Freedom of thought is all we foment

"I cannot resist one final irony, not yet picked up by the press, which is that the UCL faculty of engineering sciences in which Mr Abdulmutallab studied is today a major global centre for research and training in counter-terrorism. It runs a masters degree in that subject and has pioneered new technologies for airport safety and tracking."
THIS BODY OF KNOWLEDGE ALLOWED THE DETROIT BOMBER TO GO THROUGH SECURITY UNNOTICED.
MALCOLM GRANT IS STUPID OR NAIVE BY FAILING TO SEE WIDER & MORE UNSCRUPULOUS CONNECTIONS TO HIS HIGH MINDED IDEALS #253 @conradbrean

Malcolm, you like other university provosts and Vice chancellors have no idea what is happening on your campuses.

Do you not remember that Yassin Nassari, convicted of smuggling plans for a Qassam rocket into Britain, was president of the University of Westminster’s Islamic society as well?

Do you not think you and other provosts are responsible for what is going on at your universities?

This isn't about debating and freedom of speech,this is about our universities becoming ideological training grounds for terrorists.

richard stephens - I'm sorry, you have completely lost me there. Are you saying that senior managements at universities are somehow vicariously liable for the actions of their current and former students, or that students should not be allowed to form societies without the express approval of officialdom? Where does that stop? When I was at university I played badminton with the Islamic society types - would I have been treated as 'ideologically suspect?'

The article talks about 'equality.' It is sad that that term has become distorted beyond all recognition and is now used to indulge. Equality is no longer about the active assistance of those facing material disadvantage by dint of factors beyond their control such as gender or race. Increasingly 'equality' has been 'for' those wishing to indulge lifestyle choices and chips on shoulders. Admittedly many were stupid enough to fall for the rhetoric..

Yes, senior management is responsible for what goes on at universities, they are not responsible for what is in people's heads at the time, nor are the responsible for any social baggage.

The cynic in me twonders whether you may have an axe to grind, I don't want you grinding it on my head so I will leave you with a final thought. I agree with you when you assert, ' this isn't about debating and freedom of speech.' No it is not - but it should be,

Prof Malcolm Grant.
My son studied at UCL and as a parent visitng him, I was shocked by what some societies were up to. We picked UCL over other top university as we liked its all round ethos but I have to say we were very disppointed by the extremism displayed by Islamic society in particular. Their leaflets were shocking to read. Your accusation of Islamophobia sounds very naive as you have failed to grasp the depth of infiltration of Islamic extremists in this students' society which was what many parents felt after reading these leflets. Even today, other parents and students feel that UCL is much too tolerant to extremists views of Islamic Society. No one is arguing to muzzle intellectual freedom, but we are talking about the activities of particular society and in the last three years what the Islamic society has been upto it can not be remotely attributed to tellectual freedom.

The "War on Terror " week in January 2007 was nothing but a hatred week by the extreme Islamic activists in your university with Mr Osama as one of the speakers. Only a strong protest against this act of " intellectual freedom" - that was what we got the message from UCL until the students cancelled the visit feeling the strong reaction against it by many students who were very liberal minded. At that time we had no indication that the UCL management would cancel this as you claim now. We were in the verge of pulling our son out from UCL so as to be away from this hateful mob. We were not alone as there many muslim parents who feared the radicalisation of their children and were prepared to withdraw them from UCL the same way we thought.

I get the feeling you do know what is happening at UCL at the ground level and either you are out of touch or simply listen to your deputies. It is time that you took personal interest in cleaning up the extremism which is firmly embedded in so called students activities and particularly in a society like the Islamic society

Yout internal investigation is not good enough. We need outside specialists to take take a detailed look at the activities of certain sections of the students, now, not about UMAR case which is a past event. We feel that this extremism has not gone away even today. UCL is a fine university with rich traditions, and current parents and students would like to see that UCL should not been seen as a training ground for Islamic terrorists and prospective bombers.

Confucious - As a matter of interest, did you (or indeed your offspring) or any of these other concerned parents take it up with the Islamic Society or anyone else? Or is this just something you are using as a stalking horse to indulge yourself at what seems to be a time well after the fact?

Not getting at you - just curious.

@ Josh Lyman

May I ask your interest here- are you in any way connected with UCL? Your comment about stalking horse sounds wicked. You can guess what we as responsible parents would have done at that time. That said, you need to read the post in full. What is needed is a full investigation into current activities of students' societies like the Islamic society in UCL as well as in all other universities in London London seems to have a particular problem when it comes to Islamic extremism in universities.

No I am not involved in UCL and your snide cheap shot that anyone not indulging in a feeding frenzy against the univerisity must be 'connected' is worse than wicked.

Now, let's try that again - at the time three years ago, did you, your offspring or the concerned parents you mention in your post, which I read thoroughly, take it up with the Islamic Society or anyone else, out of interest?

Or are you just identity axe-grinding three years after the fact?

@Josh Lyman. I replied to your comments which could have been polite and it is surprising that you come up with yet another set of wicked comments. You come out as a bully and I am not obliged to yield to your bullying. You may conclude as you wish. It is clear you have an agenda here considering your rude reply to " richard stephens" and to me.

At last! A comment piece that puts this very serious situation into some sort of perspective. Thank you for this, Malcolm. It is a shame that UCL's name has been dragged through the mud in some national newspapers without any evidence to support their wild claims.

Let's allow the Police and security services to acertain the facts about this case and then learn any necessary lessons, before jumping to conclusions.

I personally feel saddened with the unfortunate event of Christmas day. Mr Malcolm you are very correct and it is my pervent hope that proper investigation should be done so that other suppossedly innocent students would not end up being radicalised in this intellectually liberal environment.

No, one cannot get more politically correct. Asserting and again confirming Western democratic values; totally defending freedom of speech; stating that campuses will have civil liberties. And then: "the misuse of the liberties [that] we protect". If I use the liberties, how can I be found misusing these liberties? Repeating again: I use the liberties, period. If I do something other than using liberties, that means I do something other, not using liberties, namely - I break the law. But the language allows "misuse of liberties" which is a nonsense, but that gives total freedom to interpret anything in any way convenient to malicious prosecution, political control, etc. etc. Sad. I would like to see any example of the "misuse of the liberties". --------------------------- Islamic terrorism is not born out of speeches, it's a stupid term anyway. It is born on the Islamic soil occupied by the US and others. Who would be such an idiot to become a terrorist after an irrelevant speech? These speeches are relevant, and that fact must be realised; it is stupid and completely dishonest to pretend that an exercise in "liberties" leads to terrorism. You cannot kill that people and at the same time to pretend that this same people can function as nice university students and your loyal citizens. You cannot cultivate that duality in Moslems, and not in anyone else.

Aside from having friends who work at the college, I am chair of Camden Trades Council - UCL's main campus is located in the London Borough of Camde.

I am largely in agreement with a good old school liberal response by Provost Malcolm Grant to what looks like some wilfully irresponsible and inflammatory media coverage.

Shame, though, that he has proved unwilling to take a similar stand when it comes to the victimisation of trade unionists employed on outsourced contracts for ancillary services at UCL.

"I am largely in agreement with a good old school liberal response by Provost Malcolm Grant to what looks like some wilfully irresponsible and inflammatory media coverage"

What is the irresponsible media comment? That this Nigerian was radicalised while at UCL or the UCL allowed extremism to develop in certain societies? These are Good Old Liberal Values are they? Just ask any student who study at UCL , about the goings on at the Islamic Society in UCL. While you are doing it, SOAS is also located in your Borough, and would you bother to find out certain of its students' societies activities and pronoucements? After you have done the above, please come back and post.

It seems some of the Daily Mail readers have crossed over to this site to carry on with there irrational islamaphobic hysteria. Give the man a break.

Adam, you are the right person to be in the MI5, as a flat-footed operative!

I have tremendous respect for UCL as an institution and have friends who enjoy very much working there. The problem here is that when a student or student organisation is found to have Anwar al Awlaki videos on their computer, and when they've invited known anti-Semitic hate-mongers, such as Stop Islamophobia (a front for Hizb ut Tahrir) and Asim Qureshi to speak on campus, then there is something amiss. I believe that Prof Grant, who is most certainly well intentioned, needs a little dose of reality when it comes to the seriousness of some of these groups as far as promoting acts of violence is concerned. Following the giving of an interview to Westminster Journal on the involvement of the Chair of the Board of Governors of Iqra Islamic School, which lost its public funding when it was found to be a front for Hizb ut Tahir, in actions by another British university against myself, a Jewish staff member, my wife was subject to a brutal anti-Semitic assault accompanied by death threats against her and myself. Prof Grant, these people mean business, and despite what they might claim about non-violent means, they are anything but non-violent. Please, I implore you to take a closer look at who is involved in inciting and recruiting UCL students. I would not wish to restrict free thought, but surely there must be the issue of public safety that must at least be considered in such decisions.

Dr Howard Fredrics - 'I believe that Prof Grant, who is most certainly well intentioned, needs a little dose of reality when it comes to the seriousness of some of these groups as far as promoting acts of violence is concerned.'

