‘Britain right now is the enemy’: Interview with British ISIS fighter

“I look forward to death with a smile.”

These words come from a British militant in western Iraq who is fighting for the Islamic State (ISIS) under the nom de guerre Abu A’ntaar.

But one thing separates him from the majority of his comrades; Before his life as a jihadist, A’ntaar claims to have been a business analyst working in the City of London.

For the past month, we have been speaking exclusively to A’ntaar via an encrypted instant messenger popular amongst the social media savvy Western fighters in the region. A’ntaar’s penchant for propaganda made him no different than most western fighters ostentatiously trumpeting their messages via social media. But behind the standard ISIS rhetoric, he does provide glimpses into his daily life, what was expected of him as a fighter, and whether he would consider returning home in the future.

We did request a video or audio interview with A’ntaar. He refused after the ISIS media department and his higher ranking Emirs (regional leaders) nixed the idea outright.


A’ntaar is among approximately 500-1000 other Britons currently fighting in the region, according to the British governments’ official estimates. Most Britons enter through the Turkish border into Syria and Iraq, where border guards are willing to ‘turn a blind eye’ for a small fee. In June this year, British intelligence service MI5 said that tracking British jihadis waging war in Syria was now its ‘top priority’ following a recruitment video released by ISIS in which British fighters urged Muslims to come join the fight.

More recently, British foreign fighters made headlines after slickly produced videos were published online, showing the beheading of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. In both videos, a man dubbed ‘Jihadi John’ by the British media threatens Britain and the United States in what analysts believe is a distinctive London accent. The idea of relatively privileged American and European Muslims leaving home to fight and die under the ISIS flag in a foreign land has captivated the media and public alike. The question is always the same: what makes them do it?

Democracy, Palestine & tyranny

A’ntaar does not reveal too much about his personal life, cagily avoiding any revelatory comments which could have pointed towards his true identity. Answering to why he chose to join the Islamic State, he says he hated “being ruled by laws other than Allah’s” and that the territories currently controlled by ISIS are “the only place where the shari’a of Allah is applied fully.”

“I hate democracy and the self- indulgence of the rich….I hate inequality…I hate the corporations who are trying to destroy this world because of tyranny,” he tells us.

A'ntaar is derisive towards the notion of using the British democratic process to protest against injustices in the Muslim world. For him, peaceful protest is not an option. “I hate that Palestine was never freed for 70+ years whilst we ‘peacefully’ held placards on the street”. But now, according to A'ntaar's sacred belief, “IS are leading the way as how we should have acted from the beginning.”



“I am a walking device,” he told us.

As far as his experiences with combat, few details were forthcoming, apart from the fact that he was constantly armed, "even when in sleep.”

‘They’re not disposable’

Earlier this year, British born Abdul Waheed Majeed made headlines for apparently blowing himself up in an Aleppo Prison, allowing hundreds of detainees- many of whom were high ranking Al-Qaeda operatives, to flee. And while no Britons have been linked to further suicide bombings as of yet, the social media accounts of other suspected Britons such as ‘Usama-al-Britani’ indicate that more are willing to sacrifice their lives if ordered to do so.

The designation "suicide bomber," however, could in fact be a means of establishing the pecking order of fighters.

“Britons don’t tend to be used on frontlines as suicide bombers” Mark Stephens, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Qatar told us.

“They’re not disposable. They are mainly being used to do menial tasks [as] most of them don’t speak Arabic,” he said.

Stephens adds that foreign fighters may also be used to provide intelligence and infrastructure to ISIS, which has been as adamant about logistical structures and providing public services as it has been about conducting military operations.

“If one is educated for example and has an engineering degree, then he is not being used as a suicide bomber. You need educated people to run your organization. ISIS isn’t just a terrorist group, it runs cities in the area it controls.”

As more Brits heading to Syria, politicians are currently discussing how to deal with the fighters and the risks they pose to their home countries. In June, Prime Minister David Cameron said that foreign fighters posed ‘the biggest threat’ to Britain’s’ national security, warning that ISIS militants could conduct terror operations on home soil.


abc.net

Other politicians are calling for jihadis to be offered amnesty like that offered in Denmark, or be subject to ‘deradicalization programs’. The British Home Office, however, has opted instead to take the most hard line approaches in all of Europe. It includes stripping suspected ISIS recruits of their passports, an all out travel ban, and freezing their assets and bank accounts if necessary.

