This is a guest post for Student Rights by Natalie Wold. Views expressed in this piece do not constitute Student Rights’ views or opinions on the matter discussed.
Sunday, while meeting a friend for lunch near Whitehall I had the privilege of witnessing the hundreds of protesters who took the streets of London in protest for and against Sharia Law. Group one, Muslims Against The Crusades purportedly by Al-Muhajiroun chanted their views against democracy and their favour for Sharia law by holding signs such as “Democracy is the cancer, Sharia is the Answer”. While the other peaceful group was lead by One Law for All and Iran Solidarity to mark the anniversary of the killing of protester Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran last year. I’ve always heard of the remarks made by groups such as Muslims Against The Crusades on the television but this was the first time I have ever seen it up and personal. It was a scene so striking that anyone who passed the chanting of “Sharia will dominate the world” and isn’t worried about the future of the Western world has a lot to wake up to. After watching from a distance I became so captivated I made my way over to the front lines of the protestors and immersed myself in the group. What caught my eye the most was the group of boys around the age of twelve or thirteen holding signs reading, “UK watch your Back, Islam is Coming Back” and “Man Made Law go to Hell” as well as another boy violently waving a flag while debating a spectator saying how he could kill her with his wooden flag pole. While listening to all of this, I began a discussion with a member and spokesperson of Muslims Against The Crusades and asked him about the demonstration. He made it clear that they were only there to spread the work of Sharia and express unfairness the media has placed upon them. The only thought that was racing through my mind was the radicalisation and brainwashing of those young boys who were waving their flags and holding their signs, shouting out “Death to democracy”. I can only imagine how far those young boys will go in the movement of taking down democracy in the world and how manipulative and violent they with become in order to obtain Sharia.
‘Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.’
The words of Home Secretary Teresa May resonate around the counter-terror and counter-radicalisation blogs this morning as ‘hate preacher’ Zakir Naik is halted in his attempt to enter the UK for a series of speeches.
On June 1st, Student Rights submitted an ‘Open Letter to David Cameron’ alongside a petition which gained 68 signatures.
Since then, the Home Office has been working to explore Naik’s previous speeches, including one now infamous incident where Naik stated of Osama Bin Laden, “If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Student Rights spokesman Raheem Kassam has stated, “It’s a promising precedent that this government is alert to the dangers of radicalisation. Speakers such as Naik are touring the UK and we must expose and impede them to stop them spreading hate across the country.”
The video below shows Zakir Naik speaking in late 2006…
There’s been a lot of talk recently about university funding cuts and the implications for students, jobs, and the future of higher education in the United Kingdom. Cambridge University has begun employing a quasi-American model to fix this problem – donors… lots and lots of donors.
In 2005 (in an act of prescience, no doubt) Cambridge University began their largescale fundraising drive, calling upon alumni and friends to donate to keeping the institution a, ‘world leader in teaching and research’. And my has it paid off.
Since the beginning of the campaign (which marks Cambridge’s 800th anniversary), the university has raised over £1bnand is the first institution outside of the United States to have done so. More than 45,000 alumni have contributed to raising the funds, with many making regular financial gifts.
But there are other factors to consider. While commercialisation and gifts can help to pull universities out of some inevitable funding problems, Cambridge attracts a lot of international attention and high-earning alumni. They also distinctly outspend other organisations. From what we can tell from their recent Annual Reports, this level of funding is equal to the net expenditure for the organisation for just one year… and it took 5 years to obtai
A new Student Rights report has revealed growing support for tough action against extremism and radicalisation in the UK, specifically on university campuses.
We surveyed 164 parliamentary candidates during the general election campaign period, revealing that over 90% of prospective parliamentarians are aware and greatly concerned about extremism in the UK.
Raheem Kassam, Director of Student Rights comments: “It is greatly encouraging that such a majority of potential lawmakers in this country are aware that radicalisation is a growing problem. What we would like to see now is staunch action alongside university and police authorities in tackling extremism and the recruitment that is occurring on campuses UK-wide. It must start with proscribing the Islamist group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’ immediately.”
