Morning:
21°c
Imagine that a society at a London university invites a well-known racist to address its members. The following week, the same thing happens; the week after, they get two KKK members to debate each other. A number of these speakers are known to be avowed admirers of the convicted London nail-bomber David Copeland.
Sometime later, one of the heads of this charming society attempts a nail-bombing spree in a direct copy of Copeland's crimes. The details of this young man's student activities come to light. It transpires that people had repeatedly warned the university that this would happen. The press starts to ask how such poisonous people could preach hate on campus.
The university's provost responds. First he announces that it is his critics who are the problem and that opponents of white-supremacist bombers are “prejudiced”. He then gives a front-page interview to the Standard explaining that universities “must let” white-racist nail-bomb advocates speak on campus.
All you have to do is exchange white racists for Islamist fanatics, and “prejudice” for “Islamophobia” and you have exactly the degraded position of University College London provost Malcolm Grant. His university's student, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was allegedly the suicide-bomber who tried to bring down a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day — the third head of a university Islamic society, UCL Union Islamic Society (ISoc), from London alone to have been charged with serious terrorism offences.
As a critic of the radicalisation which Mr Grant has allowed to thrive on campus, I have been keen to debate these matters with him. But he claimed just 11 days ago that until the inquiry he had set up to look into this matter had concluded, he must maintain a monkish silence. The front page of the London Evening Standard strikes me as a conspicuous place to fail in this pledge. What the Standard's interview shows is that Mr Grant still — incredibly — fails to grasp the reality that Islamic extremists are preaching and recruiting on campus.
There are well-documented reasons for this. A disturbing number of Islamist terrorists have found UK campuses the most conducive place to radicalise and develop radical contacts. Mr Grant told the Standard: “Campuses are and should be safe homes for controversy, argument and debate.” Sure — but there's nothing “safe” for gay or other minority students at UCL when the ISoc invites guests who call for their murder, or indeed for any of us when Grant's ISoc invites, as they repeatedly have, people who teach when and where to carry out violent jihad. Grant admits that, even for him, free speech has limits and should not extend to “incitement that could lead to terrorism”. Except that this is exactly what he has allowed to happen — before Abdulmutallab's time, during it, and right up to the present.
At UCL in the next two days, you will be able to hear, among others, a supporter of the proscribed terrorist group Hamas and a frontman for the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Why Mr Grant thinks this type of bigotry is acceptable is something he might address when he next breaks his silence. He might also tell us why he thinks he is still worthy to lead one of London's foremost universities.
Douglas Murray is director of the Centre for Social Cohesion
Reader views (17)
"I'm sure the bleeding heart apologists for Islamism haven't even looked into the history of Muslim and pre-Muslim empires and their atrocities, dating back to the byzantines and their incredible brutality, which leads, of course, to today and their call for the destruction of the Jewish people. Their position of claiming to be victims is less than wafer thin, and I urge any intelligent individual who takes issue with this article to perhaps look at the history of Islamic Imperialism before spouting faecal matter from their mouths".
Interesting claim. So, by inference, if one learns about the brutal history of Islamic Imperialism, then all current judgements will subsequently contain the morally-sound information quotient, thus steering an autonomous agent from the pitfalls of Islamism Apologetics- presumably straight into the arms of Daniel? OK. But what happens say if all the relevant texts/documents pertaining to such history are destroyed in a natural disaster? Does that stop the agent in present-time from reaching pro-Islamism conclusions about current policy? Hardly.
So, with all due respect (perhaps none), it looks like the only proximate ‘turds’ are in Daniel’s corner.
- Ross Hilliard, London, 25/07/2010 17:07
Report abuse
Brilliant article, and very thankfully not afraid to speak the truth. I'm sure the bleeding heart apologists for Islamism haven't even looked into the history of Muslim and pre-Muslim empires and their atrocities, dating back to the byzantines and their incredible brutality, which leads, of course, to today and their call for the destruction of the Jewish people. Their position of claiming to be victims is less than wafer thin, and I urge any intelligent individual who takes issue with this article to perhaps look at the history of Islamic Imperialism before spouting faecal matter from their mouths.