“People seeking to travel to engage in terrorist activity in Syria or Iraq should be in no doubt we will take the strongest possible action to protect our national security, including prosecuting those who break the law,” a Home Office spokesperson told us.

To A’ntaar, however, the warnings are meaningless. “I do not care for a passport of citizenship or living in the UK. I do not want it at all and the only way I’ll return to the UK is when they get into fight with us, and my leader sends me on a mission to cause destruction from within the enemy,” he says, adding that he would attack Britain only if commanded to do so.

“I want to fight for the khilafah (caliphate) and want to die protecting it so long as it is ruling by Allahs laws. Britain right now is the enemy but its not up to me when to strike them.
“It is up to our leaders how to decide when and how. But we are ready,” he warned.

A’ntaars' attitude is similar to that of other ISIS fighters, who, despite pleas from their parents and relatives, express no desire to return home.

“Most fighters don’t want to go back,” Stephens says.

“Family pressure doesn’t do anything to change that. Foreign fighters will never be sent back. The moment he comes back into the country, he [A’ntaar] will be spotted in a second.”

Stephens also tells us that even if there are fighters who want to return home, they would find problems in doing so; “It is difficult to get out of Syria, to get across the border, so it’s unlikely that foreign fighters would go back,” he says.


‘More ruthless than Al-Qaeda’

ISIS is so hardline that it was expelled by al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in February this year. Led by an Iraqi called Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS was originally an al-Qaeda group in Iraq. Within just a few months, ISIS launched an aggressive expansion campaign, seized key territory, gained thousands of followers and spread fear and terror across Iraq and Syria, so that now experts argue that ISIS eclipsed al Qaeda and made it seem virtually irrelevant.

A’ntaar for his part believes that ISIS is now the global leader in Jihad and that “nothing, absolutely nothing can get rid of it.” He argues that ISIS is stronger than Al Qaeda, because it managed to achieve something the latter never could – establishing a 'caliphate'.

“The Islamic State is more advanced, more sufficient in self-finance and more ruthless on enemies than AQ,” he says. While praising the group formerly led by Osama bin Laden, he argues that the group have ‘run out of ideas’ without their leader.

While the skill in which ISIS disseminate their propaganda through videos and social networks is well documented, foreign fighters also assist in spreading it, especially to potential new recruits. Most of the English speaking fighters tend to be active on social media sites including Twitter and ask.fm, where they praise the ‘just actions’ taken by militants, whom they refer to as ‘mujahideen’.

Fighters, both men and women, praise ISIS, citing examples in which it has allegedly rebuilt bridges and schools, and stopped activities including drinking and gambling, that they see as ‘Haraam’ or impermissible.

A’ntaar assures us that he has support from local Iraqis and Syrians, saying that “They hate the Americans, and have long been afraid of the Shi’a government” under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He also rejects reports of forced conversions of Yazidis and other minorities, dismissing them as ‘lies’. According to A’ntaar, Yazidis converted out of “their own will," despite claims made by the United Nations and a number of human rights NGOs.

“It is unquestionably the case that English speakers have a great amount of propaganda potential,” says Tom Keatinge, an associate fellow at RUSI.

Keatinge emphasises how effective English speaking is to Islamist ideology, citing the example of radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by US drone strikes in 2011. By using familiar terminology and phrases, the English language "can be manipulated to make Jihad appear more appealing than it in reality is," Keatinge suggests.

This tendency was clear throughout our interview with A’ntaar.

In our attempts to garner insight into his actual life as an ISIS fighter, much of what he imparted concealed in the all too familiar veil of propaganda.

Indeed, the extent to which ISIS is obsessively on point regarding its media message may also be evident in the videos depicting the murder of western hostages, such as James Foley and most recently, David Haines, by suspected British ISIS militant ‘Jihadi John’.

al-arabiya.net

Stephens told us that despite claims that the individual killed the hostages, “Jihadi John was just put out for propaganda purposes, as a direct message to Obama”

“Islam breeds lions.....the West breeds rabbits”

As President Obama announces a new bombing campaign against ISIS fighters in Syria, A’ntaar seemed unfazed when asked whether it such action could eliminate the organization. “No problem,” he said. “They can kill 95 percent of us if they are capable but this movement will breed new leaders every time and our enemy will never be [as] relentless as us in pursuing our goals.”

