‘As a young Muslim student I’ve been increasing aware of intimidation and harassment of British Muslims by the police seemingly for no other reason than our shared religion’ – now that’s a rather disingenuous claim – for example, the former president of UCL’s Islamic Society, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane.

In the minds of some people the level of extremism at Uni’s has reached such a level that counter student groups have now been formed – who is to say if such fears are real or imagined?
http://www.studentrights.org.uk/about_us

According to their blurb the ‘Student Rights’ is, “a non-partisan group dedicated to supporting equality, democracy and freedom from extremism on university campuses. We were set up in June 2009 as a reaction to increasing political extremism and marginalisation of vulnerable students on campus”.

The question about what to do about extremism on campus is a rather delicate matter, and one that is bound to end up with some individuals feeling they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs (a position inherently problematic for many atheists, incidentally) rather than the fact one or two of them are hell bent on mass murder, presumably because their god is telling them to do it?

As you may be aware, I am not generally in favour of the state spying on its citizens or interfering in the realm of the free association of ideas, however one of the few legitimate interests of the state is to protect the rule of law and, in particular, to protect its citizens from theft and violence.

Whether the actions it takes, in this aim, are legitimate depends on whether they are appropriate to the nature of threat faced. Thus, a security camera in a supermarket to prevent shoplifting might be considered excessive but a stop and search campaign, to prevent knife crime, might be considered appropriate.

A lot of these are judgement calls.

But the real complaint voiced in this post is not about the level of surveillance in relation to the severity of the threat (Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism does indeed continue to present a risk to campus cohesion) but the use, by the authorities, of profiling to try to make their work effective.

It is, in fact, just a dog whistle to the anti-racist movement to get in line to object to the profiling of potential criminals based on their ethnicity- which, in this case, is a very “sensible route to market” for the authorities. (Not many Al Qaeda terrorists are Buddhists). Indeed, if profiling were extended to airport security, most of us would not have to go through the ritual indignities, as now, in order to travel.

Incidentally, I am surprised that, in these post multi-cultural times, our universities have need of “Ethnic Minorities Officers”. Perhaps Muslim students would integrate better, and more completely, into university life without such pernicious and divisive influences and the risk of extreme radicalisation would be diminished.

Tell me Sacha.

Do the women in the Islamic society still have to sit at the back of the hall and be silent?

* cough *

“A University of Birmingham professor and student have come under fire for supporting a debate held by an extremist Islamist organisation.

Sociology professor John Holmwood spoke at a debate on secularism organised by the Hizb-ut-Tahrir group, which on its website constitution calls for a pan-Islamic caliphate and the execution of people who convert from Islam.

Yasmin Patel, who was elected to be the minority students’ support officer on the Guild of Students at the university, sent out emails encouraging attendance at the debate.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which translates as Party of Liberation, is a global political group, which has been accused of fostering extremism against women and Jews. Its constitution calls for a state of constant war against Israel.

The group has been banned in Germany, Russia and Pakistan, but is legal in the United Kingdom. After the July 7 bombings, Tony Blair announced he intended to ban the group, but later changed his mind after warnings a ban could drive the group underground.

The University of Birmingham, as well as the NUS, has a ’no platform’ policy for extremist groups, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the BNP, meaning they do not promote them or include them in events and debates.”

Birmingham Post – 13 May 2008 – http://bit.ly/PyQ765

And for the avoidance of any doubt…

“From: Yasmin Patel
Sent: Thu 5/8/2008 10:25

To: XXXXXXXX

Subject: Public Debate: Is Secularism Right? – With Prof John Holmwood

Dear XXXXXX and XXXXXX,

Attached is a flyer for a very interesting Public Debate.

To ensure we keep the students engaged with the current debates around the concepts studied throughout the course, can you kindly forward this to students from POLISIS and Sociology.

Kind Regards,

Yasmin Patel
Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Officer Elect 08/09
University of Birmingham Guild of Students”

I also have a copy of the flyer for this event….

