‘Extremism’ proposals for campuses challenged
BY HAMZA A. BAJWA | 27.01.2006 23:47
A briefing from the human rights group Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has challenged the current thinking on extremism on Campus.
Entitled: 'You ONLY Have the Right to Silence: Muslims on Campus in Britain', the report has criticised the stance proposed by Education Ministers and the Glees/ Pope report on the connection between extremism and universities.
IHRC has said that proposals such as the interviewing of all foreign students in conjunction with MI5 upon their application to university, banning of all faith societies, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly’s encouragement of fellow students to spy upon each other, the undermining of academic freedom and the implementation of racism as policy would not lead towards the intended enhancement of Britain’s security.
The briefing rebutted the claim of a terrorist threat on campus as "wholly exaggerated" devoid of any substantial evidence or research, and cited the report conducted by the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), which found that following the July terrorist bombings, only 4% of Muslim students surveyed did not condemn the atrocity.
It continued by stating that the events of 9-11 and 7-7 were "being exploited and capitalized upon to silence any form of dissent or political activism on campus, specifically when Muslim students are involved and where the issue concerned is Palestine".
It further added that the term ‘political activism’ was being tarnished with the label of "extremism" which it said was a "concerted effort to silence Muslim dissent".
The report contended that political activism on campus was "something to be endorsed and encouraged, not stifled and suppressed" and drew a parallel between intolerant police states that banned all types of dissent and the current policy that was attempting to stifle political debate through censorship, harassment and prosecution.
The report described the claims that such measures would enhance public security as erroneous, and warned that such a move would not only lead towards a "climate of fear" and the "death of academic freedom [and] social activism", but would also hasten to increase the "restrictive and discriminatory policy exclusion of Muslims".
The report made specific mention of the case study of Muslim student Nasser Amin at SOAS, whose article in the student magazine Spirit that sought to discuss the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance, was accused of being anti-Semitic and supportive of terrorism. Following the media coverage Mr Amin received both "death threats on Zionist websites" as well as calls in parliament for prosecution. He subsequently received a public reprimand without a formal disciplinary hearing. The report said that such incidents were "shared by numerous students, activists and academics coming from a diversity of religious and cultural backgrounds".
Briefing author Fahad Ansari said: "We stand at the edge of a defining moment in British history. We could resort to a neo-McCarthyite hysteria and route out all dissenters starting with all Muslims regardless of their beliefs. Or we - and that includes government, the security community and academia, as well as minority and majority communities - can work towards a security discourse based on thorough and open research that makes the goal of a cohesive society its main aim. For the ethically minded, there really isn't a choice except the latter."
Entitled: 'You ONLY Have the Right to Silence: Muslims on Campus in Britain', the report has criticised the stance proposed by Education Ministers and the Glees/ Pope report on the connection between extremism and universities.
IHRC has said that proposals such as the interviewing of all foreign students in conjunction with MI5 upon their application to university, banning of all faith societies, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly’s encouragement of fellow students to spy upon each other, the undermining of academic freedom and the implementation of racism as policy would not lead towards the intended enhancement of Britain’s security.
The briefing rebutted the claim of a terrorist threat on campus as "wholly exaggerated" devoid of any substantial evidence or research, and cited the report conducted by the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), which found that following the July terrorist bombings, only 4% of Muslim students surveyed did not condemn the atrocity.
It continued by stating that the events of 9-11 and 7-7 were "being exploited and capitalized upon to silence any form of dissent or political activism on campus, specifically when Muslim students are involved and where the issue concerned is Palestine".
It further added that the term ‘political activism’ was being tarnished with the label of "extremism" which it said was a "concerted effort to silence Muslim dissent".
The report contended that political activism on campus was "something to be endorsed and encouraged, not stifled and suppressed" and drew a parallel between intolerant police states that banned all types of dissent and the current policy that was attempting to stifle political debate through censorship, harassment and prosecution.
The report described the claims that such measures would enhance public security as erroneous, and warned that such a move would not only lead towards a "climate of fear" and the "death of academic freedom [and] social activism", but would also hasten to increase the "restrictive and discriminatory policy exclusion of Muslims".
The report made specific mention of the case study of Muslim student Nasser Amin at SOAS, whose article in the student magazine Spirit that sought to discuss the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance, was accused of being anti-Semitic and supportive of terrorism. Following the media coverage Mr Amin received both "death threats on Zionist websites" as well as calls in parliament for prosecution. He subsequently received a public reprimand without a formal disciplinary hearing. The report said that such incidents were "shared by numerous students, activists and academics coming from a diversity of religious and cultural backgrounds".
Briefing author Fahad Ansari said: "We stand at the edge of a defining moment in British history. We could resort to a neo-McCarthyite hysteria and route out all dissenters starting with all Muslims regardless of their beliefs. Or we - and that includes government, the security community and academia, as well as minority and majority communities - can work towards a security discourse based on thorough and open research that makes the goal of a cohesive society its main aim. For the ethically minded, there really isn't a choice except the latter."
BY HAMZA A. BAJWA
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
For god's sake, are we going to learn from history, or repeat it?
28.01.2006 02:59
The truth always comes out. The above story details Blair's use of rape-factories against female relatives of 'wanted' men in Iraq.
