Teaching About Terrorism: University of Buckingham - Revision history

David at 12:34, 15 September 2010

2010-09-15T12:34:52Z

Steven Harkins: /* Legal criticism of Anti-Terrorism Legislation */

2010-09-07T15:58:13Z

Legal criticism of Anti-Terrorism Legislation

Steven Harkins: /* Vetting University Students */

2010-09-07T15:51:52Z

Vetting University Students

Steven Harkins: /* Vetting University Students */

2010-09-07T15:41:32Z

Vetting University Students

Melissa Jones: /* Radicalisation in University */

2010-09-07T15:36:52Z

Radicalisation in University

Melissa Jones: /* ID Cards */

2010-09-07T15:34:44Z

ID Cards

Melissa Jones: /* Terrorism expertise in the media */ typos

2010-09-07T15:33:59Z

Terrorism expertise in the media: typos

Steven Harkins: /* Radicalisation in University */

2010-09-07T15:33:12Z

Radicalisation in University

Steven Harkins: /* Radicalisation in University */

2010-09-07T15:29:16Z

Radicalisation in University

Steven Harkins: /* Radicalisation in University */

2010-09-07T15:28:38Z

Radicalisation in University

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 15 September 2010
Line 57:		Line 57:
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>
		+	[[Category:Teaching About Terrorism]]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :Human rights and global peace are at stake. We all recognise the importance of safety and security, but this debate is all too frequently degraded and hijacked by xenophobia packaged as justifiable fear. A new and virulent strain of "reds under the beds" hysteria has taken root. This plague is a danger to rational informed debate and to human rights. We must, like John Proctor in the Salem witch trials, stand firm<ref>Susan Edwards, Call off the witch hunts, ''Times Higher Education Supplement'', 30-April-2009</ref>.
 ==Notes==
 <references/>

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Glees argues that universities are 'safe havens' for terrorists and that 'the reason our universities still largely refuse to accept that students' visas might be a security risk is only too clear. In part it has to do with cash. There are around 330,000 overseas students in Britain who, it is claimed, bring some pounds 10 billion to the economy. Vice-chancellors fear that a reputation for vetting prospective students would deter them'. Glees argues that the consequences of this may be a terrorist attack<ref>Anthony Glees, Commentary; Universitites are seen as safe havens, ''The Telegraph'', 10-April-2009</ref>.
 ==Notes==
 <references/>

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 In April 2009, [[Anthony Glees]] argued on ''National Public Radio'' that whether these suspects are guilty or not, checks on foreign students coming into Britain are simply not stringent enough, adding 'the government should insist that universities do not admit people without first running their names past the government'<ref>Michelle Norris (Host), U.K. Counterterrorism Chief Resigns, ''National Public Radio'', 9-April-2009</ref>.
 ==Notes==
 <references/>