@1

Student Rights is a self appointed group led by one Raheem Kassam, the same one who gets his main salary from the Henry Jackson Society and is also associated with The Commentator.

Kassam has previously tried to smear Mehdi Hasan as an extremist, with the assistance of the Guido Fawkes blog.

“Birmingham University ISoc to host the master of the cult of death.”

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/9001

I’m no expert on the subject but it seems to me that the use of such covert strategies should be minimised. If there’s a substantive risk of students turning to jihadism that’s one thing but it’s such an underhand tactic that I’m uneasy with its use in anything but urgent cases.

In my view, however, there should be far more open and public criticism of the Islamic student societies that have been patronising individuals with vile and dangerous opinions. Because, regrettably, it’s a considerable phenomenon. One could mention that of Roehampton, which recently invited Haitham al-Haddad – who advocates the killing of apostates; FGM and indifference towards wife-beating – and Khalid Fikry – who seems to have been a devoted follower of the Blind Shiekh. One could mention that of Hertfordshire University, which invited Assim Al-Hakeem, a man who promotes FGM and tells women it’s sinful to refuse their husbands’ sexual advances, even if they’re up for it three times a day, to speak on, of all things, marriage. One could, indeed, mention that of the University of Birmingham, which invited Jalal ibn Saeed – a preacher of anti-semitism – and Abdur Rahman Green – a man who’s advocated the “slow, painful deaths” of homosexuals and seeks to establish a system under which “the Jew and the Christian know that they are inferior and subjugated to Islam”.

“Birmingham University ISoc to host the master of the cult of death.”

Damn, I thought Masters of the Cult of Death were a Metal group and bought tickets by mistake.

Anyone want to buy them off me?

[*] Abdur Raheem Green

A University of Birmingham professor and student have come under fire for supporting a debate held by an extremist Islamist organisation.

So that means *all* Muslim students should be spied on?

In my view, however, there should be far more open and public criticism of the Islamic student societies that have been patronising individuals with vile and dangerous opinions

This. I don’t want to see an extension of the State’s powers either but I do believe religious bigotry should be exposed to public scrutiny – and ridicule.

I would say that universities are just the places for young people to take an interest in political and cultural issues, and that means the ones you may not like also.
I’ve never been a fan of the SWP and found their presence on campus a total pain.
But what’s the alternative? To ban or try to restrict them? For a lot of students these are things they try out for a few years at university and usually no harm comes of it.

Being secular I would rather there weren’t religious societies at universities too.
But there are and people will just have to lump it. The sight of mass praying in the square outside City University in London is not really something to be welcomed in my opinion, but that’s or modern society.

Ben Six, naming people like you have done will cut no ice with some people on the left. It doesn’t matter how many dreadful islamists speak at this or that event – it’s usually overlooked, or even called ‘islamophobic’ for you to have noticed in the first place.

There is certainly a cultural/religious soft struggle going on. But what you do to combat it is the difficult thing. Try to get all their meetings shut down and deny them venues … the way is done with the far right?
Or just ignore them and let them get on with it? I don’t really know myself.

@9 Sunny

“So that means *all* Muslim students should be spied on?”

No, of course it doesn’t, but neither does it mean that it is *never* right for this to happen in any circumstances.

It certainly seems from Unity’s post that Yasmin Patel is acting contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the policy guidelines of her University and the NUS, irrespective of the wisdom of giving the oxygen of publicity to a deeply repugnant organisation like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

[4] do you know of any activists who is not ‘tainted’ in some way because of their position on the political spectrum?

But Raheem Kassan is not the only person who has become interested in the kind of political rhetoric expounded at some of our Unis – according to the ‘Muslim Women’s Network UK’ a growing number of young Muslim women are being radicalised by extremists while studying at UK universities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10855565

As a matter of interest do you think it is possible that extremists are targeting Uni students, and if they are expounding their own brand of religious poison what, if anything, should be done about it?

Why do right wingers seem to have this bizarre compulsion to carry on student handbag fights years after graduation?

So that means *all* Muslim students should be spied on?

