Although the motion to be debated was "We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values", there was no doubt that the moderator, the defence team and the majority of the audience thought it should be "We really hate Muslims...let us tell you why".
Isn't she cute?
Ibn Warraq kicked off the proceedings with a carefully rehearsed polemic about Islam. He didn't actually address the topic in any way aside from a sycophantic listing of all the wonderful things that white people have done, which was quite frankly embarrassing to listen to. He is after all what can be best described as a professional apostate who has written venomous tirades against Islam in his books, authored essays used by Christian evangelicals on "How to debate with Muslims", founded the "Secular Islam" website and has stated on the record that he does "not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and 'Islamic fundamentalism' or 'Islamic terrorism'. Their (Muslim terrorists) actions reflect the teachings of Islam".
I listened to his opening remarks. He said a lot more than what is being relayed here. By the way, how does his "profession" contradict in any way what he said?
It gets worse:
Ibn Warraq's main problem is that he is a pukka "Brown Sahib". As anyone with links to the Subcontinent will testify, these intellectually defeated individuals are usually found residing in an over-chintzified drawing room pontificating on how Islam is backward and the occupation of the British was the best thing that ever happened to India whilst trying to eat a samosa with a fork. However, what distinguishes Ibn Warraq is that he is an Islam-hater who enjoys the patronage of some Neocon allies.
The content of Ibn Warraq's remarks is promptly dismissed as "embarrassing" and then an entire paragraph is devoted to the color of his skin!
These bulls are quick to jump at opponents for being Muslim-haters or for harboring deep, mythical racism. Yet, look how quickly, openly and cavalierly they use the skin-color of a person against him / her.