive, demanding someone to take off a deliberately offensive T shirt is only slightly irritating. That's why one is harshly opposed, and one is perfectly fine in a private building.


Yet in godwinning prematurely and analogising Nazism to cartoon depictions earlier you suggested that a "Nazi flag" is enough to be offensive so, to use your line of reasoning (and lower standards of comparison), why wouldn't any sign of Islam (not just t-shirts saying "kill all infidels") or the mere identification with the ideology be considered similarly offensive to those like myself who are divinely loathed and put on a celestial hit list? What stops your argument from being extended to considering Islam as offensive as Nazism if you're going to take being offended by a hateless cartoon as seriously as hateful fascism?
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 16
I hope they also banned the handing out of any religious books containing inanpropriate writings (this certainly incudes the bible/torah/qu'ran, maybe some others). I consider them to be very offensive.
Reply 17
The LSESU is a piece of ****. They care more about dumb political/religious debates and pushing their own, retarded agenda in this era, than actually doing something to better the experience of LSE students.

I went to one Thursday meeting when I was there and never again. Sad that these losers represent the university.
Reply 18
Original post by Copperknickers
The word 'secular' refers to the separation between religion and the state.

What does that have to do with freedom of expression being compromised in a university, a private building? You can't go around waving a Nazi flag in most universities, so neither can you insult people's religions: especially in the case of Islam, where depiction of the Prophet is seen as deeply offensive. I personally don't believe it is wrong to depict Mohammad, but I do believe it is wrong to deliberately caricature Him in an open forum when such a thing is clearly meant to provoke a reaction among Muslims.

We don't have total freedom of expression in the UK (nor does any country for that matter), and I don't see why we should allow the rights of Muslims to be compromised when we can easily avert the latter by simply not deliberately offending them.


I can just as easily say them being Muslim offends me. What are you gonna do now? Ban them from being Muslims because they "clearly meant to provoke a reaction"?

Further your analogy is wrong. You cannot go around with a Swastika because the only thing that that represents is evil. Depicting Mohammed only offends one subset of the population because they decided it is offensive. The Nazis were offensive there is nothing to decide about it (unless you want to deny the holocaust and/or have very questionable morals).

If you went around banning everything that one group of people thinks is "offensive", you might as well ban human interaction.
Original post by danny111
I can just as easily say them being Muslim offends me. What are you gonna do now? Ban them from being Muslims because they "clearly meant to provoke a reaction"?

As I already said, that is not equivalent. The only equivalent situation is a Muslim wearing a T Shirt that has a slogan designed to be offensive to Atheists, such as 'infidels will burn in Hell'. We, Atheists, have decided that's offensive, its not particularly offensive tbh but most people would find it so because of our culture.

Further your analogy is wrong. You cannot go around with a Swastika because the only thing that that represents is evil. Depicting Mohammed only offends one subset of the population because they decided it is offensive. The Nazis were offensive there is nothing to decide about it (unless you want to deny the holocaust and/or have very questionable morals).


Actually the Swastika is not considered offensive in every culture. In Japan its quite common to wear Nazi uniform to fancy dress parties, because it does not have the same offensive quality there it has in the Western world. Similarly, wearing a Russian Red Army uniform would be extremely offensive in parts of Germany and Poland, but not so in the UK or America. And of course, in India the Swastika is a religious symbol representing peace. The point is, it doesn't matter where a Japanese person is in the world, they know that if there is a significant number of Europeans or Jews around, the Swastika is going to offend them. The same with Muslims: there are a lot of them in London, and most LSE students probably know that depicting Muhammad is offensive to Muslims, so the intent is clearly there to offend them.

It is not common knowledge among Muslims that being a Muslim is offensive to you, and you are one person, not an entire religion, so I'm afraid your beliefs are irrelevant. And besides, the important thing is the aggression: it is actively aggressive to wear a T shirt making fun of Islam, it is not actively aggressive to have grown up with and follow a religion. It IS aggressive however to dislike a certain religion, and to vocalise such a thing so that it contravenes someone else's rights is illegal.

Quick Reply

Latest