Nope… just pointing out that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

I stopped reading after “As a young Muslim student I’ve been increasing aware of intimidation and harassment of British Muslims by the police seemingly for no other reason than our shared religion” Bet that goes down well at the SU though.

Hi Sacha

You link to a very interesting article by Edd Bauer which reveals the Guild’s involvement with the Prevent strategy, complete with a copy of what appears to be a Guild report.

However, that report doesn’t say the Guild is passing on information to the police about students, with one possible exception. It does appear that the university or guild tells police about visiting speakers invited by student societies. Still, I don’t know if that really amounts to spying on students, or perhaps I’m wrong.

Apart from that, the evidence appears to be simply that the university and Guild is working with Prevent (which shouldn’t be a surprise?) and that critics of Prevent say its about spying on ordinary Muslims.

Is there more evidence I have missed? By the way, just because something isn’t revealed in that Guild report doesn’t mean it’s not happening, obviously:) But is there evidence elsewhere that the Guild is passing on information about students to the police?

Sunny (#9):

Exactly. There seems to be a school of thought (even among many people who call themselves “liberal”) that any action taken against any Muslim can be justified by reciting miscellaneous anecdotes about the terrible deeds of other (often totally unconnected) Muslims.

People seem quite willing to support giving the authorities carte blanche for total surveillance of any and all Muslims on the basis of a couple of Islamic societies inviting radical or distasteful (not necessarily even violent) speakers.

I doubt the same logic would be applied to any other group.

@18 jungle

“People seem quite willing to support giving the authorities carte blanche for total surveillance of any and all Muslims”

Can you not see how broad brush attacks like that completely undermine your own case? Do you really know of people who support this? I don’t.

@18 jungle

Rick @19 is much closer to the truth than you are, sorry. No doubt there are *some* people who think in the cartoonish terms you describe.

Nobody who is truly liberal or progressive would act in the way you describe, or support the kind of sweeping generalisation about and demonisation of a particular group.

We are capable of seeing that radical and distasteful groups of any stripe (whether they advocate violence or not) should be deplored, fought, and where necessary have action taken against them.

This site is full of ranters from the right who insist that bleeding heart liberals give muslims and Islam an easy ride, whilst critcising e.g. tha Catholic church; that particular canard has no more validity than your gross caricature.

This sort of surveillance is deeply wrong on many levels.

Firstly, this sort of ethnic profiling is both morally wrong, and actually counterproductive. See this interesting, if rather long, debate between Sam Harris and Bruce Schneier: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile

Secondly, the fact that the students union was reporting activity on anyone’s political activity makes me very uncomfortable. If I was a student I would certainly find this reason enough not to be involved with that union.

Thirdly, the students union was essentially excluding Muslims by this action. They were saying to Muslim students that yes, they were allowed to join their political organisation, but that unlike the other members they would be routinely passing on their activities to the police.

So it’s not only wrong but it’s also incredibly stupid and shortsighted by the union. Unless of course we think of student unions as training grounds for future politicians, in which case this sort of screwing over of the people you are supposed to be representing makes perfect sense.

[18] some say radicalisation is real – and it’s not just right wingers who are saying so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRTTgU1FmL4

If a tiny minority of extremists ARE planning acts horrendous violence (via those recruited at Uni) should we simply let them just get on with it in order to avoid upsetting others – personally I would have thought that any sane person would wish to bring such dastardly deeds to the attention of the authorities, but maybe I am wrong?

“most of us would not have to go through the ritual indignities, as now, in order to travel.”

Richard Reid looked more like a long haired hippy returning from a festival.
One of Al Qaida’s most senior members is a white american convert who used to play death metal on the radio in the US.
The ‘pants bomber’ was a black nigerian.
Several members of UK based plots have been white.

Under your proposal, none of the above would have to go through ‘ritual indignities’ as they not men of stereotypical muslim appearance. Yet I doubt whether you would want to get on a plane with them…..

And the main inconveniance many travellers now face is actually when returning to the UK, when you will spend hours waiting for your passport to be checked. Something that is the result of tabloid hysetria on immigration rather than a security issue.