- Daniel, UK, 29/06/2010 17:49
Report abuse
The argument of this piece, to the extent that there is one, really does lead to a very interesting conclusion. For if we are right to take Murray as saying that Mr Grant should not have permitted speakers X, Y and Z to speak at UCL because they express revolting views, then Murray must surely, on grounds of reasonable inference, be calling for UCL to similarly disavow revoke its association with Dr John Reid: an individual who went well beyond words into the support of major state terrorism. As Murray is not calling for this, we know exactly what is really going on in this piece: a form of state worship and hypocrisy which would have embarrassed Horthy .
- Ross Hilliard, London, 15/06/2010 16:08
Report abuse
To 'Saddened and outraged' &'Shareef': perhaps if you were as 'saddened and outraged' at the 9/11, 7/7, bali bombings, madrid bombings, paris bombings, mumbai bombings and other islamist atrocities as you are about any criticism about Islam we could respect your views a bit more! But my guess is you only direct your anger towards the latter.
The problem is the so-called 'moderate' muslims barely ever speak out about atrocities based on islamic terror attacks, they are far more keen to 'slander and slay' those who criticise Islam instead.
- Angelica, London, U.K, 01/02/2010 23:54
Report abuse
Mr Murray does not like the idea that Muslims who stand up for their beliefs and who work to remove foreign forces from Muslim lands should be allowed to voice an opinion.
So does he believe in free speech or debate? Does he advocate burning books?
Let's have some perspective on this issue! The foreign policy of Britain and the US involves occupying Muslim countries involving the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, supporting tyrants like Saddam Hussain and Ghaddafi and helping Israel to commit atrocity upon atrocity with arms deals and the like. Muslims in the UK and Europe will stand up against this injustice no matter what Mr Murray and his Islamaphobes may write.
- Salman, Kuala lumpur, 01/02/2010 02:17
Report abuse
Yes they have blood on their hands. Exactly how much blood we do not know as yet. But this blood is a price worth paying apparently, for the glories of a multicultural society.
- Julio, York, UK, 01/02/2010 01:04
Report abuse
Wake up people!!! Does it not occur to anyone that Mr Murray is spreading simplistic, right-wing hate messages? Admittedly slightly more subtle than the KKK but hateful nonetheless. Don't be manipulated by his rhetorical eloquence.
- Saddened And Outraged., London, 30/01/2010 22:30
Report abuse
You will get some sense of the urgency with which the universities regard this matter if you ask their organisation 'Universities UK' the following questions about their proposed 'working group' on academic freedom and violent extremism:
What is the group's membership?
What are its terms of reference?
When will it report?
- Dwelsh, Newcastle, 30/01/2010 16:07
Report abuse
The neo-con argument is a little misplaced here.
We are clearly dealing with a case of 'hate speech' which is unlawful and should not be legitimised by our universities. Article 10 is the first port of call for guidance on the limitations of freedom of speech.
There seems to be little doubt that the climate of incitement created by Isoc at UCL "could lead to terrorism”. The profile of Isoc guests is one of typical bigots whose threats should not be tolerated even before they translate themselves into criminal acts.
Democracy must protect itself before it becomes too late. This is the basis of the argument of those who accept the need to restrict the freedoms of speech and association in those extreme cases when democracy, the rights and the good of others, and public order are threatened by irresponsible individuals who could not care less about the rule of international law and basic human freedoms.
- Marie, London, 29/01/2010 12:03
Report abuse
Wasn't Bush's main reason that he decided to invade Iraq due to neo-conservative persuasion.This is how Jonathan Clarke sums them up:-
1)a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
2)low tolerance for diplomacy
3)readiness to use military force
4)emphasis on US unilateral action
5)disdain for multilateral organizations
6)focus on the Middle East
7)an us versus them mentality
Please stay away from this type of political philosophy people - This has already plagued American politics - not in Britain, there are far more pragmatic ways of doing things than this (i.e. if we've got problems with someone let's bomb them etc.)