A’ntaar provided no answer when asked how ISIS would go about fighting American-led forces in the event of a strike.

Although few details were forthcoming regarding the groups ability to counter aerial assaults, he implied the militants were undergoing training to manage air strikes.

Our conversation with A’antaar ended soon thereafter, following “orders” that he was no longer not allowed to talk to journalists. Whether he was taking orders from the IS media department or in fact an integral part of it is a matter of pure speculation.

One thing, however, remains certain. Authorized to speak to us or not, he did not miss a beat in communicating a well formulated message- a message, incidentally, which foreign fighters like him have proved indispensable in providing.

In one of the last messages A’antaar sent to us, he says: “Islam breeds lions who can never be defeated in the fields, while the West breeds rabbits.”

“We want American and west to come to Syria and fight us. We want to strike the jugular vein of the kuffar (infidel) and the jugular vien [sic] of the kuffar is America.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was originally published at http://rt.com and has been modified.

Co Author Steffi Ott. You can follow her on Twitter @steffiott

Some Thoughts on Ukraine/Russia

A friend asked me recently to explain the situation happening in Russia/Ukraine. Having tried to write a 'summary' several times- struggling to do so in each instance, it's clear that the current situation is too complicated to neatly box up.

Moreover, as someone who doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian (relying on translations, edits and other reporters to summarise information) there's always the danger of inaccuracies, cultural biases and unreliable sources.

So I'm going to try my best to summarise what's going on in Ukraine from a journalist's perspective, and hopefully link out some pieces with far more insight.

As a primer, I'd highly recommend Buzzfeed's 35-step guide to understanding the current crisis. It starts from the fall of the USSR- where Ukraine became an independent state. There's an interesting part in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in which he predicts conflict between Russia and the Ukraine to be low, because they were part of the same 'civilization' block. Huntington's thesis held a lot of clout in the 90's. So much so, that Ukraine's first president Leonid Kravchuk actually got rid of his nuclear weapons via Russia, and was considered Boris Yeltsin's most powerful ally in the Balkans. There's a second, important component to this too.

The Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, was an agreement that guaranteed the independence of Ukraine in exchange for the destruction of the nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest stockpile at the time). With the invasion of Crimea, the US and possibly EU member states are using the document as the foundation of any economic or military action in the future.

The first question is really a legal one; Was Putin right to send forces to Crimea?

Pro-Russian reports conversely argue that such reports are proof of American power games. In a press conference held last week, Putin told journalists that he did not want a war with Ukraine, and that any action in Crimea were designed to protect ethnic Russians (more than 80% ) from radicals in the rebel forces. He acknowledged that Yanukovych had lost his legitimacy- but he refused to recognise the interim government that's taken its place.

As Cambridge University professor Marc Weller acknowledges, Russia is allowed to have a limited military presence in Crimea under the friendship agreement, but any action- whether in development or escalation, has to be done in consultation with Ukraine (as referred to in the 1997 agreement).

 But as stated before, Putin doesn't recognise the interim government as legitimate. In his mind, radical minority groups ousted a democratically elected president and filled powerful posts with "crooks", who pose a threat to Ukranian Russians. Additionally under UN rules (Article 2(4)), until active military action takes place, the occupation doesn't constitute an armed attack (one which might necessitate the need for a military response). Chatham House's Ruma Mundal similarly lays out a grey area of international law- notably relating to authority. While acts of aggression certainly violate Article 2(4) and there isn't enough evidence to constitute a self-defence counterargument, from Putin's perspective he doesn't need to seek authority from Ukraine's interim parliament. Yanukovch might not have a future in Ukraine (Putin's words) but that doesn't remove his 'democratic legitimacy' when he writes a letter calling for Putin's help.

Final piece worth reading is Ashley Deeks' in The New Republic, which goes through the legal remits of self-defense and counter attacks in the event that Russia does declare war. 



Should Britain Intervene? And why won't it?

One word: Money.

One of the most remarkable things that's happened over the past few weeks in the silence of Foreign Secretary William Hague. Speaking in the Commons last week, he said that there were no plans to impose economic sanctions, and that attending the G8 summit in Sochi was still on the cards. Other cabinet ministers have kept quiet on the Russia/Crimea front too, stating only that 'it was a very complex situation with many factors' (though I suppose with Libya it was just a cakewalk, right?)

