MohammedAmin.com
Serious writing for
serious readers

Search this site

Custom Search

Transmitted 26 June 2013. Posted 5 December 2014.

On 26 June 2013 the Islam Channel devoted the whole of its programme “The Debate” to a discussion of radicalisation on university campuses. Although the Islam Channel normally uploads its current affairs programmes to YouTube relatively promptly, in this case there was a long delay before it was uploaded on 13 January 2014. There was a further delay before I became aware that the programme was now available on YouTube.

Despite the intervening 18 months, the discussion is just as relevant today as when it was transmitted since the issues have not changed.

The making of the programme was prompted by the issue of a report “Challenging Extremists – Practical frameworks for our universities” by Rupert Sutton and Hannah Stuart published by the organisation Student Rights which appears to be some kind of subsidiary of the Henry Jackson Society.

I had glanced through the report when it was published in 2012 but had not bothered reading it word for word as I regarded it as relatively unimpressive.

Structure of the programme

The programme was a panel discussion chaired by Chris Bambery. There were three participants:

• Hilary Aked - a journalist and PhD student at the University of Bath
• Jonathan Birdwell – head of the Citizenship Programme at the think tank Demos
• myself appearing as then Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum

The programme can be watched in three parts below. For each part I have briefly summarised the key points that I made. However I do not regarded as feasible to summarise the points made by the presenter or the other participants as there would be too great a risk of distortion.

Part 1

• Radicalisation amongst Muslims is a real issue. There is also a real issue about far right extremism. However both need to be looked at independently, although they do feed off each other.
• I pointed out that the (British) Henry Jackson Society has appropriated the name of the late American senator Henry Jackson, although I was not aware of them having any permission to do so.
• While I had not read this report in detail, I had read others from the same stable (the Centre for Social Cohesion had been absorbed by the Henry Jackson Society) and I had found those others quite biased and non-objective.
• It is entirely appropriate for the U.K.’s security services to recruit Muslims as informants as part of their mission to keep our country secure.
• Contrary to many assertions, the channels for legitimate protest and political activity in the UK are not blocked.

Part 2

• It is wrong to criticise MI5 over the Woolwich murder of Drummer Lee Rigby. The security services cannot guarantee to apprehend every intended terrorist. They have had a good record since the 7 July 2005 London bombings but the Woolwich killers slipped through the net. In the real world mistakes will happen.
• With regard to gender segregation at university events (something of great concern to Student Rights) I believe in the freedom of choice regarding where to sit. Men and women who wish to sit separately from the other gender should be free to do so just as people who wish to sit in a mixed area should be free to do so.
• The purpose of the government’s “Prevent” programme is to stop people wanting to become terrorists. Radicalisation is a real issue.
• I predicted that the spike in anti-Muslim violence that had been seen since the Woolwich murder would trend down based upon the historical experience of the Community Security Trust with similar anti-Semitic violence.
• No part of the media has legitimised violence against Muslims or hatred against Muslims.
• In the UK you are free to have any views on British domestic or foreign policy and to argue for those views by legitimate means without being classed as an extremist.

Part 3

• “Extremism” as a label undoubtedly gets misused, but it is real. Those who wish to replace UK democracy with a theocracy are extremists, even if they are non-violent. They are free to hold those views but labeling them as (non-violent) extremists is appropriate.
• People who have a strongly held position (e.g. being strongly pro-Israeli) normally seek to weaken their opponents by arguments which are both valid and spurious in an attempt to delegitimise them. That is a normal part of free debate.
• Given the percentage of society which now attends university, it is no surprise that any group of people (whether terrorists or child murderers) includes university graduates.
• "Islamophobia" is a really dumb word and a confused concept. It is a word I never use except when discussing the word itself.