Who could have doubted the sincerity of the bushy bearded cherub innocently proclaiming his bafflement and perplexity over the actions of his former best buddy?
Not the BBC. They accepted it without a murmur.
Our friend Qasam Rafiq is now the spokesman for the Federation of Student Islamic Societies. Those cute little cupid’s bow lips are employed to invite a multitude of speakers who have supported the holy war and called for an Islamic Caliphate.
Now we hear that not only are we more complacent than ever about the number of Muslim extremists coming to the UK, we are gaily tolerating radical Islamic Societies in our own universities who invite speakers to come over and evangelise Jihad under our noses.
Malcolm Grant, the provost of UCL still won’t have it. He must be a Guardian reader and a devotee of the BBC. He’s chairing a review into violent extremism at universities. I wonder what the outcome will be.
Well Malcolm Grant did at least stand up against the banning of Israeli academics a while back – http://www.israelnewsagency.com/britishacademicisraelboycottucl48880530.html
But free speech should not mean that plotting mayhem and murder is acceptable.
The cover-up begins in earnest. The BBC already told you that the Undie-bomber was not radicalized at UCL, even while he was president of the extremist Islamic society there. He wasn’t radicalized until he went to Yemen, according to BBC editorial policy. Never mind the illogic of saying that somebody who wasn’t an extremist went to Yemen specifically to hang out with extremists.
The next problem is that the results of any review into Islamic extremism at British universities will have to discuss the cause for radicalization. We can all guess what that will be. The problem of Islamic extremism at British universities will be excused.
Remember how the BBC was tring to diss the story about the Iraq hostages being taken to Iran?
Well the Guardian has another piece on it, I wonder how the BBC will try to spin this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/07/british-troops-iran-border-hostages
Oh and another opinio poll shows the Tory lead up to 12%, not a mention on the BBC.
I think I may have mentioned just how high the stakes are here. If US public opinion comes to believe the undoubted truth about our universities and radicalisation I have grave doubts as to whether any planes will be flying to the US from here. All it will take will be one lucky attack traced to the UK. The US can live without UK traffic but can we?
Denial is now the default mode of the governing elite. The BBC can only fall into line.
A lifetime of living in, and dreaming of, an unreal world may be about to come to an end for our liberal elites.
Never mind whether the undies bomber was radicalised in the UK, or in Yemen, turning a blind eye is getting ridiculous. Taking protestations of innocence at face value from outfits like the MCB and university Islamic Societies is foolhardy.
At the trial of the men who were allowed to remain seated in court because they said their faith demands they must only stand for Allah, the defence expects everyone to believe that when they shouted “Soldiers go to Hell” they really meant “The soldiers will go to hell (because they are murderers) according to the ROP.”
Some people are so PC that they regard profiling as racist. The other day Justin Webb interviewed Brian Paddick, former deputy assistant commissioner at the Met., who said something to the effect that modern police have learned a lesson from the olden days when they were institutionally racist and disproportionately targeted young black fellas with stop’n search.
“Now they’re enlightened. Every time darkies are subjected to a full body search at the airport, an equal number of elderly white ladies should be too, for fairness.”
“What about profiling?” enquired Justin.
“Profiling is another word for Islamophobia,” Paddick (virtually) replied “and in any case, if we only profile darkies from darkieland, we’d have missed Richard Reid coz he was born in Bromley. Ha!”
“Yes, said Justin, “but wouldn’t that at least make it [carrying a bomb] more difficult?”
“Yes, it’s extremely difficult,” Paddick answered, grasping the wrong end of the stick, “you don’t know what the terrorist looks like. She could be any old granny.” “What you need to do is share the intelligence.”
If you have some to spare, I assume. I was thinking profiling WAS sharing intelligence. Like, if someone’s name was on a watch-list it would be, you know, spotted, and passed on to someone intelligent.
The other day I heard a similar interview on R4 Today or BBC world service, but with an expert from Israel, where, in between murdering Palestinian children, they still find time to successfully eliminate would be Jihadi travellers through profilng. Typical of apartheid Israel. Much better to just leave it to the point of departure and issue each traveller at check-in, in a non discriminatory way, with x-ray specs.
“<i>Malcolm Grant, the provost of UCL still won’t have it. He must be a Guardian reader and a devotee of the BBC. He’s chairing a review into violent extremism at universities. I wonder what the outcome will be.</i>”
Hang on here Sue. You think the report is a forgone conclusion, based solely on your own speculation on what papers and TV channels this guy prefers? Are you 100% sure of your methodology?
No, not based solely on my own speculation on what papers etc he prefers.
Based various articles by him, one of which I linked to, which sets out his difficulty with the concept that the UCL and other universities’ Islamic Societies could be subversive anti-Western hotbeds that invite Islamist extremist speakers to preach radical ideas to students, despite numerous testimonies that are easily accessible on the interweb, recounted from first hand experience. He may wish this wasn’t so, as we all do, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Thank you for keeping a close eye on me but not becoming a stalker.