- The report asked ten questions of candidates standing for Parliament and revealed that most candidates and re-standing MPs are cognisant of extremism issues, however felt that they were underinformed on some issues, especially pertaining to university matters and radical group ‘Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.
- A majority of candidates endorsed Special Branch action on campuses, while maintaining that university authorities also need to be pushing a lot harder against radicalisation on campuses – actively tackling issues when they arise.
- Freedom of speech is maintained as an ideal by the findings of the survey, however in the face of security concerns, 68% of candidates responded that threats must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only 4.9% endorsed absolute freedom of speech, even in the case of hate-speech or threats.
- Conservative Party candidates appeared the most attuned to these matters, with 100% being ‘concerned greatly’, with 90.6% of Lib Dems responding in the same manner and 87.5% for Labour.
FitFinder, the popular social networking website for UK students, has been temporarily taken down due to pressure from universities over the perceived distraction to students, confirms the site’s creator and University College London student, Rich Martell.
Rich has been fined £300 by the University College London for ‘bringing the college into disrepute’ as his flirtacious website aimed at rating the attractiveness of students has apparently caused an ‘unwelcome distraction’ on campuses across the UK.
Fitfinder has been a phenomenon, attracting millions of visitors and serious interest from advertisers and investors. However, at the beginning of May, one week after launch, the Joint Academic NETwork (JANET), the UK’s education and research network blocked FitFinder from UK university networks over issues with the perceived level of distraction offered by the site. However, the ban was lifted within 24 hours following floods of complaints from students across the country.
Creator Martell has insisted, “It’s flattering to think that FitFinder is perceived as a threat to study time. But are students spending any more time on FitFinder that they would on, say, Facebook or Twitter? Not a chance.”
It’s interesting to note that you can access Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and all other forms of ‘distracting’ social networking sites from on campuses, which would mean perhaps it’s not just the distraction that’s the issue for UCL and JANET here. It looks like the institutions are taking issue with the nature of the website itself, which asks members to rate the attractiveness of fellow students.
Student Rights note, “It’s not right for universities to be blocking websites like this and/or fining students for entreprenurship – even if the site did start off as a joke. It’s clearly turned into something of a web phenonmenon albeit locally thus far and UCL and JANET should take a step back and focus on more serious issues on campuses across the country.”
A petition has garnered over 6000 signatures so far and can be signed by clicking here.
It was reported this weekend that ‘preacher of hate’ Zakir Naik will begin a tour of the UK unless immediate action is taken by the UK Home Office to stop his entry into Britain.
In response to this, Student Rights Director Raheem Kassam has written an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron, urging Naik to be banned from entry into the UK. A petition can be signed here and a video of Mr. Naik is available underneath the text.
Dear Prime Minister,
It has been brought to my attention that the Home Office is currently assessing the situation regarding Zakir Naik, who has been described as an ‘Islamist hate-preacher and truth-twister’.
I am writing to express my deep concern that this individual may be allowed entry to the UK in order to promote and glorify acts of terrorism — causing far reaching implications within the already divided Muslim community in the United Kingdom.
A few examples of Mr. Naik’s preaching reveal him to be a sympathiser with Osama Bin Laden. He stated, “If [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising Americans… then I am with him,” while also asserting that “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”
Given your previous stated desire in combatting this form of extremism and your voting record regarding opposition to incitement to terror in the United Kingdom, I urge you to act immediately and decisively to set a precedent. It must be made clear that the UK will not tolerate extremism and that we will do our utmost to promote plurality and peace in a modern, multi-ethnic Britain.
Yours sincerely,
Raheem Kassam
National Director
The video below shows Zakir Naik speaking in late 2006…
In this age of cuts, we would do well to accept that there are indeed areas where universities should be able to make savings and yet keep delivering and improving upon the standards of education. It can happen, but it requires a firm hand. Where I’d like to start is by asking you, do your Vice Chancellors earn an appropriate amount of money?