For god's sake, learn from history. Everything that you see Blair doing, and everything that leaks about Blair's private acts and policies, speaks of an unspeakable future for all of us.
Blair is not a bit bad. Blair is not bad. Blair is not very bad. Blair is that extreme and disgusting evil that so horrifies the Human mind, that the mind refuses to contemplate the full nature of his depravity, and in doing so vastly increases the probability of his success. Like Hitler. Like Stalin. Like Mao.
Even if one were to stupidly believe every accusation levelled at 'extremist' muslims, the sum total of deaths they are (falsely) said to have caused is vanishingly small when compared to, say, fatalities in road accidents. Meantime, since the invasion alone, Blair has caused the murder of more than 300,000 innocent Humans in Iraq. Millions were exterminated before that in the sanctions that were only in place because of the lies of Britain, Israel, and the US.
America's only memory of Vietnam is that they didn't kill enough people there at the time.
There is NO DEBATE as to who are the extremists on this planet. There is NO DEBATE as to who are the racist psychopaths that murder at will.
The only thing about past atrocities though,is that America was really an accidental psychopath. A mass murderer always in denial. Well, today America is in therapy. Blair is the psychiatrist that councils the US to be proud of its talent. To let loose that inner demon, and to be excited to watch as it rampages freely across the globe. Blair says to the Americans-
"don't be ashamed of your history of genocide, celebrate it. This is your god given talent, and your god given right. Find in your heart that righteous hatred for all things different, for all peoples strange, and for all cultures unknown. Let that hatred burn white hot in your brain, and listen to the angel of death that speaks there. Turn to ashes all that disgusts you, with no mercy and no remorse"
The MOB-BOSS may be feeble and cowardly, but providing his LIEUTENANTS are strong and vicious and well-armed and fearless, that crime-lord will rule the streets.
What is the limit of one man's evil. Each of you seem to be betting your life, and the lives of everyone you love, that you know the limit of Blair's evil. How many people died making this same mistake with Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao. This is NOT what you hope is true with all your heart. This is what you KNOW is true with all your mind, when you take into account the evidence of your eyes and ears. Take the facts of Blair. Compare them with the rise of Hitler. Do not allow any false optimism interfere with the thinking used to draw conclusions.
You didn't want to believe to 300,000+ figure people like myself gave for Iraq. You didn't want to believe the fact that Blair would go to war with Iran next. Be honest with yourself. How many things have you told yourselves across the years that Blair WOULD NOT DO.
-would not ally himself with the depraved regime of Sharon in Israel?
-would not ally himself with the depraved actions of Putin in Chechnya?
-would not ally himself with the most extreme right-wing NeoCon regime in the US?
-would not launch a horrifying war against Serbia AFTER the Serbian war with Croatia/Bosnia was finished?
-would not weaponise smallpox, and prepare to use nuclear/chemical weapons against other nations?
-would not turn Britain into a police state, and have death squads operate on the streets?
-would not run the same propaganda campaigns against the muslims that Hitler used against the jews?
-would not invade afghanistan, in an orgy of atrocities?
-would not conspire with the US/Israel to dishonestly maintain sanctions against Iraq, thus murdering millions there?
-would not spy on members of the UN in order to wage AGGRESSIVE WAR?
-would not wage AGGRESSIVE war against Iraq on pretexts that proved entirely false, exterminating 300,000+ humans in the continuing course of the invasion/occupation?
-would not sponser and support rape/torture centres across Europe and bases occupied by the UK military?
-would not prepare to genocide Iran, on the excuse that ONLY Israel is allowed nuclear weapons in the Middle-East?
My list misses thousands of other examples.
So, my question is simple. How many things does Blair have to do, that you were certain that Blair WOULD NEVER DO, before you start to panic. BLAIR HIDES NOTHING. He requires that YOU do the hiding, hiding the truth from yourself, that is.
The population of Britain is like the wife of a guy who rapes his children daily. She SEES everything. She HEARS everything. She KNOWS everything. However, she convinces herself that the truth is too much to bare, and life has no right to be this unfair to her, so she creates a pathetic innocent explanation for each and every thing she notices. If challenged, the irony is that SHE will defend the innocence of her foul monster of a spouse far more powerfully than he ever would.
Worse than her self-delusion is the fact that she had the power to stop the abuse of her kids at any moment, by accepting the truth, and therefore giving herself proper options. The same is true for us. The moment we (all) accept the reality of Blair's true evil is the same moment that Blair loses the power to use that evil. Anything less, and Blair continues unfettered, crossing off more and more from your "WOULD NEVER DO" list until you can no longer see through your tears, or hear above the sound of your sobbing.
twilight
Oh really...?
28.01.2006 15:13
rogue_lettuce
Yes.Proof would help
29.01.2006 14:20
I still have not heard of any trial proving beyond reasonable doubt that it really was Muslim extremists responsible for 7/7, just a dodgy photo taken at Luton station. Conspiracy theorists have kept on saying that some of the alleged 9/11 terrorists were seen alive after the event and this was even reported on the BBC. Has anyone even denied this? Has anyone come up with a credible explanation of how WTC7 accidentally fell down? To be honest I do not know who to believe but I am getting bored of the repetition of the war-promoters so surely they should get their proof together before any Iran massacre-takeover and before they are exposed before the eyes of an awakening population?
Brian B