Much of this decision has to do with the way the country's been structured since the 1980's- a time when former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sang the banker's praises, revelled in the fruits of deregulation and unfettered foreign investment. It was a mentality that continued throughout the New Labour years- where London's luxury markets became similar to offshore tax havens. And throughout this period, London became more filled with management consultants, hedge fund managers and corporate lawyers, working in sectors linked to powerful oligarchs.

Which is why everyone knows Russian black money circulates the economy through London, but nothing is done about it. So despite the fact that targeted economic sanctions would be the best way to tame Putin, government mandarins have gone as far as to write up documents urging MPs not to close off the City.

Generally, the legal arguments are contentious- it's all about perspective: recognition of legitimate governance and what would constitute a breach of the Ukrainian constitution. It's worth noting too that Putin invoked the Right to Protect (R2P) principle too, drawing parallels with the US intervention in Kosovo to oust Milosoviec. In the game of diplomatic rhetoric, Putin's trying (and in my view, succeeding) at removing the West of any moral authority needed to stage a credible form of intervention.




Media Wars

As things change hour-to-hour, we've relied on the media to try make sense of what's going on.

The original media narrative in the West went a little something like this: Peaceful protests against Yanukoych's rejection of EU integration, led to physical, and now armed conflict. There are two sides; the 'Pro-EU' good guys, and the 'Pro-government (and therefore Putin)' bad guys. The latter have the evil Russia behind them, controlling the oil and natural gas supplies, while the good guys just have hope. It's tragic there's no US military presence, says ultimate good guy John Mccain.

So when Abby Martin and Liz Wahl, two Russia Today journalists, publicly resigned over Putin's actions in Ukraine, many took it as a sign of Putin's nearing defeat. Anchors from the UK and the US took the public resignations as a sign that Putin was losing his power- so much so that even the Kremlin-funded RT were turning against him.

But there is an over-arching theme to this; that the conflict in Ukraine is not just a revolt, or a military battle- but one fought over the internet and on television. 

The media war is summed up quite nicely by Salon , though particularly in its charity to the accuracy of Russian reportage. Indeed, it's noted that while Putin certainly doesn't see the interim government as a legitimate or recognisable body on the diplomatic stage, he does publicly propose fresh elections in Ukraine, and sets out the precondition that Washington doesn't align itself with Ukraine's interim. There's a really interesting narrative taking place too; Considering the Nuland tapes (in which the assistant US secretary of state says "F the EU") set out a desired roadmap  for Ukraine,  it seems as if the US are trying to use the Ukraine crisis- and a stand off with Russia, to assert a strong foreign policy at a time when there isn't much faith in the Obama administration.

Of course, the media significance didn't really come about until anchor rebellion.  RT wrote an interesting op-ed on these incidents, claiming that (1) perception of the conflict is culturally dependent and (2) that RT journalists have editorial independence and the right to their own opinions.

Whether that's true or not is up for debate (RT won't entertain the discussion, however) but it does show that news coverage is also verging into old cold-war style paradigms. Which is great for proprietors, though not necessarily the public.



Concluding Points

Which brings me back to where I started- noone really knows what's happening in Ukraine, which is probably why there's a lot less coverage now than a few weeks ago.

The Guardian's Simon Jenkins best sums up the current dilemma: The Western world has pronounced its moral indignation, but it's rife with double standards. Last years' Syria vote (remember, it was a vote on the principle of R2P) wasn't just about the Middle East, but the wider sea change of public attitudes to military action overseas. 

So with the military option no longer valid, diplomats are taking over the debate with empty slogans along the lines of "Obama must show he's strong, Putin cannot be allowed to continue and NATO must act". All of these terms are contradictory, and don't fit into any coherent foreign policy response.

In the meantime, Obama is hosting Ukrainian PM Arseniy Yatsenyu in Washington (a move that is pretty much unprecedented), continued to threaten Russia with sanctions and slowdowns of natural gas production. Meanwhile, Russia continues to stock troops and artillery on the Crimean border, as the protectorate prepares for a referendum on joining Russia (something the US will refuse to acknowledge).

It's now expected that a mix of sanctions and over-reaching Russian ambition will make sure Putin kicks himself in the face, but while the move is certainly a gamble on the Kremlin's part, I wonder whether this prediction is more of a hope, than something that's necessarily calculated. 