Recently, Douglas Murray from the Centre for Social Cohesion outlined in an article for the Telegraph how much University College London Provost Malcolm Grant earns. Between 2008 and 2009, it appears that Malcolm Grant earned a whopping £376,190. So much for the old adage, “Those who can’t… teach.”
Furthermore, it would appear as outlined by The Times Online, that ‘bidding wars’ have emerged at universities for the ‘best’ lecturers and managers – a private sector, market-based practice which should effectively have no sway in the public sector – which universities very much still are. About £200m has just yesterday been cut from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills budget for universities.
An analysis of university accounts has shown that in 2008-9 the number of employees on six-figure pay increased by 17% and the pay of vice-chancellors went up nearly 11% to an average of £219,000. The highest paid included Malcolm Grant, provost of University College London, who received £376,190.
While Bristol University serves as an example by tightening their belts and freezing the pay of lecturers and Vice Chancellors, other universities blame 2006 agreements for the pay rises. So we ask you, are your lecturers, middle-managers and Vice Chancellors really worth six-figure salaries. Even if you agree, at a cost to the taxpayer and the fee-paying student – where on Earth does it stop?
In Pakistan, some cultural practices are being denounced as ‘haram’ by extremists. In a country with such a rich history of music and poetry, one man stands at the forefront of a battle against this perversion of Islamic history. That man will be joining the Quilliam Foundation touring UK universities and helping the fight against extremism on campuses. That man is Salman Ahmad, one of South Asia’s most successful rock musicians.
The Led Zeppelin inspired front man of Junoon will be playing this week at Oxford, Imperial and the London School of Economics in what he describes as ‘telling the truth through the power of a guitar’. Salman is dedicated to the counter-radicalisation cause and has himself, ’seen at first hand young Muslims being radicalised by the distorted message of Islam.’
Ahmad is a practicing Muslim who lectures part-time on Islamic music and poetry in New York. His aim, he states is to prevent students being brainwashed by “murderous thugs masquerading as holy men”.
We think the idea of promoting the true cultural values and history of Islam is inspired and deserving of great praise. The more brave, talented and educated people we have standing up to pernicious extremists; the safer and more culturally rich and cohesive our society becomes.
Click the image below for the Facebook event where Salman will be playing at the Imperial College London this Thursday, 20th May 2010.
There’s a video that’s being circulated around the United States and I think it’s worthwhile that it gets seen in this country. What’s happening at university campuses over there is very similar to the issues we face in terms of radicalisation and extremism. The video shows us precisely what runs through the mind of a Muslim Students Association (MSA-US) member at the University of California San Diego.
No matter what your opinion of the speaker, David Horowitz is – it should be glaringly obvious that the girl’s response to his question in this clip is a call to genocide, plainly and simply. She states that she fears being arrested by Homeland Security for supporting Hamas (as any glorification of terror is illegal) and flippantly dismisses Horowitz’s referral to Israel Apartheid Week as ‘Hitler Youth Week’. This may seem divisive from him at first, but when you see her answer to his last question; it’s more than a justified definition of what extremists are promoting on campuses.
Furthermore, while she asks about the accusation of links between the MSA and ‘jihad terrorist networks’ – she answers her own question with her response to the title of this blog post. Watch and see the full transcript below.
We face the same radicalisation issues here in the United Kingdom. Student Rights work to expose and counter the extremist threat on UK University campuses and we run entirely off private donations. If you are able to support us, please contact info@studentrights.org.uk or click here to donate via PayPal.
TRANSCRIBED (via Atlas Shrugs)
MSA member: Good evening, I just wanted to say thank you for coming to campus tonight and presenting your point of view, its always important to have to sets of, ah, views going on at the same time. Um, very useful. My name is [Jimena Imad Musa Ahmal Bahiri](sp) and I’m a student here at UCSD. Ah I was reading your literature, I found that much more interesting than your talk, and I found some interesting things about the MSA, which is an organization that is very active on campus and is hosting our annual “Hitler Youth” week, you should come out to those events. [DS: Horowitz had referred to the MSA's week as a Hitler Youth week.] Um, if you could clarify the connection between the MSA and Jihad terrorist networks, because last time I checked, we had to do our own fundraising, and we never get help from anyone. So if you could clarify the connection between UCSD’s MSA or if you don’t have such information, if you could connect other MSA’s on UC’s, because the connection wasn’t to clear in the pamphlet, just if you could clarify.