So what? Come on Dr Fredrics - why so coy? Looking at your set-piece Westminster Journal interview you clearly are not a man to hold back so why leave that stench hanging there? What is this dose of reality of which you speak? Prof Grant has been directly criticised by no lesser authority than Stephen Pollard (whom I have met), and has seen a former UCL student try to explode a plane? What more reality does he need to be exposed to? More of a media feeding frenzy? Something else?

It may very well be the case that you feel that those who adhere to a particular religion should be indulged. I set my views on the equality industry out earlier and I will not repeat myself - but what are your conclusions? What would you do in Prof Grant’s shoes? Is religion and the lifestyle choices it demands the be-all-and-end-all? Is, in your view, UCL management responsible for the actions of former students, of any religion or none, yes or no?

Are you in favour of stopping student (or for that matter, other) groups forming without the explicit consent and ongoing approval of officialdom and popular opinion? Your set-piece interview with the Westminster Journal does not altogether make clear your views on censorship of the private realm.

I particularly like this allusion to, 'public safety.' Such an elegant catch-all that prevents you actually having to make an argument. Do you think that Islam, people of the Islamic faith and Islamic Societies are intrinsically against ‘public safety’ Dr Fredrics – yes or no?

Don't get me wrong. You might well believe in the a priori moral prioritisation of some religions or none - I respect that you have a right to a view even if I don't agree. Your set-piece interview with the Westminster Journal is certainly comprehensive.

Clearly your set-piece interview with the Westminster Journal shows exactly how much you mean business to the extent of litigation, and I would never intrude in your long-harboured sense of injustice. I don’t know you and I would never stoop to a personal or ad hominem attack nor would I ever accuse you of anything untoward – presumably you and yours will afford me similar respect.

But you throw out your grievances as if the world were as you demand rather than as it is. People do not have to indulge you, nor should they. I posit that it is you that needs a bloody great dose of reality. But I stress – I don’t know. Your set-piece interview with the Westminster Journal is fascinating reading. Whether you are well intentioned – I will leave to you.

So please. And to be very clear I am not getting at you personally. You have come to this thread with direct criticism of how Prof Grant treats UCL students. Who would you censor and where do you draw the lines, and how do you propose to control and intrude upon private behaviour? Where do you place you and your value judgments above others? Your set-piece interview with the Westminster journal is not that clear on these points.

I have no answers and I would never claim that I do. But what about you? Presumably you are more substantial than the average keyboard warrior.

Best wishes.

I thought this was a good piece - the comments quoted from The Telegraph seemed very dodgy - “[e]ven though Abdulmutallab is not even a British citizen, he was still allowed to be elected president of the Islamic Society at [UCL]”. It seems bizarre to suggest that overseas students somehow shouldn't be free to stand for such roles. However although I think this issue *does* bring out Islamophobic responses (the most extreme example perhaps being the arson attack on a Midlands mosque on Boxing Day)I do have some sympathy with the points made by Confucious and Dr Howard Fredrics. I don't think being concerned about HuT etc makes you Islamophobic.

Thank you for an excellent piece Malcolm. As a UCL alumni and Muslim I enjoyed the diversity of opinions expressed on campus. Whilst I disagreed with some elements, I found the majority of opinions extremely useful tools in equiping myself for life. I needed to hear the full spectrum of opinions and views and challenge these in an environment where there were other individuals musing over the same matter. It is during these debates and lectures that I helped find and form my British Muslim identity - one I am proud of.
I thank UCL for this and now work everyday to help combat those with extreme views. I work to actively redirect rightful anger over illegal occupations and genocide towards political protest and lobbying.
I would also like to state that during my three years at the university, never was there any 'hate ideology' or 'extremist matter' circulated that I ever saw.

@Josh Lyman is some one who has an agenda of his/her own. when any one who with any personal experience of students' societal activities gives their comments relating their experience, he comes up with a plethora of questions which cast doubt on the honesty of that person and he/she thinks except himself every one is a 'key board warrior' as if thousands are out there ready with troller messages. He is I guess in some ways is associated with UCL and is acting as UCL rebuttal automaton. PLESE DO NOT ANSWER THIS PERSON.

I worked in UCL and this institution in promoting 'Fomenting its Freedom of Thought', a very liberal sentiment indeed, has ignored the side effects of it. Some students societies are good and others like Islamic society needs to evaluate its purprose which is mainly cultural and often it strays into areas that are undesirable or even dangerous. Asking a Respect MP to address is one thing but asking some one who is notorious in airing his homophobic and so called Islamic issues which are thick in Talibanism is another. This is not promoting diversity, liberalism and 'Fomenting Freedom of Thoughts'. UCL has problems with certain student societies and tolerating them heralding diversity and freedom of thought is the answer. The "UCL Alum" many not find anything wrong in UCL, others did and still do.. I did and I complained to my managers. Many students did and they were ignored. UCL should get a handle on this. Malcolm Grant should not in the name of liberalism and diversity ignore the red signal flagged by Umar. If he continues to argue the way he does , he will see good students avoiding this institution and it will result in his downfall when the govt starts to take this problem seriously and appoints a committee. Ignoring any comments coming from experience as Islamophobia is singularly stupid. UCL should wake up beofre it is too late.

@UCL Alum "I work to actively redirect rightful anger over illegal occupations and genocide towards political protest and lobbying. I would also like to state that during my three years at the university, never was there any 'hate ideology' or 'extremist matter' circulated that I ever saw"

I do not know which years you studied. What you are saying is not my current experience. What is "work to actively redirect rightful anger over illegal occupations and genocide towards political protest"? My seniors tell me that was what Umar was also saying in 2008. The tutors might have found him to be polite and courteous to them ( what else would he do, brandish a device? He was too clever for that) and what was he doing "outside his academic environment" I understood was the concern of fellow students. I feel that the UCL charter on students' societies needs revisting as at this moment there is no monitoring done. We do not want our societies to be spied upon and our thoughts restricted, but we do see the bigger picture in the light of Umar's case. We need to make sure that UCL should not produce many more Umars. The suggestion of a Commission to look into the exremism in universities in London is good. A few years ago, there was a similar case of a student in London Metropolitan University. The VCs I believe want not to focus on this problem for their own reasons, but it is not wise as this is a cancer which needs to be attended to immediately before it spreads to other universities in the UK. Some friends of mine say it has already happened.

Provost Grant, quoted in the "Washington Post":-
""To shut it down, that implies the society is a hotbed of radicalization," he said. "It isn't."

How is he in a position to know that? If he is indeed certain, why does he now need to make further enquiries?
The left-liberal ranks-closing demonstrated by the article and the likes of Josh Lyman seem to be well under way already. The exculpation of the UCL IslamSoc is "necessary" and will be achieved regardless.

Prof Grant is restating Jeremy Bentham's ( the founding father of UCL) ideals. I wonder whether these would also apply for a student society let us say formed out of defending 'Britishness' and say invites the BNP leaders to address where Le Pen is a guest speaker in a workshop. Will these societies which promote diversity and Prof Grant himself will generously follow Jeremy Bentham's ideals and let the workshop function without screaming placard holders? Freedom of Thought is an excellent ideal when exercised with responsibility.
I am a black Christian and we normally argue up to a point and then start screaming 'racism' when our arguments do not stand on their own. "Islamophobia' is a similar scream . When Jamaican Yardies were wrecking havoc, our community leaders hid their heads in sand after screaming 'racism' whenever focus is turned on the Yardies. Some brave yound men stood up to them. The solution should partly come from Prof Grant's UCL and partly from the muslim community. We need the latter to proclain loud and clear that " they are British first and Muslim second" and this they should define as British Muslim Identity.

UCL and other universities can get their overseas students as part of MOUs between Universities and Countries ( these exist now only for a specific sets of students and courses) where private fee paying students are also sponsored by their governments ( now it applies for scholrship holders only and this can be made to apply to every one intending to study in UK) thus removing the necessity of agents in those countries. The parent countries will then have responsibility towards those sponsored. Often these countries do not know who are here in the UK and their passport holders are treated differently in different embassies-some needing a rigorous registration and others needing their addresses in the UK.

Obviously, something has gone wrong and Bentham's ideals were breached. UCL should recognise this and ensure that this will not happen again.

Professor Grant

You in common with all Vice Chancellors are failing to take this problem seriously enough. "Free speech" does not include "hate speech".

The 2006 Parliamentary Committee on Antisemitism recommended the following: (1) University Authorities to record all reports of antisemitism (2) Vice Chancellors to set up a working party to take robust action against antisemitism on campus. Hatred of Jews is a key element of Jihadism. Neither of those recommendations has been accepted by Vice Chancellors. Why not?

And what is your response to this letter from Denis MacShane MP in yeterday's Times: "Sir, In 2006 an all-party parliamentary commission I chaired reported on rising anti-Semitism on university campuses and the support for Islamist ideology, including appeals to jihad, which are widespread in students circles. University vice-chancellors and the university lecturers’ union pooh-poohed our concerns. Might they now have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is a serious problem, or do we have to wait until some student radicalised by campus Islamism succeeds in killing hundreds before our university elites realise what is incubating on British campuses?"