My prediction is that the West will reluctantly let Putin take Crimea, while they build relationships with a post- revolution Ukraine. Europe's dependence on Russian money, oil and gas are too great for any significant sanctions to effectively work, which of course will also direct US foreign policy objectives too.  Meanwhile. unless the US starts exporting natural gas leverage will still be awarded to Russia- it's something that policy makers are urging, but considering the fastest that they can start distributing energy is in 2015, it might not be quick enough to stop Putin.

Nigel's refugee clawback shows he's just another politician

As the year ends, spare a thought for a group of Britons whose hopes and dreams have been crushed. A group who will continue to be ridiculed, ignored and oppressed, even by those who once promised them Jerusalem itself.

Of course, I'm talking about the poor members of UKIP, who upon hearing of their leader Nigel Farage claim that the UK should 'welcome Syrian refugees', came up in arms (at least on their Keyboards) to denounce the act of treachery.

“You're a shill, just like the rest of 'em” said one man on the party's official Facebook account. “Charity begins at home, let's start here first!” said another. In fact, since Farage made the statement last Sunday, the party's page has been filled with reactions similar to another rattled up member, who eloquently put it: “They can sort out their own shite”.

Admittedly, I was quite impressed by Farage's statement. Perhaps because I'm a liberal Britain hater by UKIP's standards, but the fact that he was able to justify the proposition under the United Nations 1951 declaration on Refugee status illustrated a certain maturity of the party- one that's hard time shaking off negative images of racism and under-informed policy.  

It also said something about Farage's character. Arguably the most charismatic man in modern British politics (with London mayor Boris Johnson a close second), Farage has always been known for his defiant speeches at the European parliament, an unrelenting stance to the European union, and generally achieving what most politicians can't- being rather good on TV. I half expected that the man likely to lead the 2014 elections would have the resilience to do what was morally right, even if a section of his party weren't too chipper about it.

But yesterday, Farage retracted his initial statement, stating that he actually meant Syrian Christians (otherwise known as 'the good ones'). Beyond the sheer offensiveness of the comment- and the inherent implication that religion is an accurate determinant of one's life, it's worth thinking about what this actually says about Farage himself.

Bear in mind that a significant part of the Farage 'brand' lies in marketing himself as an outsider- the 'honest broker' in a land of crooks- something that his supporters often lament in when they talk about 'spineless' politicians. Indeed, just type his name into Youtube, and you'll find plenty of videos attacking the 'LibLabCon' establishment, claiming that the party 'best represents the working class' through addressing its concerns around immigration. Essentially, the Farage brand has been constructed as the antithesis of mainstream politics, accommodating viewpoints that Liberals, Conservatives or Labour could never acceptably get away with.

Farage has been able to get away with this 'free pass' for a while, and it's allowed a great deal of inconsistency in the process. Prior to his statement to help Syrian refugees, he referred to the UK as a 'soft touch' for trickster asylum seekers, while the party's flagship policy, the 5 year immigration freeze, has generally gone unchallenged by the mainstream press.

Meanwhile, its campaigners and supporters seem to pay little attention to its policies outside of immigration and the EU; Indeed, it still confuses me that a party that calls for corporation tax cuts, meanwhile statements made by the party's former economics spokesman, a certain Godfrey Bloom, has been on the record claiming that the unemployed and public sector workers should be 'stripped of their voting rights'.

Perhaps the issue is that we don't really know what Farage stands for. Once a strength, his dream of UKIP becoming a formidable force in British politics is coming with consequences- notably, a greater demand for accountability. That might mean Farage will have to stop playing the political maverick, and act more like a politician.

Whether Farage believes his revised statement, is of course questionable. But what this obvious scaling back does show is that even without a Westminster seat, he knows that he requires a core foundation of votes to even stand a chance in the next election. And being a self-cultivated brand, he might find that defying the congregation is much more difficult.

*An interesting comment piece : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10542611/Does-Nigel-Farage-want-to-join-the-Conservatives.html

The 'gender segregation' debate has ignored Muslim women

It turns out that British Universities are further bowing to Shariah Law (at least according to some bloggers) by 'enabling' gender segregation. The issue comes in light of a recent report by UniversitiesUK (now retracted) suggesting that 'gender separation is not alien to our culture'.