- Scratchy7929, South Wales, 29/01/2010 02:15
Report abuse
Hamas is not a "proscribed terrorist group" - the entry in Wikipedia is incorrect.
The UK Home Office publishes a list of proscribed groups on its website, and Hamas is not on it.
Mr Murray is confusing Hamas with the Hamas Al Qassam Rocket Brigades, which *are* on the list of proscribed groups.
- Tim Martin, Fareham, Hants, 28/01/2010 16:30
Report abuse
Great Article.
Your thoughts echo that of what the vast majority are thinking. The problem is with the upper leftist establishment not willing to touch this, these people form a marxist cliche of ignoramus: not just professors on universities such as the dubious Mr.Grant, but also our lily-livered politicians (namely labour), human-rights obsessed high court judges and a long trail of bandwagon-jumping human rights activists. These sorts of people would rather 'appease' than take on the aggressive nature of islamists/islamic terrorism and the subsequent muslim lobbyists prepared to aggressively defend their actions every step of the way.
Until there is a massive shift to the right, I'm afraid nothing will change. People can't see anyone in government that are providing viable solutions so vast majorities of people are flocking to the BNP as part protest, part exasperation with their other options.
We have an enemy within. Our biggest threat is not in afghanistan/iraq, but on our own shores. Until the whole establishment recognises and acknowledges that islamic terrorism relates to their underlying ideology instead of being politically correct and stepping on eggshells for fear of upsetting muslims, nothing will change.
- Angelica, London, U.K, 27/01/2010 22:17
Report abuse
What Mr. Murray (an unabashed Neocon) tries to do is conflate radical with extremists with militants and terrorists into one giant borg-like creature called Islamism. This is like putting the Barder-Meinhoff gang and the Socialist Workers Party into the same bucket. Not very helpful at best. At worst I suspect his intention is to stigmatise all of political Islam in line with his neo-con beliefs.
- Shareef, London, 27/01/2010 21:19
Report abuse
Great column, which neatly sums up the double standard/cultural relativism at work here. I was firmly against the Iraq war, but I'm also firmly against people inciting hatred - whoever they are, and whoever it is directed at.
- Paul Burston, London, UK, 27/01/2010 18:17
Report abuse
Considering that you and your ilk (Michael Gove, Melanie Phillips) are cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion based on lies and Pro-Israel advocates, I supposed that we should take your op-ed here and implement it by banning YOU from speaking as well? After all, over 4,000 dead U.S. soldiers and 200 dead UK servicemen and their families can testify that your speech definitely KILLS people.
- Scooter Libby, Washington, USA, 27/01/2010 16:54
Report abuse
Good article. The islamists claim their superiority, that all others are inferior, and that inferiority must be imposed by violence and terror to make other submit.
These infidels also include most muslim governments as they trade with infidels.
The mindset and philosophy of supremacy and making others submit by force is exactly the same as that of the National Socialist Party Nazis, and socialist communists in USSR and China.
Labour imported millions, including muslims to fix votes. One terrorist had 5 UK passports. In jail are 8,000 muslim prisoners out of 80,000 total.
While Labour talk about fairness and equality, they do the opposite. They have introduced some 100 Sharia courts to administer a justice system based on total discrimination and inequality. Females have minimal legal status, homosexuals should be killed, any one who chooses their own faith, not islam is subject to a death sentence.
Labour have created the conditions for major social unrest and internal terrorism. Yet Labour bleat about 'tough on terror'. The reality is they have done the opposite. They have blood on their hands.
- Khan, birmingham uk, 27/01/2010 14:40
Report abuse
Agree, and I'm very pleased to see that someone has the courage to publish what has needed to be said for so long. What I'm wondering is why our so-called Security Forces are not visibly intervening?
- John Bull, Londonistan, UK, 27/01/2010 11:30
Report abuse