Why has the UCL Islamic Society taken down their YouTube video about the "War on Terror" week?

"This video is private"
Why?

I am a student at UCL and Malcolm is right, the attempts by right-wing media to portray the University as a cauldron for terrorism are absurd. The disgusting racism underpinning the Telegraph article's assertion that non-British citizens (the indication being, of course, -muslim- non-British citizens) should not be allowed to run societies is as unwelcome as any other form of extremism.

If UCL can be proud of anything, it's that the Telegraph's Mr Con Caughlin doesn't rank amongst its alumni.

"University vice-chancellors and the university lecturers’ union pooh-poohed our concerns. Might they now have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is a serious problem, or do we have to wait until some student radicalised by campus Islamism succeeds in killing hundreds before our university elites realise what is incubating on British campuses?"

Professor Grant will not take action arguing his 'Feedom of Thought' agenda and will defend the right of jighadis-terrified about his militant UCU. It is time UCL's problems were cleaned up and if Prof Grant is going to sit smug on his Freedom of Thoughts ideals then some one else will do it.

About London U and SOAS
The SOAS was an exceptional institution until 30 years ago. Now you only have to wander on to the pavements of SOAS to be confronted by a leaflet distributor. The HAMAS agenda is printed and the printed slogans should shock all liberal-minded.

Nice name you have. You conveniently forget that the 'daily Telegraph and Con Caughlin' are exercising 'Freedom of Thought'. If Jihadis llike Umar shouted in that Workshop of 2007, was it liberlism and not racism?

I can see the defenders of liberalism coming out thick and fast when it comes to certain selected issues. I can also see our so called left-wing friends castigating the Right. How is that these champions of the Freedom of Thought were not found in the flights that Shoebomber took or Umar the 'Crotch Bomber' took . Should we have to learn something from them when selecting flights? Would they vociferously defend these ideals with no responsibility attached even after their experience in the plane where Umar burnt his crotch?

@ Jonathan Moses: "The disgusting racism underpinning the Telegraph article's assertion that non-British citizens (the indication being, of course, -muslim- non-British citizens) should not be allowed to run societies is as unwelcome as any other form of extremism"

Where did Mr Con Caughlin indicate in that DT article that muslims are non-British citizens. He did mention British citizens and this is arainbow coalition- chrisians black and white, hindus, sikhs, muslims, jews, non-believers the lot. It is your imagination Moses. Are all Muslims born in this country/ acquired citizenships consider themselves as British unequivocally? hindus do and sikhs do. But 7/7 bombers did not. They argued that their loyalty lies with Islam. Whose problem is this ? Mr Con Caughlin's? So you are proud of Umar as an Alumnus and rejoice that Mr Con Caughlin is not one?
I applied your logic ( as you seem to derive from your logic that Mr Con Caughlin considers muslims as non-British) and deduced that you do consider Umar as a worthy UCL Alumnus.

@Norman: Con Caughlin made the link between student societies being run by 'non-British citizens' with 'Islamic extremism'. The inference seems quite clear to me, perhaps not to you. The very suggestion that student societies in an international institution like a university should only be allowed for their British members is appalling.

Profesor Grant is not Provost of UCL for nothing.

He is being very clever here. He is taking Con Coughlin's article and citing the most absurd part (that a non-British student should not be permitted to be President of UCL Islamic Society) in the full knowledge that right-thinking people will agree with him.

However that does not get him off the hook. He - and other Vice Chancellors - are turning a blind eye to the hatemongers in Universities, citing 'free speech'.

It's really not good enough.

I ask him again: Why have you ignored the recommendations of the 2006 Parliamentary Committee on Antisemitism?

@Jonatham Moses Very clever to have avoided my question. Since you have declared that ConCaughlin is not one of UCL Alumini , are you happy that Umar is one of them? Answer me that question first.

I do not see any thing wrong in saying that non-British Citizens with Islamic extremism was allowed to run a society particualrly when this person becomes the " Crotch Bomber" and attempted to blow up a plane full of passengers. Con Coughlin did not say this before that incident Your anger directed at Con Coughlin alone is appalling. Again your comment "The very suggestion that student societies in an international institution like a university should only be allowed for their British members is appalling" is LESS APPALLING THAN ATTEMPTED TO BLOW UP A PLANE FULL OF INNOCENT PASSENGERs BY THIS FORMER EXTREMIST WHO WAS ALLOWED TO BECOME THE PRESIDENT OF ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF AN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTION.

You need to grow up a bit. There may well come a day when the presidents' of studentrs' society in universities will be vetted by security services before they are allowed to function.

This Islamic Society shied away from addressing the real problem of Islamic citizens i the UK- the Family Sharia courts which mostly rule against women, muslim women in Britain and the pressure to wear Islamic clothes, under-aged arranged marriages in Pakistan for a British born male, honour killing etc.. etc.. Where is Malcolm Grant's Freedom of Thoughts in this Society? I am an alumnus of UCL and so are my Islamic friends. They say how this Society has been functioning for years under extremist control.

I wanted to shut up after my posting. When I read some one called " Jonathan Moses" talking nonsense homing in on a narrow part of a broader observation by a journalist- I thought that this journalist is also entitled to Grant's and Moses' 'Freedom of Thoughts' agenda, I have to have a further say. This 'Freedom of Thoughts' agenda was taken to its extreme ends without any responsibility by many students' societies in UCL of which the Islamic society was really the worst. Many muslim parents feared radicalisation of their offsprings and we all complained at that time as well as other students. The pressure from all the quarters made the Society to withdraw the invitation to an extremist, but it still functioned under Omar.
Malcolm Grant is deluded in thinking that certain students' society of UCL also nurtures " Freedom of Thought'. As for Moses' gloating about a journalist not being a UCL alumni- a silly remark considered that an extremist who was an alumnus and president of a Society was a bomber. Perhaps Moses is proud of this fact as he did not comment on Umar's role in terrorism.
The governors of UCL should intervene/forced to intervene to satisfy themselves that no extremism is fomented in students' societies. We also need a govt-appointed commission to look into this menace particularly in UCL and other London Universities.

Robin Shepherd: "So, while as Malcolm Grant puts it, “the events of Christmas Day came as a complete shock to the UCL community”, they come as no shock or surprise to me. And there’s plenty more to come."

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/head-of-london-college-of-detroit-bomber-mired-in-depths-of-denial-about-islamic-extremism/

Expressing opinions about what is right and what is wrong in relation to various world conflicts is not the problem at UCL and at other British institutions, irrespective of what my own strongly held personal views might be on such matters. What becomes a problem is when the views expressed include advocating the taking of violent action as a response, as a way of dealing with these issues of conscience and principle. For example, when Hizb ut Tahrir spokespeople and/or their thinly veiled clandestine surrogates call for the killing of Jews in the streets wherever they may be, and other similar calls for violence, the line of propriety and, indeed, legality has been crossed and action needs to be taken to put a stop to such hate speech. I am a VERY strong proponent of free speech rights, but those rights end as far as I'm concerned when they cross over into the realm of calls for violence or other similar acts of racial/ethnic hatred whether they be against Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians, or any other religious or ethnic group.
Prof Grant does need to take complaints about anti-Semitism seriously, and perhaps, might need to have observers attend student society meetings to determine whether such lines of propriety and legality have been crossed. That does not mean that one is preventing students from having their own independent thoughts, just that they are not necessarily going to be allowed to act upon anything and everything that might come to mind.

Dr Howard Fredrics - Further to your latest comment. You deserve credit. Too many in connection with this issue have shouted, 'something must be done,' without giving any idea of what, 'something,' is. It is to your credit that you take the plunge.

My problem is though where does that start and stop? These, 'observers,' presumably would attend all religious society meetings, but what about others? I mentioned earlier that Islamic Society types played badminton with me at university - is badminton an activity that is therefore in need of observation of officialdom? We swore like soldiers during games of badminton - does that demand the censure of officialdom?


And all this, of course is before we get onto societies in civil society rather than just students? I strongly maintain that universities can not be liable for the actions of people who were on the books at one time or another.

You are absolutely correct that if free speech is to be free then there must by definition be questions of propriety (and if there is anything illegal that must be for the authorities whether a Society is under the auspices of a university or not) - but what you are suggesting goes beyond that to placing crimps on freedom of association. What you are talking about, I think, is the a priori condemnation of individuals on the basis of what they may or may not be thinking. Surely you can see that there are issues there?

I don't think that's the way to go.

What should be done:

All university society meetings where there may be hate speech should be videoed and the videos looked at by the Crown Prosecution Service. If there is an offence under the Public Order Act (or another law), the University should be prosecuted as well as the offending individual who was at the meeting. And the Society that organised the meeting where the offence took place should be closed down for two years.

The CPS also needs to be much more willing to recommend prosecutions for hate speech.

What you have said is less stronger than what is required and on balance I would come on the side of videoing meeings , workshops etc.. Here goes again the woolly @Josh Lyman who thinks the status quo is the best. He would even find excues for Umar's actions. May be he is an UCU self-serving leftie. Ignoring him is the best way forward. Except commenting and criticising what others have posted, he has not given a solution. If extremists commit offence inside university , they should be prosecuted as too the university.