There's been enough columns denouncing forced separation by gender; pretty much every national newspaper, magazine and digital news outlet have argued that such requests are akin to coercion, demean freedom and equality, and may even suggest that religious sensitivities have taken precedence in secular institutions.

Generally I agree with the sentiments; I personally don't believe segregation achieves what it is designed for, nor is it particularly great for the purposes of public intellectual inquiry. I also feel that a lot of Islamic societies across the country will bear the brunt of rash accusations; my own university's Islamic Society (ISOC) didn't do segregation in public debates, and neither did the others I attended as a guest.

But I do believe that Muslim women have been short-changed in this highly publicised debate- particularly when it came to media reporting. For while representatives of LSE's atheist & secular society, Student Rights and IERA were given air time- the opinions of ISOC attendees- particularly Muslim women, were given much less attention. And if we are to seriously have a debate or impose terms like 'patriarchy', 'misogyny' and 'medieval' , then it's probably not the best idea to shut out the people who have been portrayed as the victims in all of this.

I decided to speak to three Muslim women over the weekend. All, who wish to remain anonymous for privacy reasons, are students at London universities, where they play active roles in their Islamic societies.

During the interviews, what surprised me was how they viewed the separation by gender, an Islamic custom that is observed by pretty much all Mosques across the world. Soumaiya, a 20 year-old engineering student said to me : "I'm uncomfortable with the term 'segregation' because it implies force. None of us were forced to sit away from males, it was a choice that we made- one that we're actually more comfortable with."

Over the course of our correspondence, we talked further about Islam and feminism, where she went on to say: "This whole debate is a lot like the issues regarding the Hijab (headscarf) and the Niqab (veil). One the one hand you have a group of people arguing that it supresses women into acceptance and submission. On the other, a growing wave of feminist Muslims are using it to empower themselves, and to build gender identities on their own terms.

"To me this is the same thing. I don't agree that people should be forced to do anything, but if I feel more comfortable sitting alone, or with fellow women, then why should I be told it's wrong? Isn't it all a bit counter-intuitive?"

Halima agrees. A 19 year old Mathematics student and former treasurer of her Islamic society, she says: "A lot of the arguments flung around talk about how sitting separated reinforces patriarchy and male superiority, but no-one really asks what the females think. It's ironic really- they complain that girls in Islam are ignored and unrecognised, and then they completely ignore them when discussing gender rights!"

That's not to say that all Muslim women- or even men- find the current system of segregation to be perfect. Indeed, as young, liberally-educated Muslims go to UK universities, they often have a mindset which is at odds with old-school preachers and culturally dogmatic ways of thinking. Noor, a Chemistry student from my alma mater tells me: "Segregation the way that it's currently done might not work as intended, because the disparity between the Isoc and the outside world are polar opposites.

"How can you be in an environment where you have total separation in Islamic events, and then you're forced to mix and interact with the opposite gender outside? Sitting at the back of a room won't improve the way that anyone interacts with the opposite sex- in some cases it might make it even worse."

Noor also tells me that ISOCs do need to develop in order to address the key issues surrounding gender segregation suggesting that they need to create a space where "boundaries exist, because they are part of a wider principles that we believe in and are embedded within us and not because they are enforced by a sign that says "brothers left and sisters right".

This leaves the question of whether gender segregation is 'legitimate' in British universities. I'd argue that while I don't believe an external speaker should be able to dictate terms of a public event (and this would apply whether it's race, socio-economic disposition or political affiliation) and nor should people be forced into arrangements without their consent, there is also something to be said about respecting choices regardless of how distasteful we might find them. Such is the libertarian position of Legal theorist David Bernstein, who explains in his paper ["Sex Discrimination Laws Versus Civil Liberties”] that "guarding the freedom of choice for men and women is more important than preventing such sex segregation since methods of prevention can often cause more harm than good for both sexes."

To conclude- hastily, I do think that the debate surrounding gender segregation on British campuses, while important, has been poorly debated on. There has been far less discussion, particularly from female viewpoints, on the values of choice, liberty, religious identity and legitimate boundaries of self expression. Instead, we've heard far more misogynistic assumptions from Islamic groups who have been given a platform to speak on gender rights, and commentators that have fallen into the same trap of pushing forward a dogmatic and incorruptible strand of liberalism.

Even if campaigners ultimately succeed in preventing societies from holding events where segregation is permitted, I fear that it will, unfortunately, do little to advance the gender equality of female Muslim students.