Err. Sorry but a few things that really need sorting and many would probably (and incorrectly) label them un-P.C.

(1) This is not harassment. Spying on someone by a govt. department may raise concerns, but it’s not harassment.

(2) I seriously have to ask whether you blame this country for being suspicious. Was it Christians who caused 7/7, or 9/11, or the Bali bombings? Is it Rabbi’s that are preaching hate? A UCL student turned out to be a bomber.

Given my age, and the fact that I am a white male I fully expected to be stopped entering Northern Ireland during a difficult period, and you know what? I was. Do I blame the government? no. Do I blame society? no. I happen to fit a defined profile of someone who may raise security concerns.

You don’t like the problem Muslims face? root out the bad eggs in your own communities and stop isolating yourselves in British society. If you live here, take pride in being British and stop believing that you can impose your rule on our society. I would fully expect to adapt my behaviour if I live in Saudi. Why not the otherway around?

Call it politically incorrect, but many are thinking it.

A few things:

1. A specific response to the paragraph by 24. Freeman, above: “You don’t like the problem Muslims face? root out the bad eggs in your own communities and stop isolating yourselves in British society. If you live here, take pride in being British and stop believing that you can impose your rule on our society. I would fully expect to adapt my behaviour if I live in Saudi. Why not the otherway around?”

This presupposes a number of problematic things. These are as follows:
a) That all muslims can be termed one “community”, and that consequently it is reasonable to punish any member of that community for the actions of any other “bad egg”, because they are responsible for the actions of others, through their failure to “root them out”. This is clearly ludicrous.

b) That muslims are “isolating themselves”, and that in particular those to whom the article refers (muslim students) are also “isolating themselves”. This, both in general and specifically, does not exactly resound with the solid ring of truth.

c) That muslims do not take pride in being British. It is unclear what this has to do with being spied upon.

d) That muslims wish to “impose [their] their rule” on others. This is a strange claim. It is like suggesting that because Nick Griffin is a racist, all white people also wish to expel “foreigners” from these shores. I am sure that you can understand the hardly nuanced truth, which is that different people, muslim or otherwise, have different political positions.

e) That the Prevent campaign has come about as the result of a failure of muslim people to integrate, just like you would if you lived in Saudi. This is a position which needs further argument if it is not to be a rather unintuitive assertion.

f) A clarification: I am not calling your position politically incorrect, merely factually and logically inaccurate.

2. To those who have advanced arguments along the lines of ‘some muslims have done bad things, therefore this is a sensible preventative action’, the following:

a) This seems morally problematic, for the reason given in 1a) above.

b) Even if it was true that muslim students were a group particularly prone to perpetrating terrorist acts, Sacha notes quite sensibly above that there are more effective methods of dealing with this than the Prevent campaign. She is right, and it would be more sensible to act in a way that facilitates greater involvement on campus life (if you accept the premise that a lack of such involvement increases the possibility of future terrorist action). There are a large number of simple actions that can be taken on this front, primarily things that reduce the impression that any “real” student must spend an enormous amount of time drunk.

“. Was it Christians who caused 7/7, or 9/11, or the Bali bombings? Is it Rabbi’s that are preaching hate? ”

In the case of anti-abortion groups – then yes. There are also a number of white british people serving lengthy jail sentences for plotting to blow up mosques and other buildings, some of whom actually got to the stage of stockpiling weapons. Furthermore in Norway, the trial of a white anti-immigration mass murderer has just closed.

Any group of extremists is capable of terrorism, and it isn’t restricted to one ethnicity or religion.

Wait, wait, wait. Are people actually in favour of spying on students and violating their civil liberties because they happen to be Muslim. Because they happen to have a beard or wear a hijab? So the government and university unions are making the outrageous assumption that being a Muslim means you’re more likely to be a terrorist or more like to be a threat to national security? Profiling people based on their religion is possibly as ineffective and discriminatory as stop and searching people based on the clothes their wearing.
It seems to me that a student’s radical politic ideologies isn’t the problem here. Its the pairing of their radical political ideologies with their religious beliefs that is “problematic”. Singling out radical thinkers based on their religious beliefs is a blatant discrimination of Muslim students and only further alienates the community as a whole.