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ===Radicalisation in University===
-In January 2009 [[Anthony Glees]], the Director of the [[Buckingham University Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies]]argued, in a letter to ''The Guardian'', that 'universities should not be sites of 'truly free debate' where that debate would lead people to want to undermine or overthrow our democratic society or attack, harm or terrorise individuals'<ref>Anthony Glees, Free Speech, ''The Guardian'', 27-January-2009</ref>. Glees goes on to argue that:
+In January 2009 [[Anthony Glees]], the Director of the [[Buckingham University Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies]] argued, in a letter to ''The Guardian'', that 'universities should not be sites of 'truly free debate' where that debate would lead people to want to undermine or overthrow our democratic society or attack, harm or terrorise individuals'<ref>Anthony Glees, Free Speech, ''The Guardian'', 27-January-2009</ref>. Glees goes on to argue that:
 :'there are three rather different questions here. First, whether words are, or can be, weapons; second, if they are, whether universities should control their use - and third, whether universities still breed 'respect for evidence and new ideas' in any case. History answers the first: words used by visitors to campuses or by dons with political agendas can be very dangerous weapons. If the price of their pitch is radicalisation or terrorism, it is too high'.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===ID Cards===
-In 1993 [[Dick Kemm]] from the University of Buckingham argued, in a letter to [[The Times]] that due to the [[IRA]]'s mainland bombing campaign the UK government should introduce ID cards. He argued that 'the state should assume responsibility for issuing a card, made to a high standard, incorporating a photo, signature and identification capable of computer recognition'<ref>Dick Kemm, Anti-terrorist measures, ''The Times'', 5-May-1993</ref>
+In 1993 [[Dick Kemm]] from the University of Buckingham argued, in a letter to [[The Times]] that due to the [[IRA]]'s mainland bombing campaign the UK government should introduce ID cards. He argued that 'the state should assume responsibility for issuing a card, made to a high standard, incorporating a photo, signature and identification capable of computer recognition'<ref>Dick Kemm, Anti-terrorist measures, ''The Times'', 5-May-1993</ref>.
 ===9/11 Response===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Terrorism expertise in the media==
-Scholars from the [[University of Buckingham]] appear reguarly in the UK media offering expertise in terrorism related matters.
+Scholars from the [[University of Buckingham]] appear regularly in the UK media offering expertise in terrorism related matters.
 ===ID Cards===
-In 1993 [[Dick Kemm]] from the University of Buckingham argued, in a letter to [[The Times]] that due to the [[IRA]]'s mainland bombing campaign the UK governemnt should introduce ID cards. He argued that 'the state should assume responsibility for issuing a card, made to a high standard, incorporating a photo, signature and identification capable of computer recognition'<ref>Dick Kemm, Anti-terrorist measures, ''The Times'', 5-May-1993</ref>
+In 1993 [[Dick Kemm]] from the University of Buckingham argued, in a letter to [[The Times]] that due to the [[IRA]]'s mainland bombing campaign the UK government should introduce ID cards. He argued that 'the state should assume responsibility for issuing a card, made to a high standard, incorporating a photo, signature and identification capable of computer recognition'<ref>Dick Kemm, Anti-terrorist measures, ''The Times'', 5-May-1993</ref>
 ===9/11 Response===
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ===Kazakstan===
-In 2007 Proffessor [[Dennis O'Keeffe]] of the [[University of Buckingham]] praised Kazakhstan because 'The country has committed itself to the struggle against international terrorism.' According to the Hindustan Times 'This, he said, might relate to the fact Kazakhstan had avoided parasitic status by taking the initiative in forging its own development model'<ref>Asian News International, Yeleukenov says Kazakhstan would play active role in international, regional peace and security, ''Hindustan Times'', 27-October-2007</ref>.
+In 2007 Professor [[Dennis O'Keeffe]] of the [[University of Buckingham]] praised Kazakhstan because 'The country has committed itself to the struggle against international terrorism.' According to the Hindustan Times 'This, he said, might relate to the fact Kazakhstan had avoided parasitic status by taking the initiative in forging its own development model'<ref>Asian News International, Yeleukenov says Kazakhstan would play active role in international, regional peace and security, ''Hindustan Times'', 27-October-2007</ref>.
 ===Radicalisation in University===

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Glees argues that 'the relentless search for money, particularly from Arab and Islamic states but also from the government (whose 'initiatives' make state-funded institutions bob to every half-baked DIUS scheme) has skewed and will skew the research and teaching they undertake'<ref>Anthony Glees, Free Speech, ''The Guardian'', 27-January-2009</ref>. He goes on to say that 'Free speech is also curtailed in universities by the law of libel and the Terrorism Act 2006. This makes it a criminal offence to directly or indirectly incite or encourage others to commit acts of terrorism (including the glorification of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications). Rightly so'. He concludes by arguing:
-:''Liberty', not for the first time, appears to set the rights of protesters, for example those calling for the beheading of those who published the (nasty) cartoons of Muhammed, higher than the rights of those against whom they were protesting.Our universities are better - and safer - for agreeing to ban extremists from campuses; the NUS 'no platform policy' which excludes and marginalises racists whether from the extremes of fascism or Islamism is both excellent and ethical. In theory, academics will cheer for Voltaire (who famously said 'I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'). It seems to encapsulate what functioning democracies and universities should be about. But in reality things are no longer so simple. Free speech has been used to destroy the free speech of others and to fight for the right of your enemies to destroy you is simply suicidal. For Britain to be democratic, civilised and inclusive, universities must leave some things unsaid'<ref>Anthony Glees, Free Speech, ''The Guardian'', 27-January-2009</ref>.
+:'Liberty', not for the first time, appears to set the rights of protesters, for example those calling for the beheading of those who published the (nasty) cartoons of Muhammed, higher than the rights of those against whom they were protesting.Our universities are better - and safer - for agreeing to ban extremists from campuses; the NUS 'no platform policy' which excludes and marginalises racists whether from the extremes of fascism or Islamism is both excellent and ethical. In theory, academics will cheer for Voltaire (who famously said 'I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it'). It seems to encapsulate what functioning democracies and universities should be about. But in reality things are no longer so simple. Free speech has been used to destroy the free speech of others and to fight for the right of your enemies to destroy you is simply suicidal. For Britain to be democratic, civilised and inclusive, universities must leave some things unsaid'<ref>Anthony Glees, Free Speech, ''The Guardian'', 27-January-2009</ref>.
 ==Notes==
 <references/>