Horowitz: Okay. Will you condemn Hamas, here and now?
MSA member: I’m sorry, what?
Horowitz: Will you condemn Hamas?
MSA member: Would I condemn Hamas?
Horowitz: As a terrorist organization. Genocidal organization.
MSA member: Are you asking me to put myself on a cross?
Horowitz: So you won’t. I have actually had this experience many times. You didn’t actually read the pamphlet, because the pamphlet is chapter and verse. The main connection is that the MSA is part of the Muslim Brotherhood Network as revealed…
MSA member: I don’t think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if I say something, I am sure that I will be arrested, for reasons of homeland security. So if you could please just answer my question.
Horowitz: If you condemn Hamas, Homeland Security will arrest you?
MSA member: If I support Hamas, because your question forces me to condemn Hamas. If I support Hamas, I look really bad.
Horowitz: If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?
FRANCE has declared the full Islamic face veil an affront to French values – presumably it is against the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité.
Sorry, but where is the equality, the égalité, in targeting a tiny group of Muslim women? Where is their liberty in not being able to choose what they want to wear?
France pretends it is a bastion of equality. This shows it is anything but.
To show it is not targeting poor Muslim women on sink estates, France exclaims it will also pick on the super-rich Muslim women who flock to designer shops.
Oh, good. So not prejudiced against poor Muslims, just ALL Muslims. That makes me feel better. Personally, I’m not a fan of the burka. No one in my family has worn one and I associate it with the women in villages back home who want to escape the prying eyes of lustful men.
But that’s back home. I agree that when I see women on the streets in Bradford in full black, flowing gowns I am taken aback.
I believe it probably doesn’t even have Islamic roots but was worn in the desert to keep the sand out of people’s eyes.
I can see why mainstream Brits find them offensive but, to be honest, I feel equally uncomfortable when I see people bearing neck-to-ankle tattoos or body piercings.
Or people who do the unthinkable… and wear socks with sandals.
Those who wear the burka don’t criticise me for wearing mismatched clothes, and I don’t criticise them for their interpretation of Islam. Of course, if there is a security issue, then that comes first. Veiled women understand that and are happy to show their faces when they need to.
I just think constant appraisal of Islamic dress exacerbated the problem. No one really cared before about what Muslim women wore but suddenly it became a big issue.
The more it became an issue, the more women decided to wear it.
And where it is banned, what are you going to do? Physically rip it off women as they walk down the street? Doesn’t sound very civilised.
Some women truly and honestly believe they are obeying God by covering their faces. They aren’t going to listen to anyone else.
And the more we make a song and dance about it, the more women will want to don the burka to show solidarity with their oppressed sisters.
Of course, they could always move to Japan. On a recent trip there I was struck by how many people – women and men – wore the face veil. Except it was white and they called it a “pollution mask”.
France has made its position clear – liberté, égalite, fraternité… so long as you’re not Muslim.
Student Rights welcomes responses and replies to this post. We value the opinions of our readers and would invite greater discussion on this subject matter. Please contact info@studentrights.org.uk if you are interested in writing an opinion piece for us, or have general comments.
No doubt the past week has been both incredibly busy and halted a lot of work that has gone on as the UK elections took centre stage. Post May 6th, however we find ourselves in a situation without a government but where we all need to get back to work. One of the things I’d like to address that may have been missed over this period is Azaam Tamimi’s piece in the Guardian Comment is Free section, on Tuesday 4th May.
What Tamimi attempts to express in this article is that:
1. He is not an extremist and is willing to sit down and have discussions with Jewish leaders in order to facilitate a greater culture of peace of campus – and yet he has endorsed suicide bombings against Israel?
