University lecturer branded `racist' for weblink

The two leading Jewish newspapers in the UK last weekend kicked off a potential firestorm over the views held by university academics.

Dr Nat Queen, lecturer in mathematics and statistics at the University of Birmingham, has been lambasted for a link on his homepage to a website which accuses the US government of being satanic, criticises Israeli policy and questions what involvement Israel may have had in the September 11th attacks in the US.

Dr Queen, on learning of growing student activity organised to denounce him, said that he was "distressed to hear that there is this sort of campaign" since he was an advocate of free speech and explained to ThoughtCrimeNews.com that he merely sought to present material that was not covered by the mainstream media.

He also explained that the link in question had actually been posted on his website for 2 years, but the material on the site he linked to had only recently been updated. He did not however seem to feel that the new material warranted the removal of the link from his website, citing the principle of free speech.

Whilst the views presented on the site are not necessarily those of Dr Queen's, he nonetheless faces a severe backlash if the National Union of Students (NUS) or organisations like the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) decide to organise against him.

ThoughtCrimeNews.com has carried articles pointing out the farce that is the official explanation of the September 11th attacks, but the so-called `shocking material' includes the contention that `Not only did the Israelis have prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks, they were closely involved in their implementation as well,' a view that is supported by very little evidence. Indeed, the case for 9/11 being an inside job on the part of the US government rather than that of Israel's Mossad is far more compelling.

Dr Queen has been asked by the University Information Office to alter his homepage twice, so that it is made clear that the page is neither an official University of Birmingham publication, nor that it represents the views of the University. He was also asked to remove the University crest from his site.

ThoughtCrimeNews.com sympathises with Dr Queen's predicament. Rather than debate him on the issues raised by the material, the reaction of the press has instead served to encourage condemnation before the information is even evaluated. A charge of anti-semitism sticks like mud, but Dr Queen made it clear that he frowns upon the accusation and has some Jewish ancestry himself. He draws a clear distinction between criticism of a country or its policies and criticism of a whole people or nation, a line which frequently gets blurred by mainstream news.

Simply by putting the link on his website, Dr Queen has committed a thoughtcrime for seeking to prompt thought and debate on issues and information which the public would not normally hear about.

What may have rung alarm bells for the UK Jewish publications and student groups was the picture of a US flag with a swastika replacing the 50 stars. There are many in the US and around the world who have drawn parallels with Germany in the 1930's and the USA since September 11th and see the police state descending as it did in Europe leading up to World War II. Similarly, regular `alternative news' trawlers on the internet have regularly seen articles accusing the US of being a fascist state or of coming under extreme pressure from certain pro-Israel lobby groups. To many, Dr Queen's experience could be considered tame. Were he a lecturer on a US university campus, he would already have faced the wrath of Daniel Pipes' biased CampusWatch organisation and calls for his dismissal. Thankfully, no such organisation exists in the UK. Yet.

Conveniently for both the Jewish Chronicle and London Jewish News/TotallyJewish.com which have both run stories on Dr Queen's website, the professor was unavailable for comment last week, returning from holiday after the story had gone to press. As such, the coverage has been one-sided in its allegations of prejudice, racism and `anti-Israel' views.

Dr Queen originally came over to the UK from the US on a Fulbright Scholarship in the 1960's and has remained here ever since. He felt at the time that the US was "not a free country" and has "never regretted the decision" to move here.

His University colleague, Sue Blackwell, has received numerous hate emails for her views and coverage of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. Dr Queen on the other hand has received only one and pointed out that his website has seen a substantial number of hits recently.

ThoughtCrimeNews.com will be following this story closely to see if it gets whitewashed in the national press and has extended an invitation to Dr Queen to submit a full statement for publication.

Wednesday 27th August 2003

Dr Nat Queen's response:

"I was distressed to learn of recent attacks on my personal website.

When I returned from a short holiday last week, I found an e-mail from a journalist at the London Jewish News, who wrote: "It has been brought to our attention that your website features links to extremist sites featuring attacks on Israel and against Jewish people." Another journalist at the Jewish Chronicle, referring to a particular link, wrote: "I would like to know why you have links [sic] to this website and whether you will consider removing it, given its anti-Semitic overtones."

This is a serious misrepresentation of the purpose of my links. If those links feature any "attacks", they are basically against undemocratic, imperialist and oppressive government policies and their supporters, whoever they are, irrespective of race or creed.

The accusations against my website are particularly surprising, since the site clearly demonstrates that I strongly support human rights and free speech, and this applies to everyone. In particular, I unreservedly condemn anti-Semitism or any other form of racism or unfair discrimination which attempts to restrict the basic rights of any minority groups.

The links on my website which seem so objectionable to some people contain a huge amount of material, and I certainly do not agree with every word of it. Some of those links are intended to highlight and document particular government policies, both historically and at present. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

I understand that one of my links points to a site whose style of presentation may seem distasteful to some readers, and this is unfortunate, given some of the content of that site which I think should be freely available. Readers who don't approve of that site are free to ignore it. The link is intended to provide a thought-provoking alternative view of US government policies, which one cannot find in the mainstream press.

The purpose of all my links should be clear from my website. The only views which I express myself are stated there, and I stand by every word. Free speech is a cherished principle which I defend most strongly, and I find it heartening to have received strong support for this from many of my colleagues and from other readers elsewhere. As one reader pointed out, if all websites were forced to remove any links to which anyone registered an objection, there would be nothing left of the web!

I am glad to say that my university apparently defends the principle of free speech on personal websites, at least if the sites make it clear that they are purely personal and not official university webpages."

Dr Queen's homepage: