Appreciate the answer, but by this context I meant just in this public academic / lecture scenario. I was hoping Dereds might suggest something, he seems closest to thinking there could be acceptable situations? Also aaron, who earlier indicated there could be non-discriminatory reasons for gender segregation.

I'm struggling to see why "no involuntary segregation [unless it can be justified]" couldn't be the most obvious and simplest policy.

The problem is the qualifier "unless it can be justified" somewhat negates the statement "no involuntary segregation" and reverts the discussion back to when, if ever, it is justified. The statement is saying nothing without defining justification.

Hummm

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1352830.ece

For those who can't get past the paywall (emphasis mine to pick out points relevant to some of the threads of discussion ITT):

It would seem then that the UK laws are fairly identical to the ones in my country, which I guess makes sense since they are likely both derived from the European Convention on Human Rights. The content of this article is basically what I have said all along (I'm more than smug enough enough to sneak in a "that's what I said" here).

Non-Europeans on this forum should probably note that this convention is a lot stricter when it comes to protecting individuals than the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, which I guess can cause a fair bit of confusion.

That article made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

What interests me is how non Muslim majority countries like the UK react to this type of news. The fact that the British media covers (w/e the level of coverage may be) Anjem Choudary only gives into the tiny portion of Muslim hardliners. Is Choudary not despised by almost all UK Muslims? If the guy crosses a line would he not be arrested/deported? what is the big deal. There are KKK meetings in the USA.

So their is a guy speaking at a University where people are voluntary participating, unless, are folks being forced to go to this speaking event?

Are you British Hueh? What is the deal with the fascination of "Islamic Extremism" (sort of an invented term) in the UK, Seems like a pointless mess to me. Is there a similar reaction to "Christian Extremism" in the UK, like with abortions and what not?

We don't have much Christian extremism in the sense of anti-abortion movements or the likes. Certainly there's still a lot of tension in some areas between Protestants and Catholics. In Scottish football the troubles between Celtic and Rangers have a lot of roots in the traditional divide of one as a Catholic club. It's led to things like death threats to players even in recent years.

There's also been a perceived religious element to Irish hostilities and the IRA.

Generally though, the idea of Christian extremism is very limited. In spite of a national religion and still having a number if Bishops in Parliament, Christianity's influence is low. I only know one person who even attends Church weekly.

Muslim tensions are limiting integration from a growing demographic. It is a form of extremism that we don't hear much from in other groups. Certainly no Christian leaders making the kind of arguments that Choudary or Abu Hamza spring to mind.

To those defending gender based segregation:
Do you think the university should also allow race/skin color based segregation?

I also object to the notion that segregated x is better than no x at all. Having this limited right promotes the segregation and makes it harder to achieve true equality.
It's not as simple as c>b>a therefore b if c is not immediately available.

Yes, on the same voluntary basis. Although it becomes more complicated as the system isn't as binary as gender. (Let's not talk about the gender vs sex distinction.)

I'm not British. I find British extremism interesting in the same way I find American Christian extremism interesting. There isn't a lot of Christian extremism though it's starting to catch on though. Various christian groups are starting to talk about the way Muslims have 'defended their religion' and are advocating to do the same.

Anjem Choudary is looked down on by everyone, even hardliners. The hardliners mostly look down on him because his antics draw too much attention to them. Right now they know they don't have enough baseline support so now they are trying to build up a base while trying to get concessions where they can.

Personally I think "Islamic extremism" is both under reported and over reported. I think marginalized extremists like Anjem get sensationalized while deep and analytical reporting of the views of some semi mainstream groups are ignored.

No and I don't think the comparison is valid. We accept gender based segregation in sports, prisons, hospitals, treatment centres, hostels, refuges and schools. In all cases it seems reasonable to have a policy that allows for gender based segregation where a similar policy facilitating racial segregation would be inappropriate.

This is all I'm saying on this because it's been done and I don't think it's helpful.

Notice that the case zumby posted by my definition would be disallowed based on the different treatment afforded men and women.

I've also made it clear that B may be > A and that's a decision university bodies should be able to take. There's nothing automatic about it, the alternative position is that A > B and that is automatic.

I agree, it is very silly that a lot of very nice men and women get dragged through the mud because one caters to a few extremists. This is also definitely something one should have considered before allowing the segregation.