2. He has been the subject of a campaign to stop him speaking at UK universities - as if he has not been complicit in causing campus divisions and repeatedly targeting areas to cause disruption
3. That there is a further conspiracy at work against him which travels to the Prime Minister’s office - although his delusions of grandeur are palpable he may be correct in assuming that our Parliament is concerned about extremists
This is of course, Tamimi’s attempt to whitewash his record, but it’s all too apparent what he’s doing. If he really wants to fly the straight and narrow from here on out, he’ll have to do a lot better than a defensive article in the Guardian in an attempt to garner sympathy.
If it wasn’t already clear by now what our issue with Tamimi is, you can find the details here, here and here. This man needs to do a lot more if he wants to start engaging against extremism on campuses and the first step is a complete and utter denouncement of suicide bombings and martyrdom tactics that he has espoused in the past. Secondly, Tamimi needs to distance himself from Hamas and prove that he in no way endorses these people’s approach to ‘democracy’ and ‘war’. The man so far as done neither of these things but wishes to be treated as a ‘moderate’.
As long as he stands by his comments on BBC HardTalk and an interview with a Spanish newspaper where Tamimi claimed that “everyone” in the Arab world celebrated the 9/11 attacks, he will continue to be viewed as a divisive and dangerous extremist.
So what is he trying to do when writing for the Guardian, claiming he is the subject of some kind of gagging attempt? Anyone who has bothered to research a little bit into this man sees the glaring hypocrisy in his attempts to exercise absolute freedom of speech, while those who he ’sympathises’ with would never allow this. Hamas would never allow this.
Two days ago, Student Rights warned of an upcoming demonstration against Talya Lador-Fresher, the Deputy Israeli Ambassador. Sure enough, violent scenes followed as Mrs. Lador-Fresher attempted to leave the event. The demonstration was orchestrated by ‘Action Palestine’ who accosted Mrs. Lador-Fresher outside the event as a manned police vehicle attempted to drive her away.
Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has commented, “Two days ago we warned of this kind of behaviour – however there was no action taken and as a result, Ms. Lador-Fresher was subject to abuse and attacks as she attempted to leave a speaking engagement at Manchester University. As you can see from the images captured – this was no ‘peaceful’ demonstration. Those who cry out for freedom of speech and peace should take a good hard look at what some of these divisive and violent activists on campus are doing.”
Israeli Ambassador HE Ron Prosor commented, “What is going on at British taxpayer-funded universities is shocking. Extremism is not just running through these places of education – it is galloping.”
This week sees tensions refreshed as Deputy Ambassador for Israel Talya Lador-Fresher encounters new protests against her attendance and consequent speaking engagement at the University of Manchester.
No stranger to controversy, Ms. Lador-Fresher was forced into cancelling the last engagement in February amidsts threats and resulting security concerns. Hypocrisy rears it’s ugly head once again as Dr. Azzam Tamimi, a figure who’s most cited quotations include those pertaining to the endorsement of suicide bombings on the BBC Hard Talk programme in 2004 has been hosted by the University, despite the concerns of academics, students and pressure groups.
Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has commented, “To see a protest seems rich considering the recent Tamimi appearance on campus in Manchester. Some might say the argument goes both ways but juxtaposing Tamimi who has endorsed suicide bombings with Lador-Fresher isn’t appropriate. ‘Knee-jerk activism’ and tit-for-tat retaliatory events do nothing to build bridges on campuses. If we’re serious about fostering debate and creating a campus culture of peace – both groups must learn that it’s crucial to work together.”
While the Deputy Ambassador for Israel has called for an end to indiscriminate violence against civilians, Tamimi has endorsed suicide-bombing tactics as self-defence and upon being asked as to whether or not he would become a martyr has stated, “If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?” This nihilistic, destructive and irrational kind of incitement crosses the line of campus debate.
Lador-Fresher has been criticised for her government’s actions during the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict and threats of violence caused a cancellation of a previous speaking engagement at Manchester University. However, Ms. Lador-Fresher has also been praised for professing her hope for a peaceful two-state solution, argued at the ‘Yes to Peace’ rally in Manchester last year.