Malcolm Grant's enquiries of Umar activities in UCL will not yield much now after more than 2 years. The enquiry's report will say something like it was one-off and UCL have no problems now. He knows that UCL 's improved TImes League table position is mostly based on Foreign students' opinion of UCL and the enquiry is aware of this and hence will produce a sanitised report and Malcolm Grant will sit back and say action has been taken. The extremism is here now at UCL and will not go way unless stronger action is taken. The Provost could at least suspend the operation of all students' societies related to religion/nationalities etc.. for 3 years without hurting the academic programmes. There is after all a small hardcore extremist elements among student community at UCL and the rest of the students will welcome this action. He will not do this prattling about Freedom of Thought, and that would surely be his downfall.

It is a well known fact within UCL that two academic years ago members of the Islamic Society issued death threats to another student on behalf of the society. The student had left their Facebook account on and as a prank a friend changed their profile picture to a gay pornographic picture, which then showed up on one of the Islamic Society event pages as the student had clicked "attending" to an event.

While this is very far removed from radicalisation, the point is that a closer eye needs to be kept on the actions of this society and potentially others. To condemn the Islamic Society outright would be ignorant and unfounded. However, there is a potential for great harm if activities continue unregulated. To ignore this for the sake of political correctness or promoting tolerance would be foolish. The fact is that there is a potential for danger and this needs to be monitored. This is by no means exclusively a problem of this society, it is merely the relevant one to this article.

Sure, we have to strike a balance between finger pointing, alienating certain students, and rooting out extremism, but Grant's point that:

"What induced this behaviour remains a mystery. He has not emerged from a background of deprivation and poverty. He came from one of Nigeria’s wealthiest families. He was privately educated, and to a high level. "

is a bit naive isn't it? I know very little about the case but I would be willing to put my own money (yes that's right, my own money) on the fact that he had been radicalised somewhere. Sorry but the idea that only poor deprived people are suicide bombers is b......s. Quite the contrary. They are suicide bombers not as as rational response to the world political situation and you know it. They are suicide bombers because they hate us in the west and ironically they are free to practise their ideology in the west.

Grant is being either dimwitted or disingenuous. The Islamic societies of British universities, particularly London ones, have been gaining notoriety in recent years, not least due to the fact that several former heads of Islamic societies at such universities have been involved in terrorism. This has become clearly to many people, but evidently not those running said un iversities, who find it all a mystery.

"an Islamic preacher, Abu Usama, with views considered abhorrent by many,"

'considered abhorrent by many'....You just can't bring yourself simply to say 'abhorrent', can you, Prof Grant. That's how withered your sense of right and wrong has become, that in the case of someone calling for the beating of women and the killing of homosexuals, you just can't quite prise yourself out of cosy cultural relativism and moral numbness and simply call it what it is. Shame on you.

With any luck, decent people will stay away from UCL, the wretched place will wither, and gutless appeasers and apologists like Grant will end up on the scrapheap. That's if he doesn't end up blown to bits by one of his alumni.

During his tenure at UCL one of Grant’s main ‘achievements’ has been to impose the liberal establishment’s dogma of multiculturalism and diversity on the institution. In reality this means preference for certain minorities at the expense of the majority and of other (non-preferred) minorities. In doing so he has created exactly the kind of environment in which the radicalisation of terrorists like Umar Abdulmutallab can occur and is in fact encouraged. The irony is that in doing so Grant has entirely abandoned the principle of liberal free-thinking on which UCL was originally founded. Now, in spite of having the results of his mismanagement of UCL put right in front of his face, Grant still refuses to accept that he has a problem.

As for his bleating about free speech, as is invariably the case with the liberal establishment, Grant’s principle of free speech excludes any views that are not part of the liberal consensus or are critical of it. Believe me, I have had direct experience of the reality of Grant’s interpretation of ‘free speech’.

The reputation of UCL can only benefit from his resignation.

Grant is not the only one who is deluded, our beloved PM Brown belongs to Grant's school of 'Thinking' and see where it has driven the country to. We have in London arguably the worst bunch of extremists that any country can have thanks to Brown and Blair's policy of giving them shelter here. Today the PM wants to reassure us that he will put body scanner and stringent security at the airports. What if these extremists do not travel anywhere and have trained and radicalised UK-born sleepers who are hell bent in blowing up landmarks, institutions etc.. here.

I am an ethnic minority person of Asian origin and when I became a governor of my local school I realised what multiculturism is doing to our country. Whilst the ethnic minority children could have a support netwok, pschool policies, the poor working class white children hadnone. They were often the worst performingg and worst behaved kids, the latter partly due to the sheer neglect of them by almost every one. There were also other minorities who were not preferred but well performimg they were and hence the school abandoned them as not of much consequence.

My daughter was at UCL and within weeks of her first year ateendance, she used to tell me about UCL which not strangely sounded similar to what happened in the school above. Fortunatly during her time she did not attend any society meetings, put her head down to work and graduated. Grant is in denial and Brian Roper the sacked VC at London Met was in denial like Grant when a potential bomber, the president of Islamic society there was arrested as an Al-Queda operative who was preparing with his mates the occurence of an explosive incidence.

Brown govt will do nothing. But the students of UCL can act. It is in their interest to do so to remove the extremists in their midst.

I see only one answer to the various concerns expressed in these comments: as long as Israel, US and the other countries continue occupation and genocide in Islamic part of the world, it is not possible to prevent "hate speech". Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are under vicious unprovoked attack with the use of genocidal weapons. It is openly said that Iran will be next. I think that "hate speech" will spread no matter what laws and rules of speech are adopted. It is not difficult to predict that the "hate speech" will soon be coming from other people, not just from Moslems. Some government officials will come up with the "hate speech". The "hate speech" will cease to be seen as an attribute of terrorism, it will turn into a reasoned and backed up by the documents outrage against the war. It actually already happens. More and more, accusations of anti-Semitism are not taken seriously. The "hate speech" is an avalanche containing some boulders together with the snow; that always happens. People who are trying to refine the reaction to the genocide are naive. The war went too far and for too long. If the reaction to it was missed from the calculations, that was a mistake. This war changed the society irreversibly; there could be little wonder why the speech is changing. And that's only the beginning. I completely lost my mind when the "Satanic Verses" was published and its author was making daily appearances on television. I thought: they lost their minds! How can this had happened? How deeply the hate should have penetrated the society to allow such open display of hatred? The people from the screen, however, were not blushing, they were reminding the viewers of the freedom of speech! The interviews with the author were constructed so cunningly that the hate looked legitimate. Fascists took turns at the table and spoke with great logic. Then, bombs started falling. The war, a most horrible one, started with the theatrical display of fire. I don't believe for a second that this has been forgotten. Well, if so, one must remember the mistake of throwing a giant electronically guided bomb through the chimney into the shelter with 500 mothers and their kids. The mistake was that the people in the shelter were thought to be some people planning anti-Semitic attack on Israel. As long as mistakes are repeated (repeated each day for years and years) "hate speech" should be expected; it probably cannot be stopped.

During his tenure at UCL one of Grant’s main ‘achievements’ has been to impose the liberal establishment’s dogma of multiculturalism and diversity on the institution. In reality this means preference for certain minorities at the expense of the majority and of other (non-preferred) minorities. In doing so he has created exactly the kind of environment in which the radicalisation of terrorists like Umar Abdulmutallab can occur and is in fact encouraged. The irony is that in doing so Grant has entirely abandoned the principle of liberal free-thinking on which UCL was originally founded. Now, in spite of having the results of his mismanagement of UCL put right in front of his face, Grant still refuses to accept that he has a problem.

As for his bleating about free speech, as is invariably the case with the liberal establishment, Grant’s principle of free speech excludes any views that are not part of the liberal consensus or are critical of it. Believe me, I have had direct experience of the reality of Grant’s interpretation of ‘free speech’.

The reputation of UCL can only benefit from his resignation.

Malcolm Grant is proud of the fact that UCL is a global centre for research and training in counter terrorism. I hope there are no islamists involved in this research.

Malcolm Grant is proud of the fact that UCL is a global centre for research and training in counter terrorism. I hope there are no islamists involved in this research.

The remark relating to pride was parodying Caughlin's obscure suggestion: "It is easy to imagine that the authorities at UCL took quiet pride in the fact that they had a radical Nigerian Muslim running their Islamic Society. You can’t get more politically correct than that?" I object to terrorism, I also object to it being used as a pretext for racist tirades by right-wing journalists.

Who does Malcolm Grant think he is fooling? Muslims who are concerned about the growth of Islamist hatemongering at UCL and many other Universities around the UK are not prepared to accept the pathetic slur of “Islamophobia” to shut us up in the way that it is designed to silence white liberal criticism. And if he thinks that a single outraged statement allows him to continue to remain blissfully ignorant of the Islamist activity that is going on under his nose at the UCL, he is gravely mistaken.