But, it can be difficult. In the beginning of this thread I stated that people shouldn't be naive. That this would be discrimination of women in disguise, that they would be expected to keep their mouths shut and eyes cast down. For this I was basically dragged through 3 pages of being called ethnocentric, an activist and it was very much implied that I held ulterior motives of prejudice.

Lo and behold, the actual story as it played out was pretty much an exact mirror copy of my original assessment.

We can't be afraid to act when we have very good reason to suspect that people's rights will get trampled. Women sat in that auditorium as 2nd-rate citizens with noone to stand up for them, because UUK floated into a dreamworld where it was necessary to sacrifice their liberty in order to uphold civil rights. There is no censorship in not allowing segregation in university lectures, nor is anyone's right to freedom of religion stepped on. If a religious leader can't hold an academic lecture on his religion without ritual that steps on people's rights, this is on him and him alone.

And I suspect most Muslims, regardless of denomination, in the UK will agree wholeheartedly. They of all people are the ones who will suffer the most from this case.

So I didn't answer this because I don't think I need to preempt the decision of the universities. I am not defending segregation I am defending a university having the option to decide where it may be permissible.

Again I'm okay with it when there is no other mechanism that discriminates between men and women so women being afforded the same privileges as men at the meeting would be necessary on my account.

The fact that you allow "unless it can be justified" gives the university scope to consider the reasons put forward as justification. That's all I am saying should occur.

So, a couple of questions:

1) Why can't the speakers be expected to respect the custom in the country, or culture, in which they are speaking. I doubt that the audience would be integrated to show respect for the religious beliefs of a christian guest speaker in an Islamic country, why are we having to respect their customs?

2) What would have been a good question for the poll?

This does seem like a bit of a cop out though. No one has suggested that UUK be forced to segregate. That's your own strawman. People have said that the segregation that the UUK proposed when it's requested by groups is discriminatory against peoples' right to associate. And you seem ok with that.

Number 1 has bad wording. This is as much "our" customs as "their customs". I'm sure there are many UK citizens who think this kind of segregation is completely fine. To make this about sides is a losing argument, and if you look at the debate closely - that is where it is taken when it explodes into a big pile of mess that solves nothing.

It is ultimately about individual liberties and protecting those.

spell my strawman out because I'm not seeing it, given that you tried to equate my position to defending segregated marriage you may want to take some time to think about strawmen

I'm also not convinced that people criticising UUK guidance has read it given it was taken down by the time I went looked. If it is contravention of the ECHR then it can be rightly criticised otherwise I am still waiting for someone to explain why segregating sexes at meetings where all other privileges are equal is discrimination.

My argument is only that Universities are better placed to decide on individual cases

The UUK guidance was not a guidance on segregation, it was specifically a guidance on segregation at events featuring Islamic speakers.

More correctly it was a case study on a hypothetical events, accompanied by legal advice. The legal advice was later contradicted by the English EHRC.

Has it been contradicted or has it been removed seeking clarification?

I've said it was taken down when I went look but what was there wasn't specific to Islamic speakers only. I don't know why it would or should be.

It has been directly contradicted by the EHRC, after UUK sought legal advice there. The case study was about "ultra orthodox religious speakers", but it was spurred by Universities seeking guidance on how to deal with Islamic speakers. This after an inquiry from Leicester University on how to deal with Islamic interest groups which wanted to segregate the audience.

Edit for correcting facts: The banning I mentioned was not done by Leicester university, it was University College London who banned "the Islamic Education and Research Academy". Based on this Leicester University made the inquiry to UUK.

I'm not sure this is a contradiction and I still don't know how segregation = discrimination

That would be the strawman that Hue is referring too, because the case has always been about discrimination. Only in hypotheticals with no bearing on what took place in the UK is this somehow only about segregation.

Regardless, even in those hypotheticals where this supposed discrimination-free segregation occurs - it would still contradict the right to free association.

The ECHR's argument was the same put forth here, that segregation by gender in public violates an individual's right to free association. You're free to say that the speaker's right to free speech supersedes the individual's right to free association with the opposite gender if you like.

I'm not saying that I'm saying I'm good with universities having the scope to decide.

Now where is that Strawman.