Before someone misguidedly tries to claim that this debate is somehow not Islamophobic, may I direct your attention to the proposer of the motion, Stephen Gash. Gash has recently retired from the grassroots pressure group Stop the Islamification of Europe (SIOE), whose tagline is: "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense." Under a section on their website entitled "Moderate Muslims?", the first line proclaims loud and clear: “We do not accept the concept of moderate muslims." So we can be pretty confident about the Islamophobic content of this debate.

Why did James Counsell (the Union President) decide to lend Gash - an extremely Islamophobic bigot - legitimacy by providing him with such a prestigious platform upon which to air his abhorrent views? Perhaps Counsell thinks that the only way to be a good president is to be as controversial as possible, regardless of how many people he upsets along the way. Counsell's decision to devote one of his eight debates to this topic appears to be naive and deeply insensitive. If he wanted to talk about Islam, we could have had a stimulating debate about the "ground-zero mosque" in New York, or Pastor Terry Jones' right (or lack thereof) to burn the Qur'an, but instead, we are stuck with the type of sensationalist headline I'd expect to see in the Daily Mail.

The distinction between Islam (the religion) and Islamism (the political ideology) is vital, and one that Counsell seems to have completely missed. If the debate title had been "Islamism is a threat to the West", there would have been little need for this article. To attack a whole religion based on the political opinions of a small portion of its members shows an incredible lack of insight and nuance.

Muslim students hold a variety of views, and I cannot claim to speak for them. From speaking to a Muslim friend, it seems that some people in the Islamic Society may even be "up for the debate". But I can't help but imagine the scene: a young new Muslim fresher, browsing happily at the freshers' fair is pounced upon by the Union stallholders, who convince her to part with £120 to become a member of the best society in Cambridge for life. She gets home and opens her termcard, to be faced with the image of the Statue of Liberty wearing a burkha (an offensive piece of religious mockery scarily reminsicent of the deadly Anti-Semitic propaganda of old)... She would realise that she has just parted with £120 to be part of a society which plans to publically deface her beliefs and identity in a matter of weeks.

I decided to write this piece to combat the chilling wall of silence surrounding this debate. Why does no-one seem to care about this blatant Islamophobia in our back garden?  Why is no-one saying anything about it? Whenever I've mentioned it to my peers I've been met with a mist of ignorance, apathy, or even support for the fact that it is being held (usually citing that old flawed argument about free speech).  Some suggest it's a good idea to have the debate "so that we can reject the motion and prove the proposition wrong." Since when did we need to prove to the world that we are not intolerant bigots by walking through a door with "Nay" painted above it? I have faith that most of the students here are enlightened, tolerant, reasonable individuals and would walk through the right door should they attend. But should we need to?