In full:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4423

Michael Pyshnov, you say: "I see only one answer to the various concerns expressed in these comments: as long as Israel, US and the other countries continue occupation and genocide in Islamic part of the world, it is not possible to prevent "hate speech"." Thank you for enlightening me - I was not aware that Islamist preaching for the beating of women, the killing of homosexuals, etcetera, is part of a counter-protest to US and Israeli foreign policy. You say you think such "hate speech" it will spread too beyond Muslims. I suppose, then, we can look forward to seeing brutal misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, opposition to free speech, etcetera becoming openly stated tenets of the 'liberal' 'left' 'peace' 'anti-war' brigade. Many of you have been heading in that direction for some time, and it will at least be good to have you out in the open so you can be scorned and taken on as the fascist fellow-travellers you are.

Yours is a rant. Are you by any chance Putin's spokeperson. Putin talks such nonsense until Chechnya topic comes up.

We are examining here extremism taking hold of a society in a top London University whose Provost is in complete denial citing freedom of Thoughts and Liberalism while an alumnus of his university attempted to blow up a plane full of passengers. Get serious or leave the blog.

Are you proud that Umar was one of the Alumini of UCL?

Malcolm Grant argues that intellectual freedom on campus cannot be compromised.

Is there no limit?

We are at war whether we like it or not. That we still have some freedoms left, despite the persistent and intrusive security measures, is simply that the state has not got around to removing them. However, if the Islamic war against the Infidel gets hotter, the exigencies of war will ensure that there is no freedom for anyone. We are getting perilously close to it even now.

This article is complete garbage.

Wasn't it UK academics who called for the banning of Israeli academics from UK "educational" institutions?

Meanwhile the genocidal activities against the Copts in Israel's neighbour, Egypt, by the Islamic Government there called for no such ban.

It would be unsurprising if most academics in Britain didn't actually know who the Copts are.

Freedom of thought? Please don't make me puke. Pseudo-intellectual holier-than-thouism is nearer the mark.

Stop Islaimisation Of Europe SIOE

I will apologize in advance for interjecting this seemingly unrelated issue into the discussion here, but I do think it points to part of the problem. I have been convicted in absentia of harassment for allegedly posting a website containing information on misconduct by a British university. The police have repeated conducted raids in the past week or so at such uncivilized hours as 4:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. at my house, and have traumatized my wife, all in an effort to apprehend me for my so-called crimes. This waste of policing power and resources is going on while fellows like Mr Abdulmutallab are on the loose wreaking true havoc and endangering lives of innocent people. If political dissent by those who are truly and genuinely attempting to serve the public interest is not tolerated by the authorities when it happens to "embarass" a public official, and if public resources are spent to silence such a dissenter, then who bears responsibility when people are killed by suicide bombers and other terrorist whose aim is to actually cause harm to the public interest? It's time to demand that our academic community leaders speak out against censorship and persecution of truthful free speech, and in favor of the use of police resources to fight genuine criminal acts. If we don't do all do this, then there will be nothing worthwhile about our society left to defend.

That's truly shocking Dr Fredrics. I think you should approach a paper like the Telegraph or the Times and let them know about this. Unfortunately, sections of the British police are now tools of the British state policy of appeasing Islamists, and this involves hounding and bullying innocent people who point this out. we all know what happened to the programme makers of Despatches Undercvoer mosque. We know they won damages in court but that no action was ever taken against the scum in the West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service who illegally hounded them.

Best of luck, Dr Fredrics. Do get this known by the national press as soon as possible.

I am proud to say I was an undergrad at UCL. It is a fine institution, well deserving of its global top ten ranking. I am deeply saddened that it has become the focal point of a media feeding frenzy. I remember, on occasion, when I was a student we would go and listen -- admittedly more out of celebrity interest than political interest -- to the likes of Tariq Ali, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, various IRA-sympathizers, Welsh separatists, gay rights advocates, and National Union of Mineworkers chairmen, both there and at other University of London campuses. Many of these speakers at that time earnestly advocated "struggle" and "overthrow" of various systems. Some media thought all this represented the utter corruption of my generation at taxpayers' expense, if not the end of civilization as we knew it. But it never made ME want to pick up a gun or a bomb. It did, however, expose me to views not usually heard by white middle-class welfare-state suburban London kids like me. It was the first time in my life, for example, that I actually met and talked in person with students from Belfast or South Yorkshire or Palestine. It was, in short, "an education" and one preparing us then in many ways for the kind of world we have today. It did not "radicalize" me, so I think the critics should look to somewhere else for how this complex and sad poisoning effect and conversion takes hold in a human being's mind and heart, rather than go for the easy scapegoat of an insitution. Malcolm Grant is right to call for an investigation and to continue to educate us all on the difficult balance that all places of open learning have to achieve. I wish him well and hope UCL can come out of this an even stronger institution and can continue to offer future students the kind of foundation it gave me.

@Stanislaw -- I have contacted a variety of papers, and no one will print anything, I suspect out of fear of reprisal. The THES covered the original charging, but has remained silent in respect of my "conviction" without right of representation in Court. Just as gag orders have been imposed on the British press on reporting of Parliamentary questions, self-censorship now seems to be de rigeur. What is needed is for academics to speak out publicly and loudly, and this includes not only rank and file lecturers, but also high level administrators, such as the likes of Prof Grant.

Dr Fredrics, I'm sorry to hear that. I suggest you contact the Harry's Place blog, if you haven't already. They might publicise this and some of their commenters might be able to provide helpful suggestions.

Dr. Grant is being disingenuous in how he feigns shock. Al Qaeda's similarity to the Baader Meinhoff gang has been well known for years now. Plenty of its officers have been upper class western-educated engineers. For example, perhaps he's heard of Osama Bin Laden?
Or Muhammad Atta?

Similarly, his denial of the extent of Islamist apologia for terrorism coming out of UCL is so preposterous it should be beneath him. And yet it isn't. Is there any figure lower than a college administrator?

Dr. Grant is being disingenuous in how he feigns shock. Al Qaeda's similarity to the Baader Meinhoff gang has been well known for years now. Plenty of its officers have been upper class western-educated engineers. For example, perhaps he's heard of Osama Bin Laden?
Or Muhammad Atta?

Similarly, his denial of the extent of Islamist apologia for terrorism coming out of UCL is so preposterous it should be beneath him. And yet it isn't. Is there any figure lower than a college administrator?

>> What induced this behaviour remains a mystery.

As others have said, there is a definite pattern emerging with ISoc Presidents at London-based universities: Yassin Nassari (Westminster, qassam blueprints); Waheed Zaman (Metropolitan, retrial for liquid fuel plot); third whose name I don't know, but would appreciate knowing.

>> He has not emerged from a background of deprivation and poverty. He came from one of Nigeria’s wealthiest families. He was privately educated, and to a high level. He gained admission to University College London,

Ah, right. So, now any lower-middle or working class students at UCL are to be considered more likely to be violent sociopaths (and let's not discuss those street urchins who don't even go to university).

Then again, Yassin Nassari did not complete his university degree so like Andreas Baader - one of the few Baader-Meinhoff members not brimming with the arrogance of education, and a petty criminal to boot - could be used to show that the lower classes and non-degree educated are just as likely to decide they have the power of life or death over the rest of us.

It's a genuine guess, but I suspect that the passengers on Flight 253 were not particularly wealthy or of high social status (otherwise they would have finished their travelling before Xmas Day). Yet, taking this article on face value, they would have been thought more likely to be violent sociopaths than someone whose upbringing would have afforded him a private jet... just as Baader-Meinhoff demonstrated their concern for the prolateriat by killing most railway workers and low-level civil servants.

Good one, Provost Grant.

To Stanislav. You say: "Thank you for enlightening me - I was not aware that Islamist preaching for the beating of women, the killing of homosexuals, etcetera, is part of a counter-protest to US and Israeli foreign policy." What you are saying is totally irrelevant to the protest against war. It is, however, relevant to the internal order in Islamic society and, relevant to the facts that in US hundreds of thousands of women are kept in jails, while in Moslem countries there is virtually no crime. ---------------- You say: "I suppose, then, we can look forward to seeing brutal misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, opposition to free speech, etcetera becoming openly stated tenets of the 'liberal' 'left' 'peace' 'anti-war' brigade." What is "brutal misogyny"? Is this speech or acts? If it's speech, you cannot forbid it. If it's acts, it's not misogyny but crimes. All that logic of yours is a dishonest logic which is trying to prohibit free speech by obscuring the borders between speech and crime. I do not accept that logic. -------------- You further tell me that I am not a person but a kind of a multitude. That again is a dishonest trick. ------------------
To "To Michael Pyshnov". I am not a Putin's spokesman, but I just love Putin, which is by the way completely irrelevant here. You know that this is irrelevant, but a honest, relevant discussion would clearly not leave you a winner. You further again ignore the matter discussed here - free speech, and next, you make it look as if the Provost defended the alleged attempted terrorism, not the free speech on the campus. Is this a honest method of discussion? I don't think so.

"I am setting up a full independent review of Mr Abdulmutallab’s time at UCL."

Let's have the names of those who will carry out the review so that they can be seen to be 'independent' and please tell us who will pay them so we can see that the funding has nothing to do with UCL or an affiliated organisation (which includes the government and other Universities).