You don’t need to use HTML for italics BTW, there’s a special button.
Do you ever read my posts I wonder? Your hostile comments come across all knee-jerk. That thought is based largely but not solely on your blogroll.
I know about the html thing. I’ve just got a bit used to all the </>s and sometimes put them in automatically, because it’s quicker than reaching for the mouse.
I did read your post, and you’d made quite a leap of logic. The reason Malcolm Grant leans the way he does in that article is much more likely to come from his profession. I imagine university top brass are quite likely to be staunchly in favour of intellectual freedom on campus, regardless of what newspapers they read. Your personal speculation as to his tastes is the only thing even vaguely linking him to the BBC, that’s assuming you can judge an organisation solely by who watches its programmes. You seem to have extrapolated that a) he won’t close down UCL Islamic society or bar foreigners from holding office in it, therefore b) he’s indisputably a Beeboid Guardianista, therefore c) his report on terror isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. You might have to fill me in on your logic a bit.
Then there’s your comments on Qasam Rafiq. After someone has committed or attempted a heinous crime, it’s fairly normal for news outlets to interview their family, friends and neighbours to get an idea of their motives. Usually a friend or neighbour saying things like “happy to give everyone the time of day” or “always kept himself to himself”. Do you really think that, because this friend of the deranged is a member of a society you disagree with, he shouldn’t be allowed to go on air and say “you know he always seemed such a nice, quiet young man”?
If you do, that’s pretty censorious. Not to mention slanderous. If you’re going to say things like “Those cute little cupid’s bow lips are employed to invite a multitude of speakers who have supported the holy war and called for an Islamic Caliphate”, then you’d better have a list ready.
“I imagine university top brass are quite likely to be staunchly in favour of intellectual freedom on campus…” You can imagine whatever you wish, but it doesn’t make it true. But seeing you say it, I’d like to see the list and the evidence to back it up.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point, if not almost everything about everything.
Sue was arguing that Qasam Rafiq should be declined airtime because he invites extremist speakers. That requires some serious evidence.
I argued that Malcolm Grant’s profession is equally, if not more, likely to shape his views on the subject than his choice of news outlet. Therefore it is ludicrous to extrapolate from his opinions that he likes the BBC and Guardian.
In more general terms, Sue was presenting a fact, I was presenting an alternative possibility.
Now Jack, are you seriously suggesting that, in his stance on who should be allowed to speak at his university, the provost of UCL is more likely to be influenced by the BBC than by his position?
Huh? You made a sweeping generalization. I am seriously suggesting you either back it up with some evidence and a little list, or move on.
What is it about THAT you don’t understand. Stop bloviating for crying out loud. It may work in some sixth form debating society but haven’t you grown past that yet?
What kind of evidence would you like? A youtube compilation of academics saying “I support academic freedom because I’m an academic”?
Besides, I suggested that Malcolm Grant might think what he does because of his position. Sue claimed that, based on what he thinks, he must be a devotee of the Guardian and the BBC. Surely you need evidence a bit more for a must than for a might.
Alex,
You’re probably right about Malcolm Grant’s political leanings, and those of his colleagues. I understand many academics are fond of the Guardian.
Intellectual freedom is fine and dandy, but incitement to Jihad and terrorism? Wouldn’t that go a bit beyond the limits?
Your own logic has leapt away altogether.
What did I say about closing down Islamic Societies?
Mr. Grant should, in my view, know what’s going on under his nose now that it’s so relevant.
He isn’t doing a report, he’s chairing an inquiry, and I would say a chairperson should not hold an extreme position, such as issuing robust denials that contradict evidence from several first-hand witnesses about the nature of speakers and invitees that come to spout their radical anti Western views.
Mr Rafiq of angelic appearance and baffled demeanour does have every right to be interviewed on telly. The BBC should not have accepted without a murmur his assurance that belonging to the UCL Islamic Society was as good as a character reference, or proof of innocence. That was what my original post was about.
A member of a society that I disagree with? Am I the only one who disagrees with it, do you think?
You are very cheeky saying, “You’d better” anything. You can’t even be bothered to look it up!
If you want to discuss these things do have the courtesy to inform yourself a little bit. It’s not much of a secret.
Anwar Al Awlaki, Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq, Taji Mustafa, Abdur Raheem Green, Asim Qureshi, Moazzam Begg, pardon if I’ve made any mistakes.
“The BBC should not have accepted without a murmur his assurance that belonging to the UCL Islamic Society was as good as a character reference, or proof of innocence. That was what my original post was about.“
Then how come it didn’t mention those assurances at all? I believe your exact words were “Who could have doubted the sincerity of the bushy bearded cherub innocently proclaiming his bafflement and perplexity over the actions of his former best buddy? Not the BBC. They accepted it without a murmur”, which seems to insinuate that he did expect something from Abdulmutallab and was lying about it and that the BBC should have picked up on it. But I find your style a bit difficult to parse, so maybe you could clarify.