'Yes to Peace' Rally, Manchester
Student Rights have argued consistently for hate-speech to be exposed on UK campuses in order to further constructive discussion and ensure graduates and future leaders are not marginalised by highly emotional world issues.
This week, the National Union of Students held its conference in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. One of the more exciting debates to be had was the radicalisation discussion taking place between the Union of Jewish Students’ Adam Pike, the NUS head Wes Streeting, Centre for Social Cohesion’s Douglas Murray, Rashad Ali from the Counter Extremism Consultancy for Training Research & Interventions (CENTRI); and Jamie Bartlett of DEMOS.
Last week, Mr. Murray was informed that FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) would also be sitting on the panel, a move by the event organisers to bring one of the more highly criticised organisations to the table. FOSIS have been accused of bringing radical Islamists to campus in the form of Azaam Tamimi and hosting Anwar al-Awlaki (now on the run in Yemen) as ‘distinguished guests’. No less the decision was made to invite them- one which Student Rights is in favour of, were it not for the caveat enforced by the event organisers – namely, removing Douglas Murray from the panel.
It’s noted by Mr. Murray in an article for the Telegraph today that he was informed by UJS that FOSIS would only attend if he did not speak. Given Murray’s expertise and the Centre for Social Cohesion’s record of work on the subject area, Student Rights views this as an unfavourable option and probably did great favours to FOSIS – an organisation that has had speakers state of Jews:
“They’re all the same. They’ve monopolised everything: the Holocaust, God, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions… they monopolised tyranny and oppression as well. And injustice. A Jew is generally allowed to kill a non-Jew without fear of punishment.”
But that’s not the only point. Director of Student Rights Raheem Kassam has said, “I feel sorry that an expert like Douglas Murray was not present at this otherwise great and packed out discussion. All people at this table have had attacks on them from somewhere regarding their views, but for Murray not to be there in favour of FOSIS is an indictment of FOSIS’ commitment to the ‘freedom of speech’ code that is so readily bandied about when people critique their ’special guest’ speakers on campuses.”
Progress was made at this discussion, with a ‘conclusion among the speakers that radical persons should only be allowed to speak on campuses if there can be an opposing voice. Jamie Bartlett insisted that one of the best ways to counter extremism was to aspire to truth through balanced and rational debate.’ [Source: http://www.instmed.org/standforpeace/2010/04/douglas-murray-fosis-and-the-nus.html]
Douglas Murray
The UJS have said it was not appeasement, nor a ban on Mr. Murray but rather that it was more beneficial to have FOSIS on the panel than Douglas Murray. Their website reads:
Let us be clear: The decision to cancel Douglas Murray was not taken to appease FOSIS, nor did we cancel him under the illusion that FOSIS would do the same in times to come. He was cancelled with our membership in mind; when given the option for our students to challenge FOSIS on the issues that are affecting them most, the decision was clear.
The refusal of FOSIS to share a platform with Douglas Murray was conspicuous and showed that their commitment to freedom of expression stretches only to those who preach hatred.
Let’s hope this means that the debates and discussions that occur here on out are not blocked to people because of their previous encounters with each other. This goes wholly against the campus culture of peace and tolerance that is trying to be (re)created on UK campuses. I’ve no doubt the decisions were taken for good reason and with due consideration – but we have to be very careful in using appeasement tactics – and that’s a fact
This is a cross-post from the Canadian National Post website. Author Adam Daifallah reports on the ‘bitter campus divide’ and recent events around Carleton University, in the capital of Ottawa.
Henceforth it will be inaccurate to call the ongoing campus battle over Israel and Palestine a war of words. A new weapon has been introduced into the conflict: a machete.
Early Sunday morning, two Carleton University students — Nick Bergamini and his Israeli roommate, Mark Klibanov–were leaving an Ottawa-area bar when a group of men began verbally accosting them. The men yelled at them, in Arabic, for being Zionists. Bergamini, a known campus conservative activist of Italian heritage, was hit in the back of the head. He took refuge with some bouncers and left soon after.