Dr. Fredrics’ awful treatment supports the contention in my earlier post that the liberal establishment’s (and hence Grant’s) concept of free speech is limited to anything that accords with the liberal consensus and is not critical of it. The acceptance and promotion of radical Islam being positively embraced by the consensus. Anything outside that dogma is met with at best distain and at worst the kind of disproportionate state sponsored suppression that Dr. Fredrics describes.

@Stanislaw -- thank you for that additional suggestion, which I had not thought of. Fingers crossed that they and then others will pick up on this story. @Cassandra - thank you for your supportive comment. I only hope that you and others like yourself, as well as those in positions of high authority (assuming you're not a VC), such as Prof Grant, will begin to speak out loudly in order to ensure that others do not end up being repressed by the current system.

Speaking for myself - and regardless of the personal upset experienced - Dr Frederics' case (which can be found on Google) seems entirely unrelated to the motivations behind the toleration of Abdulmutallab et al. Those crazy academic kids, eh?

So what if this chap in 2008 was against the war in iraq, war in afghanistan and pro-shariah. As long as he did not convey any violent or murderous views, what could have any authority - whether it be university folk, government, or police - done about it??

Having those views are not illegal.

And i'm making a wider point here, not about the wacko Umar. But why is it ok to be a British-born white person and have objectionable views (BNP, EDL) and even be legitimised politically, whereas if you are brown and have objectionable views (Islamists) you should be criminalised?

Why does freedom of speech not apply to the brown folks objectionable views?

@ j.bro. 'But why is it ok to be a British-born white person and have objectionable views (BNP, EDL) and even be legitimised politically, whereas if you are brown and have objectionable views (Islamists) you should be criminalised? Why does freedom of speech not apply to the brown folks objectionable views?'

I think you will find, sir, that - in the real world - the freedom of speech for Islamists is sanctioned and that of the BNP is prosecuted, as records clearly show. Google Mr Griffin of the BNP for the actualtity.

Cassandra, I wholly agree. Freedom of speech is entirely acceptable in our present UK 'democracy' only as long as it is Left and Liberal.

There will shortly come a reaction, the likes of which I shudder to contemplate.

Mr Grant - do the job for which the country pays you.

This is all very interesting and, as with most debates worth having, there are numerous good points made from multiple perspectives. However, as a general member of the British public, I have to say that liberal thought and expression should always-but-always condemn violence. From what I am reading the UCL Islamic Society, alongside other such societies on other UK university campuses, are not condemning nearly loudly enough the threat of violence to peace-keeping British citizens. As a result, it is understandable that there are many who resent such factional activity. Of course there are arguments to be made about UK violence in the Middle East, but in these despotic countries truly democratic opinion is not allowed. This is a democractic country and its inhabitants would greatly appreciate that the liberty of free speech afforded to all sectors of society be observed without regressing to violent imagery and behaviour. Personally, I believe that if any non-dom threatens the safety of any UK citizen, then that non-dom should be deported. Violence is violence, war is war. More importantly, peace is peace.

"I think you will find, sir, that - in the real world - the freedom of speech for Islamists is sanctioned and that of the BNP is prosecuted, as records clearly show"

Is that why Nick Griffin is given a platform on Question Time and has the right to lead a racist political party? While a political islamic group like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (has noxious views but completely non-violent) is not given a platform on similar programmes and while the Conservatives threatenin to ban the group. Why doesn't Cameron threaten to ban the BNP?

Answers on this anomaly be nice 5050online.

Distant observer- i know many muslims condemn those acts loudly, i think you and the media just don't choose to hear it.

How many more times do you want muslims to condemn - everyone knows it's wrong! 99% of pedophiles are middle-aged white men, why don't we ask someone from their demographic to condemn it loudly every time there is a high profile case?

As an employee of UCL I receive the virtually weekly newsletters written by the Provost to all UCL staff and students. UCL is the most intellectually distinguished and mindfully progressive body I have ever had the opportunity to work for. Malcolm Grant is the excellent core that guides our progress and always accepts full responsibility where it is appropriate. Detractors of our methods appear to have little knowledge of the considerable benefits gained from rational and intelligent dialogue and debate - many of whom are quite happy to display this lack of knowledge in their comments.

@Paul. There are parents of students who have aired their experiences, and you dismiss them at peril . They are not detractors. Denial is not the right approach. Do not bury the problems of UCL in sand and turn on those who report them. They know as much about the institution as any staff knows. In the name of promoting Freedom of Thought extremism is allowed to flourish in a section of UCL students. You see Paul, students have choices these days and they do not have to come to UCL to study. Instead of denial and platitudes about free speech , UCL should fix the problem flagged by many. Ignoring them will destroy the institution. If that is the way you and your provost choose go ahead.

Respectfully I disagree with your assertion that parents of students know as much about the institution as staff. Those who know most are those who work or study on campus day in and day out. When parents raise concerns we do not bury our heads in the sand, but we investigate their concerns fully. Some people will always be left disatisfied, but the Provost is highly active in 'knowing' the life on the institution. As the Provost has stated investigations will be made, and until the time that there is real evidence that students are being radicalised at UCL those who put forward their opinions assigning guilt and blame to UCL should realise that it is just that: their opinions.

@Tp Paul. How do you know that students will not come to study at UCL because of what a misguided former student attempted to do?
Given the quality of UCL education, if few pupils decide to stay away, many other students from all over the World will queue to take their place. Many of these students will like Omar pay $25000 and more a year for the privilege of studying at UCL.

@Adam. You are deluded in thinking that people will ignore the extremism in UCL student society . Many others like Umar will queue to come to enjoy Free Speech and there lies that downward slide of UCL.

Whatever you say to sanitise the extremism in certain sections of UCL Society
I am afraid is a spin. It needs no enquiry to see what is obvious that UMar ran an extremist Islamic Society thanks to Grant's freedom of Thought fomentation. Go on look for evidence when the islamic society starts its meeting. It is self destruction based on denial.

As Alumni of UCL, i thought i would forward the above to my father, who works closely with most of the leaders of the Russel Group of universities in this country. I thought his respose to somewhere along my line of thought.... just better put!

"I am glad that the high standard of pastoral care stopped you being radicalised. I doubt if you would have been succesful if you had stood for president of the Islamic Society ... (though not being muslim shouldn't be a barrier in liberal democracy). I always thought it was the Vice Chancellors and administrations of British Universities who were the true cause of the surge of Islamic Fundementalism - they should be on a register along with the nursery and primary school teachers and come to think of it everybody else who is an apparent threat to national security (lets implant microchips into everyone at birth that'll put a stop to all this nonsense - especially if you incorporate a small explosive charge).

I'm glad to see that we in America are not alone in this war on terror and that we are also burneded with similar clueless members of academia.

Malcom Grant doesn't appear to know what goes on in his own community. He like some of his counterparts in the United Strates want proof positive before he determines that certain individuals intend to do us harm.

I have great adminration for the Brits and wish them well.
a quote from one of your great leaders is attached to my compuiter screen

"We slep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" - W.C.


Regards
Bob C.

It is enjoyable for those expressing their opinions liberally on a forum are the first to seek the censorship of one of the most liberal institutions in the country. UCL was founded for those who sought a secular education, take a look at our alumni and it will prove my point....our main focus should be Yemen....the precedent set in the motions set forth by many writers on this blog would lead to something close to the mccarthyism...the fear mongering of the right makes you feel secure...its an illusion. Your scapegoating of a student population who are currently enjoying a fantastic education is worrying and upsetting. UCL is not a hotbed of terrorism, this individual was twisted and moulded by fundamentalists, your far right impregnable view of islam is polarising elements of society and creating the very enemies you are seeking to destroy. Stop, now, liberalism isn't flexible in its application, your freedom is only as valid as mine, stop infringing it!

Ppl, don't you understand?! Look at the roots, look at those who benefited most at the end of the day! Its Penthagon, CIA, FBI and British secret secrvices. They grown Hisb-ut-Tahrir, Taleban and others. Than they allow blasts and attacks to hapen even they received threats warniongs (just recall Umar's father). Finally we have more budget spending, and all yr attention is shifted to poor Macolm, teachers, students. DON'T BE NAIVE

UNFORTUNATELY TO ADMIT, IT'S A "BLACK HUMOR" BUT UMAR IS A CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR CIA.
I have no doubts that CIA and Penthagon w'd receive enough budget for many yrs ahead, while the media and public will be agonizing debates around Islam, Freedoms, behaviorism, religion, and all other -isms and scholar staff...including Malcolm's media-"fight"

@UCL History. What a load of deluded nonsense. I too am an alumnus and have seen UCL tolerating extremism in the Islamic Society for too long. The enquiry will be a white wash like the 'Hutton enquiry'. Why can't the Provost release the members' names in the enquiry committee, what is there to hide?
It is Freedom of Information as much sacrosanct as the Freedom of Thought. Let him do it NOW.

@Johnson: UCL does not favour any of the minorities in terms of tutoring, lecturing or support they are offered (there exist the support groups that deal with bunch of different issues and are open to everyone).