Planeshift

> In the case of anti-abortion groups – then yes. ….Any group of extremists is capable of terrorism,

Sorry, but no one is saying that 100% of terrorism is caused by Muslims. Straw man.
You’re too smart Planeshift not to know that.

What the statistics DO say – is that the bulk world of terrorism world wide is Islamic inspired, and that the bulk of radical teaching at UK Unis happens at Muslim societies not Budhist or Christain ones.

Next time the nearest Uni to you runs a ‘Islamic Awareness week’ (annual event at many Unis) – I suggest you go along: you’ll be surprised at what is said even at those ‘on best behaviour’ open awareness meetings.

25 Amanda

Gosh, what a long list of points that really don’t hold water.

> This presupposes a number of problematic things. These are as follows:
> a) That all muslims can be termed one “community”,

Straw man. No one is saying there is a unique ‘oneness’ about Muslims.
But it IS TRUE that the bulk of radicalism and terrorism worlwide and in the UK is performed by Muslims.

> b) That muslims are “isolating themselves”

I have been to Muslim Awareness weeks at my local university, and been surprised at the women there (some UK born some overseas born) arguing strongly in favour of Mohammed when he sentenced women caught in adultery to death.

And supporting death for apostates.

And arguing that Secularism and democracy is bad.
That Saudi would be an example of a good Muslim country if only the royal family were removed and a Caliphate started.

People who hold such views will inevitably isolate themselves from main-stream UK society – how could it be otherwise?

> c) That muslims do not take pride in being British.

See above – if Muslims hold such views, there are many aspects of being British they cannot be proud of.

> d) That muslims wish to “impose [their] their rule” on others. This is a strange claim.

It is in fact mainstream Islamic theology, and if you google you’ll find Muslims across the world supporting themselves that view.

> 2. To those who have advanced arguments along the lines of ‘some muslims have done bad things, therefore this is a sensible preventative action’

Straw man

The argument is NOT that ‘some Muslims’.

It is that the BULK of the radicalism and terrorism is coming from Muslims. Not 100%, but the bulk of it.

Including all the people already named in this thread.

Until Muslims are willing to accept the truth of this – they, like you Amanda, are in denial about the real problem, and are pointing the finger elsewhere.

Sacha

Even yesterday in the news – another Muslim involved in violence against a democracy:

“Virginia Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Carry Out Suicide Bomb Attack on U.S. Capitol ”

If you can’t find a similar situation today, but with a non-Muslim involved – then you must accept that it is right that Muslim organisations and their visiting speakers are in the spotlight of anti-terror activity.

Sunny

By the way, on the June 6th thread ‘London Mosque investigated for terrorism’ – you promised:

> I’ve got more coming on this story too. This just an opening salvo.

But you’ve not posted anything yet ?

@ 24 Freeman

“You don’t like the problem Muslims face? root out the bad eggs in your own communities and stop isolating yourselves in British society. If you live here, take pride in being British and stop believing that you can impose your rule on our society. I would fully expect to adapt my behaviour if I live in Saudi. Why not the otherway around?”

So basically you think that individual Muslims are responsible for anything done by Muslims and are morally required to prevent negative behaviour by people of their religion. Do you hold other groups to this standard? Are all Christians to be blamed for the action of paedophile Catholic priests? Should all atheists hang their heads in shame when an atheist madman is found to be a serial killer?

“Call it politically incorrect, but many are thinking it.”

Lots of other people are wrong like me, so my wrongness is absolved!

I remember the days when Irish Catholics blew up a Birmingham pub but Catholics weren’t all spied upon in student institutions and more to the point, nor were all Christians because surprise, surprise, someone with a bit more sense than today’s politicians had managed to work out that not all Christians were terrorists. Just as well, really, because I was a member of a student Christian Union spouting fire and brimstone and all kinds of random biblical texts.