“A member of a society that I disagree with? Am I the only one who disagrees with it, do you think?“
I’m not sure how that fits into it. The poplarity of the UCL Islamic Society shouldn’t make him any more or less relevant to the story, or any less trustworthy on the subject of his old friend.
“You are very cheeky saying, “You’d better” anything. You can’t even be bothered to look it up!“
Sue, it’s your job to back up your statements, not mine. Are you really telling me off for not researching your implausible assertions?
“If you want to discuss these things do have the courtesy to inform yourself a little bit. It’s not much of a secret. Anwar Al Awlaki, Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq, Taji Mustafa, Abdur Raheem Green, Asim Qureshi, Moazzam Begg, pardon if I’ve made any mistakes.”Sue, those people were invited by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, not by Qasam Rafiq.”
Well, I’ve done your research for you and looked that lot up. The only one I found advocating holy war or Caliphate was Awlaki, whose invitation to speak at UCL was revoked. But maybe you could share your sources.
Oh, and at least one of those was quite famously invited by Abdulmullantab. How many of those were invited by Qasam Rafiq?
“You’re probably right about Malcolm Grant’s political leanings, and those of his colleagues. I understand many academics are fond of the Guardian.”
The Guardian what where how why when? Where are you getting this information? Are you the paper-boy or something? By the way, have you noticed which publication he was writing in? Clue: you’ve linked to it.
Besides, even if he’s got every issue of the Guardian tattooed on his face, what’s that got to do with the BBC?
“Intellectual freedom is fine and dandy, but incitement to Jihad and terrorism? Wouldn’t that go a bit beyond the limits?”
I’m not sure what you mean about incitement to Jihad and terrorism. I assume this is the same as “supporting the holy war”, rather than calling for a Caliphate. Have there been any speakers at the UCL Islamic Society who have called on students to commit acts of terror?
“He isn’t doing a report, he’s chairing an inquiry, and I would say a chairperson should not hold an extreme position, such as issuing robust denials that contradict evidence from several first-hand witnesses about the nature of speakers and invitees that come to spout their radical anti Western views.”
At what point in the article does he do that then? And, er, since when is allowing free speech to people with fruity views an extreme position?
<!–StartFragment–>
Alex,
I knew I’d regret getting into this with you.
The bit about the BBC accepting Rafiq’s membership of the UCL Islamic society as a guarantee of good character was in the video. Simples. Nothing to do with insinuating, expecting something or lying.
Your own style is difficult and your reasoning impenetrable, so we’re more than quits. Your second paragraph I don’t understand at all.
I wonder what on earth do you think “my job” is.
The individuals listed are either members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, supporters of Jihad, admirers of Osama Bin Laden, and advocates of martyrdom.
They were invited to speak at the Islamic Society. Doesn’t matter by whom, because the Islamic Society itself is what I’m concerned with as you would know if you could only overcome your difficulties with my style.
I know a lot of Guardian reading academics as it happens.
I am not a paper boy.
The Guardian is related to the BBC, they’re joined at the hip.
If you really believe that these people are merely harmlessly exercising their ‘rights’ to free speech, and it’s a coincidence that one of them tried to set his bottom on fire because he was devout, so be it. We’ll have to agree to differ.
Can we leave it at that.
<!–EndFragment–>
The< —fragment—-> stuff is because I’m not on Firefox. I sometimes forget that this happens.
“The bit about the BBC accepting Rafiq’s membership of the UCL Islamic society as a guarantee of good character was in the video.”
I admit “he was in a society” means nothing, but I couldn’t find anything in the video along those lines. I’m really not sure what you object to. And do you really think it would have been appropriate to interrupt him? He’s not a politician flipping his second home, he’s a guy who knew Abdulmullantab before he set fire to his crotch.
“I wonder what on earth do you think “my job” is.”
Well, your hobby seems to be making unsubstantiated assertions which you don’t back them up.
“The individuals listed are either members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, supporters of Jihad, admirers of Osama Bin Laden, and advocates of martyrdom.“
Even Mr Begg? Who said what?
“They were invited to speak at the Islamic Society. Doesn’t matter by whom, because the Islamic Society itself is what I’m concerned with as you would know if you could only overcome your difficulties with my style.“
It very much does matter, seeing as you specifically claimed Qasam Rafiq invites them with his cupid-bow lips.
“I know a lot of Guardian reading academics as it happens.”
Is Malcolm Grant one?
“The Guardian is related to the BBC, they’re joined at the hip.“
And so people reading the Guardian is an indictment of the BBC? Seriously, what’s Malcolm Grant got to do with the Beeb, and how do you know what he reads?
“If you really believe that these people are merely harmlessly exercising their ‘rights’ to free speech, and it’s a coincidence that one of them tried to set his bottom on fire because he was devout, so be it.“
I don’t think speech can be entirely harmless, if it’s ever worth having as a right, and why he set his pants on fire remains to be seen. What I’m interested in is why you object to Grant and Rafiq, how you know what they read and who they invite, and what in the wide world of sports any of this has to do with the BBC.
“Can we leave it at that?”
Go on then.