The two roommates were walking home when the same men reappeared, this time in a car. According to Bergamini, one of them rolled down the window and said, “I’m the one who hit you, you f—ing Jew.”
The trunk of the car opened. One of the men reached inside and pulled out a machete. “F—ing Jew,” he said again. Bergamini and Klibanov ran for their lives and escaped unscathed, although Klibanov claims the machete came within a foot of his friend’s head. Bergamini says he recognized one of the men as a fellow Carleton student. Police are investigating.
Of course, we have to tread carefully here. Stories like this are often embellished or even made up. Two Jewish students at York recently claimed to have been assaulted at a pro-Israel event, but camera footage later showed no physical contact took place. Nonetheless, I have met Bergamini a few times and I have no reason to believe he would lie about this. He claims there were witnesses to the machete incident.
If you’re shocked about the alleged assault, don’t be. This is the point we’ve reached at several university campuses across the country. Bitter fighting between supporters of Israel and those who oppose the Jewish state used to be mainly confined to Concordia and York. Now it is spreading at breakneck speed to other schools like Carleton.
The Israel-Palestine issue has increasingly become an important part of student politics. At one time the debate was confined to campus organizations that exist to support one side or the other, such as Hillel. Now student governments themselves are right in the thick of it. Also in contrast to past generations, a clear bright line has developed between supporters of both sides: Israel supporters are becoming more and more associated with conservatism and the Conservative party, and many aren’t even Jewish. Those who oppose Israel are nearly unanimously of the left.
Why? Stephen Harper’s Tories have worked hard to bring Jewish voters and supporters of Israel into the party fold. But it is also because support for Israel has become virtually inseparable from other conservative stances such as strong opposition to radical Islam and support for the war on terror.
The debate on campuses now pits one group–supporters of Israel and Western values such free speech, democracy and tolerance — against another which opposes Israel’s right to exist and believes that controversialists like Ann Coulter have no right to speak and that America and the use of military force are evil.
This debate has always been a difficult one for me. My paternal heritage is Palestinian, and I want justice for the people inhabiting Palestinian lands. However, one can support Palestinians without approving of their leaders or Arab regimes. Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Israeli journalist, said it best at a recent talk at McGill when he described himself as both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time. To be truly pro-Palestinian is to oppose the murderous kleptocrats running the Palestinian Authority and to oppose the use of violent intimidation in the campus debate.
Unfortunately, that is not a view shared by most Palestinian activists. The younger generation is more radicalized. Nary a day goes by without a new outrage. As Barbara Kay noted here yesterday, young Muslim men attending a speech by a notorious anti-Semitic speaker were captured on video yelling appalling things at pro-Israel protesters outside Palestine House in Mississauga, Ont. Among the phrases captured on video were “We need another Holocaust” and “We love jihad! We love killing you!”
Last week, we heard David Lammy, Minister for Higher Education discuss the introduction of a charter of ’student rights’ which should be created for each university across the country.
Student Rights certainly welcome such a move, which will seek to clarify the level of support that should be expected from tutors, maximum lecture sizes, feedback on coursework and standards of accommodation. Director Raheem Kassam has commented, “Finally it seems that universities are coming to the realisation that it is the core student issues that matter. Forget all the grandiose politiking – these are the bread and butter issues of education requirements in the UK.”
On Thursday, David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said charters would be drawn up by each university to give students and lecturers a clearer grasp of what they can expect from their fees. Mr Lammy said: “Since the introduction of variable fees, students have rightly become more focused on the return they get from their own investment in their future.”
Each institution will have a charter by September 2011 and we look forward to following this issue closely.
Sunday, while meeting a friend for lunch near Whitehall I had the privilege of witnessing the hundreds of protesters who took the streets of London in protest for and against Sharia Law. Group one, Muslims Against The Crusades purportedly by Al-Muhajiroun chanted their views against democracy and their favour for Sharia law by holding signs such as “Democracy is the cancer, Sharia is the Answer”. While the other peaceful group was lead by One Law for All and Iran Solidarity to mark the anniversary of the killing of protester Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran last year. 
Posts