Maybe you meant that the societies do not address all of the ethnic and religious groups? In which case, please acknowledge that Union is ran by students, not by the provost. if there's a need for a society, it's up to students - and not to UCL - to set up one.

you said your daughter 'fortunately did not attend any society meetings, put her head down to work and graduate' In which case, she had had probably the most boring university time she could possibly wish for.

I don't know about any extremist actions ran by Islamic society at UCL. In the contrary, they are very active in a positive way. However, I'm neither muslim, nor from a wealthy family, so maybe I'm not in their extreme-islamists-target group.

To all of you: please be more careful in assessing the situation.There has been no evidence so far, that UCL radicalized Umar, it might have as well happened long before or after he graduated. Don't blow too much hot air into this case, until you actually have some facts, not just your assumptions! Seriously, there's been just a lot of yelling and not many constructive ideas have been brought up.

If it was neo-Nazi whites doing their thing at UCL, the Guardian-reading couscous-munching knobs on this forum would be creaming their pants with excitement at the thought of protest marches, boycotts etc. Their self-proclaimed "liberalism" would go straight out the window as they fought amongst themselves to show who was the most "progressive" and "liberal". Because these racist, homophobic, misoygnist, antisemitic scum are Muslim immigrants (and therefore, by definition, "victims" of being permitted to live in the most liberal country in the world) or their descendants, the handwringers and self-haters involve themselves in a ritual of denial and delusion. Let's hope they are eagerly devouring Yasmin Alibhai-Brown or Polly Toynbee's heartrending columns as some Islamofascist sat next to them blows his bollocks off with exploding knickers. Then, finally, you lot will wake up.

@Morgan. How arrogant to dismiss the experience of a student and her parent. Obviously you have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. What would a student do when an Islamic society is spewing hatred and runs a week long 'hate war' compaign, and many of her Islamic class mates spend much too much time in running this week of hatred. In your opinion, my non-muslim daughter should have joined these extremists in shouting hate slogans so as to get her time in the university most excitable and interesting. Yes, these societies are run by students who are studying in UCL and these meetings take place within this university premises. If the Provost is not concerned and washes off his responsibilities then the governors should act, and act firmly.
Finally, Morgan, how much you know about the 2007 'hate war' week ran by Umar? It appears you were not aware of it, and hence has lost credibility in commenting the way you do. Very convenient for you and others who want to divert attention from UCL to point at Yemen.
We all know tthat this enquiry set up by this Provost will be a whitewash. Let him name the person leading this enquiry if he has nothing to hide.

@ Johnson - you seem to be implying that had your daughter joined a society whlst at UCL it would automatically have been to carry out some sort of "extremist hate slogan shouting"? Thanks for clearing that up, I always wondered why the waterpolo society were shouting about. The medics society, god forbid what they are getting up to? How about the Christian Society... just because they are at UCL you imply they are trying to resurect burning of Catholics at the stake? come to think of it the catholic society must then be orchastrating the opposite... or is it just the muslims that are a problem? In an echo of some of the less "extreme" and more sensible responses on this feed, you are part of faction of this country that gathers all muslims under one banner and acuses them of the actions of what a small group people believe. if the UCL Muslim society is this extremist hot bed we better watch out as i am sure that it has not only had one member! we best stop people from attending UCL in case the societies money starts being spent on sending the muslim society on field trips to Yemen.

@anon. We are talking about the ex-president of one society who became a 'crotch bomber'. We haven't heard the leader of Waterpolo/Medics Society carrying a device anywhere with the intention of blowing up a plane full of passengers. You do not have even the courage to assume a name and your arguments are meant to say everything is fine in UCL Islamic Society and we should move on. I think I will be giving credibility to you by arguing with you any more, who has presumably no experience of sending offspring to UCL and your posting is meant to support Prof Grant's deluded argument. In any case a new govt this year will be forced to act.

perhaps more clarity in your argument would avoid such assuptions that you put across that you are pleased you daughter didnt join ANY societies and put her head down to work rather than becoming involved in anything extra curricular?
I agree with you that we are talking about ONE ex president of ONE society that has caused this problem. no one is defending what he has done - however it seems to be assumed that now the rest of the ucl muslim society (and muslim societies at all other universities it would seem) have to be sensored more than any other society at the university or ultimately made to close their doors? - and this isnt going to encourage extreme reactions how? - history shows that those who are repressed and punished by people like you for their views or the views of others who are named in the same "group" as them, will react in a way as to with hold their views rather than let them be stamped out! whether this be through peaceful protest or extremist actions.
I dont need experience of sending offspring to ucl in order to have an opinion on this matter which spreads far outside the realms of just being about this one university. Furthermore I attended UCL for 5 years and have spoken at length with my parents, who do have the experience of sending a child to UCL (to which you give so much credibility), please see my fathers response under LH further up in this forum!

The best response is here:
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1262710659_1.pdf

The best response is here:
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1262710659_1.pdf

None of this would be happening if the Isrealis would just get out of Gaza and the West Bank and let the Palestinian refugees return to their homes in Isreal. Terrorism to ensures the continued support of the west for Isreal and especially finanical support from the US. This annoys me because it costs me tax dollars, makes travelling difficult and inconvenient, and occasionally causes loss of life.

Thoose who sit smugly as if UCL Islamic Society is a 'normal society' like @Anon, are nothing but a bunch of peole who deny the truth staring at them.
It is time for the govt to appoint a commission to sreiously look into the extremism in student communities in London Universities like UCL.

Blimey, the comments on here are pretty worrying, and many show a complete lack of understanding of what a university is for.

We've had attacks on formenting freedom of thought, as if it's a bad thing, and warnings that it will lead to the downfall of the university, rather than being the entire basis of what a university is for, and attacks on platitudes about free speech (glad to see that you're enjoying yours though).

There have been demands for the monitoring of all student societies either by the university or by the CPS who, apparently, should video-tape every single meeting where there might be 'hate-speech'. Aside from the privacy and civil liberty issues it's entirely unworkble; who will do the recording? And what will stop the societies simply holding 'informal' meetings off campus? And who will pay for it all? Not to mention the fact that the CPS are hardly going to be keen on wading through thousands of hours of footage every week (just think how many societies might have to be monitored and how many meetings they will hold, multiplied by the number of universities in the country, every single Islamic society, or society from a Muslim-majority country, the political groups like Respect, the SWP, the Stop the War Coalition groups, any group that discusses current affairs, single issue groups about Guntanamo, the War on Terror, Gaza, Palestine, etc, and also the Jewish groups which often hold meetings that attract a wide audience, including Muslims); and that's just assuming that you restrict the monitoring to Muslims, which is a problematic assumption itself.

Also, who defines 'hate-speech'? And what counts as anti-semitism, as an earlier contributor said that action had not been taken to deal with anti-semitism. Is it criticism of Israeli government policy, as some of the Israeli hawks insist? Or criticism of the creation/existence of the State of Israel, which would catch ultra-Orthodox Jews who also oppose its creation? Is it attacks on western liberal democracy (bye bye Daily Mail, which thinks that liberalism is evil, and, more to the point, would prevent precisely this type of debate where people are arguing for the restriction of basic democratic liberties)? The only hate speech I experienced at university was from a neo-con and member of the Conservative party who told me, in a debate about the Iraq war, that he wished I had been blown up by a suicide bomber when I went on an anti-war march as it would teach us lefties a lesson (I knew him well enough to know that he meant it as well); despite that I didn't report it and would have been pretty shocked if he got expelled, his freedom of speech extends to his right to make a complete idiot of himself and discredit his arguments.

The type of restrictions proposed would also seriously hamper academic freedom and research. I study International Relations, and particularly war studies and just war theory. There's only so far that an abstract philosophical and theoretical discussion can get you, eventually it needs to be linked to real cases; that means thinking about when is it right for a group of people to take up arms and to fight and who is a legitimate target in such a war. It's also sometimes valuable to play Devil's advocate or take an extreme position in seminars and debates just to test arguments and think about issues. None of this would be possible with monitoring and reporting of potentially extremist views.

Freedom of thought is worth fighting for - sapere aude.

@berg.....oh I see it now, the only reason speakers such as Abu Usamah (who wasn't allowed to speak at UCL, but did speak to students at Westminster and Brunel in 2009) wants to see gay men killed is because the Israelis are in Gaza. Thanks for clearing that one up for us all. There's me thinking this was just simple homophobic hate.

Referencing the source article and its author, it is important to remember that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was arrested on Christmas Day for the attempted bombing of an aircraft on a flight to Detroit from Amsterdam. Attempting to kill others in this manner, and most others, is evil. Even his father could not abide with what he was involved in. So we have a person considered by most people to be attempting a reprehensible act. In society that should not normally lead to everyone of similar, religion, race, nationality or ethnic origin as him being slurred as having the same abhorrent malice aforethought.

Malcolm Grant seems a remarkably able and brave vice chancellor. Logic would suggest one cannot get a centuries old traditionalist UK university into the World Top 5 within 5 years without having some advanced leadership and management skills (see http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=430&pubCode=1&navcode=105 to chart UCL's rise) .
Ironically, in most countries, being able to achieve world top status without access to multibillion dollar endowments would be considered very laudable. But worryingly some parts of the UK are famed for the idiosyncratic quirk of pulling down anyone who gets too good at what they do. Heck look at the castigation they publicly heap on their kids in the press each year for getting better GCSE and A Level results. I digress...

