You cannot tell me that any of these four nations are anywhere near the United States when it comes to personal freedoms and liberties.

Tanveer once said to my mum “But Aunty, my real passion lies in media”

I guess he’s found his shtick!

The problem was, of course, that the vast bulk of the audience couldn’t tell that virtually everything Tanveer said was literally waffle. Tanveer was 3rd speaker for the affirmative, and his eloquent hot air left 3rd speaker of the negative (Waleed Aly) frustrated. It’s hard trying to navigate a clean path through bullsh*t.

Tanveer spoke about Islamic scriptural sources as if he had read and mastered 1,400 years of Koranic exegesis. He made the ambit claim that Muslim texts are always interpreted in a strict manner which limits individual liberty. But anyone trying to hold their breath waiting for textual examples is unlikely to have survived the rest of the night.

Tanveer also suggested that he was a lapsed Muslim or even an infidel. He didn’t elaborate too much on that. I’m not sure if he’s trying to become Australia’s answer to Wafa Sultan (though presumably with an added appendage). Perhaps he’s hoping for the right media opportunity to declare his infideldom (??) and hope it generates a few Muslim hotheads to issue a fatwa or two. I’d be happy to do it, but I doubt Tanveer could afford my hourly rate.

None of the other speakers were engaging in a debate in any real sense, though Amina Rasul was certainly effective in putting Daniel Pipes in his place.

The best feature of the night was perhaps the audience participation. Michael Darby got up and sounded like a spokesman for the nominally Christian equivalent of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Still, I can complain all I like. The night, like the 3rd speaker for the affirmative, was a sell-out. For Sydney, it was without a doubt a real intellectual feast.