According to Chris, Anneessa Mahmood began removing items from their stall without explanation and when challenged, claimed that the material was "offensive". She would not offer an explanation as to what rules or regulations were being breached. The pair were also told to remove their t-shirts; the wearing of which, it was claimed, amounted to "harassment". The t-shirts depicted a cartoon known as "Jesus and Mo" which depicts Jesus and Mohammed in various comical situations. Having refused to remove the shirts, the ASH stall was surrounded by uniformed security who threatened to remove Chris and Abishek from university premises by force. When they agreed to put on their jackets and zip them up, this apparently was insufficient because the word "prophet" could still be seen. They were informed that they were not behaving in an "orderly or responsible" manner, and were accompanied by uniformed security for the rest of the afternoon. 

The following day, Chris and Abishek again wore their t-shirts, but this time with the word "censored" covering the "offending" material. They promptly received a letter from the school secretary informing them that they were in breach of the LSE Harassment Policy, and repeating the order that if they did not remove the t-shirts, they would be forcefully removed. Again, uniformed security accompanied them for the day.

If you're thinking that the LSE was worried about offending Christians, think again. This is not the first time that the Students' Union there has seen fit to take firm action against the heinous crime of displaying a cartoon, nor I suspect will it be the last — particularly given the strict rules on Islamophobia agreed by the union in a resolution passed at an Extraordinary General Meeting in 2012. This all-encompassing edict was decreed following a previous "incident" involving the Jesus and Mo cartoon, this time featured on the ASH society's Facebook site. No similar dictatorial motion was passed with reference to Christianity, making the motivation of the union leaders perfectly clear.    

The resolution defined "Islamophobia" as "a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Koran as a manual of hatred". 

Herein lies the reason for the success of the word "Islamophobia" in silencing criticism of a religion — it is casually equated with racism and thus is given a legitimacy it simply does not deserve. No other religion is explicitly protected in this way. The definition does not mention solely the harassment of human beings (which is clearly immoral), but of questioning or criticising the religion itself.