Why do I say he is brave? let's suspend disbelief and recollect that the THE is not a populist rag picked up on the subway; it is actually a prestigious and erudite publication for those involved in Higher Education. The contributors on this page are likely to be from Higher Education (let's face it others are very unlikely to happen across the THE and subject each other to the type of opprobrium demonstrated in some of the posts; even gangster rappers and young people have better grasp of netiquette than some of the superior yet inflammatory posts in relation to this article). In posting his article Malcolm Grant would have been aware of the levels of extreme intolerance he might be subjected to. If you don't believe me read some of the posts. But again, you do not get to create a global University out of a UK Russell Group institution without having the strength of character to invite diversity and cosmopolitan contributions into an 'old' university. Some elements in President Grant's university are possibly at that end of the Russell Group spectrum that probably sees little business or societal value whatsoever in human diversity and probably views it only as of a cause for celebration; akin perhaps to a carnival or soccer team coming to town. Malcolm Grant being, what appears to be a forward thinker, in a subtly intolerant environment has taken the time to remind us what even a junior high school kid could articulate –
'Freedom of speech but don't incite hatred or break the law or else...'

Once upon a time that was what we prided ourselves on, now it seems some aspects of academia have distilled into high browed individuals revelling in the anonymity of the web to foment intolerance in the name of intellectual superiority and walking cheques called students/parents (overseas ones are welcome in this context).

Hurrah for those like the UCL VC who strike a blow for a world in which everyone can contribute within the law.
And let's look for an end to those who would use bombs, intolerance and hatred to press their points.

I don't know what we are all worrying about, the Koran specifically says that if you use the name of Islam to persue personal grievances, then your soul, your children's souls and their children's souls will burn in hell. It follows that either this guy has committed his own soul to hell, as well as his offspring, or its his parents' or grandparents' fault for leaving him no other option than the hell-burning thing. Islam is pretty aggressive in burning its false followers to hellfire you know.

"Robert L Cerra
I'm glad to see that we in America are not alone in this war on terror and that we are also burneded with similar clueless members of academia. He like some of his counterparts in the United Strates want proof positive before he determines that certain individuals intend to do us harm."

Well Robert, as a UCL academic and a Northern Irishman I can perhaps thank the USA for no longer funding the (much longer) terrorist war in this country - the IRA. This gleaned support from Capitol Hill continuously, with judges refusing to extradite escaped CONVICTED terrorists to the UK for "political reasons'. 3000 people died in that conflict, about the same number as 9/11, so excuse me if I don't take advice from the USA on academic freedom.

The newspapers carrying reports that the bomber was recruited by Al-Qeda in London. That is very believable. I tend to agree with those who point out extremism in the campus.

@j.bro 4 January, 2010. BNP, in the person of Mr Griffin, HAS been prosecuted for hate speech. Check your facts, please . His appearance on QT did not produce any hate speech (I watched it), Again, check your facts. You may not be aware that this country is a democracy and that he was invited to take part by the BBC.

HuT is not part of a democratic system. It seeks a Universal Caliphate (of which, I suspect, you wholeheartedly approve?) and the analogy is poor. It represents religious fascism. However, its adherents have been given frequent opportunity to air their views on TV, which is why I know quite a lot about it.

I have not heard of Mr Cameron threatening to ban it, but I would welcome a reference for my own information. Please supply this.

Kind Regards

I attended UCL 2000-2003 and even back then we all knew that the Islamic Society were a hateful organisation, openly distributing leaflets stating the evils of homosexuals/jews/women. Malcolm Grant has is head in the sand. Being against Islamism is not Islamaphobic, that would be like saying being againts Facism is anti-German.

Can I just point out, for the benefit of some of the commenters, that the problems/persection of Dr Howard Fredrics is nothing to so with Islam? A quick google-search will reveal that, but some here seem to be presuming that he is being persecuted by police for such matters.

Malcolm Grant has a nice 'tache.

Has anyone read todays Sunday Times article by Minette Marin about the Islamic Society at UCL, and Professor Grant's denial of what is going on there ? it is truly shocking.!

My daughter was at UCL in the 1990's , the university sounds as if it's changed out of all recogition. She's really shocked by these latest revelations, and will have her answers ready the next time UCL phones her asking for money !

I feel that much of this blog has descended into a slanging match. As a counsellor working in a UK University, I think it would be appropriate to tease out some of the issues.

Young people and perhaps especially young men often seek out and align themselves to a cause. Young people are likely to be more "impressionable" than those of greater years. Their views however are no less worth listening to or trying to understand.

It is difficult to remain a radical all one's life and few manage it - Tony Benn being one who has, and whom I had the great privilege of hearing and seeing at a debate when I was a student.

Higher Education is, in many ways a "cultural export" and as such, there is I think an implicit expectation that all should emerge from it with positive views about the institution and the country and value system that makes such an experience possible. That is a sort of cultural imperialism and the implied expectation is unreasonable.

There will always be those that emerge from HE angry and frustrated, having learnt more about "the system". It is possible that the student in question did learn how to get around the security systems, through his taught programme. There is a debate to be had as to whether all knowledge is morally neutral. I recall similar debate around the smashing of atoms, which discovery lead to the atomic bomb.

Not everyone is enamoured of the cultural and other values of the devloped west, and who can blame them? Not all those disillusioned with the west are from the Islamic tradition. How people cope with their disillusion varies enormously, but the sticking plaster of medication for anxiety and depression is not an answer to the malaise that many perceive the west to be suffering from. How to achieve a just society and enable our ever increasing population to co-exist peacefully, with dwindling resources and the (apparently) single answer from our politicians that development will get us out of the mess we have created is the real, larger challenge.

It comes as little surprise to me that some will resort to the more radical and revolutionary approach of destrustion rather than working creatively. Freud's view was that there is, throughout our lives a tension between the "Life Force" and the "Death Force". It is little surprise that some young people, "even" intelligent and educated ones feel that life holds little promise for them, and that to die in what they may see as a "just cause", and, within their frame of reference, in a way that will ensure their memory (or notoriety) lives on is (for the) a valid way to "fulfill" themselves or their potential as they may see it.

Universities are a a bit of a microcosm of society at large. We face significant challenges both within universities and the wider society. It is vital not to descend to the level of draconian laws and removal of liberties as a response to such challenges. To do so is to do the extremists' work for them, without listening to or understanding what their message can and must tell us if we are going to be able to resolve the paradox of how to survive with too many people on too few resources.

5050 online. I don't need to check any facts. But i suggest you read more carefully before you start typing ignorantly out of fury.

I'm not talking about "hate speech." I'm talking about objectionable views. Talking about the Caliphate is not illegal. So Why threaten to ban it? A simple google search and you will find Cameron has asked for a ban REPEATEDLY for a few years now. I think you should check your own facts..but i'll help you out: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/87125-cameron-seeks-hate-preachers-ban

BNP we know is a racist organisation. Unless of course you (with all the other BNP supports) wish to disingenuously disagree. It has many objectionable views. Why not threaten to ban it? Let's remember until recently, it's constitution was ILLEGAL as it did not allow anyone non-white to join. So it's been illegal for 20 years and no one called it to be banned; certainly not Cameron!

It proves my earlier point. You can be British born, white and have objectionable views but not British, born and brown. That's why the wackos at Islam4UK are banned and criticised for suggesting they will march at Wooten Basset (accusing them of "causing social unrest"). While the social unrest caused by the wackos from EDL is passed off as "freedom of speech."

Firstly, I will declare my interest as a First Year UCL Student. I find it quite absurd to suggest that the University is somehow complicit in the radicalisation of its students, especially those in the Islamic Society. There are plenty of means by which preachers of hatred throughout the Muslim world deliver their message to young, easily influenced Muslims. The hideous generalisation that because a former UCL student and Islamic Society president attempted to commit an act of terror, the University as a whole must be involved. Moreover, I find the hipocrisy of commenters like "Confucious" incredible. Anyone who has been at UCL knew that the Islamic society was conducting itself in a nefarious way - as they claim - should have gathered evidence and reported this to the Vice-Provost or Provost at the time. The responsibility does not fall to the seenior figures in the University alone, but the entire University community, to root out extremism.

"I find the hipocrisy of commenters like "Confucious" incredible. Anyone who has been at UCL knew that the Islamic society was conducting itself in a nefarious way - as they claim - should have gathered evidence and reported this to the Vice-Provost or Provost at the time"
I will declare my interest as ab alumnus and a tax paper.
Interesting Mr Evans, that you do not find that the statement of the Provost who is deluded in thinking that Free thoughts only is what UCL has been doing and so saying is comfortably closing the eyes and ears. Yes indeed, The Hate Week was a simple Freedom of Thoughts event!!
I think you need a bit of an education more as you naively thinki that it is the responsibility of others to point out the extremism in the student society that conducts activities in the campus that the Provost is managing.