Imagine that an active member of Blood and Honour travelled to Eastern Europe in order to start up a chapter of his neo Nazi movement, and ended up in prison for a few years. Imagine that upon his release, the neo Nazi secured for himself a teaching post at the London School of Economics, where he not only taught “the history of Germany, 1933-45”, but also set up a Brothers’ Circle for those of his students who shared his political perspective. Imagine that his unsavoury politics were then exposed by a liberal broadsheet, and when interviewed, he proudly defended his views.
What would the reaction of the Left be to such a man? How would the University, his employer, react? What action would anti-racist organisations take?
This is a rhetorical question. Consider the case of Frank Ellis, a professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies, who pushed the notion that “race” influences intelligence. He was suspended, disciplined, and eventually let go, with the hounds yapping at his heels.
By contrast, let’s look at the defence at LSE of Reza Pankhurst, a member of the clerical fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist, sectarian and totalitarian Hizb ut Tahrir who was hired to teach “nationalism and revolution in the Arab world”. His specialist subject, one might say.
The story starts with a Socialist Workers Party supporting student called Estelle Cooch, who proposed the following motion in support of Reza Pankhurst, in conjunction with a student called Scott Macdonald. It is not clear what Macdonald’s role in this motion was. It is possible that he is the the same Scott Macdonald who is the LSE’s LGBT Officer, and Chair of the Lib Dem’s youth wing, London Liberal Youth. I am not certain.
‘Defend the LSE community- Stop the Islamophobic witch hunt’
Proposer: Estelle Cooch 200701725
Seconder: Scott Macdonald 200802234
Union notes:
1) LSE is a multiracial and multicultural institution with students from diverse backgrounds and nationalities.
2) This week The Times newspaper and others chose to publish allegations about one of LSE’s post-graduate students Reza Pankhurst, linking him to “new concerns about Islamist radicalisation on campus”.
3) A rise in Islamophobic attacks including: four Muslim students stabbed and others attacked at City University, the burning to the ground of a mosque in the West Midlands on Boxing Day and electoral breakthroughs by the fascist BNP.
Union believes:
1) LSE’s diversity is its strength.
2) LSE should be an environment where everyone feels safe, welcome and free from prejudice and bigotry
3) No one should be subject to a media witch hunt not least a student who endured 3 years of imprisonment and torture in Egypt before returning to study and teach at LSE.
4) These stories threaten to fuel the victimisation of Muslims that has increased dramatically in the last year. In our universities staff have been pressured to spy on Muslim students and academic freedoms have been attacked under the so called terror laws.
5) We reject the scapegoating of all Muslim students and are united in opposition to the victimisation and hounding of our colleagues.
Union resolves:
1) To back and issue the following statement that has been signed by numerous societies, staff and individual students.
“LSE is a multiracial and multicultural institution with students from diverse backgrounds and nationalities. It should be an environment where everyone feels safe, welcome and free from prejudice and bigotry. This week, however, The Times newspaper and others chose to publish unsubstantiated allegations about one of LSE’s post-graduate student Reza Pankhurst, linking him to “new concerns about Islamist radicalisation on campus”.
No one should be subject to a media witch hunt not least a student who endured 3 years of imprisonment and torture in Egypt before returning to study and teach at LSE.
Moreover these stories threaten to fuel the victimisation of Muslims that has increased dramatically over the last year. We have seen four Muslim students stabbed and others attacked at City University, the burning to the ground of a mosque in the West Midlands on Boxing Day and electoral breakthroughs by the fascist BNP. In our universities staff have been pressured to spy on Muslim students, armed police have arrested innocent students on campus and academic freedoms have been attacked under the so called terror laws.
As LSE students and staff we stand united in opposition to Islamophobia and racism on campus. We reject the scapegoating of all Muslim students and are united in opposition to the victimisation and hounding of our colleagues. We are pleased that LSE have released a statement about Reza making clear “no concerns about his conduct have been raised with the school” and call on them not to give into pressure to attack him. We stand in solidarity with our colleague at this time.”
2) To issue a global email reassuring students that victimisation of students will not be tolerated on campus.
What a contrast with the treatment of the racist Frank Ellis.
But the story gets better. According to the London Student, the LSE SU Executive decided to remind the student body of precisely what Hizb ut Tahrir stands for:
LSE students hoped to propose a motion entitled ‘Defend the LSE community – Stop the Islamophobic Witch Hunt’ at their Union General Meeting (UGM). However, London Student understands that Sabbatical Officers were fearful of passing such a strong statement, in case it was perceived as a defence of HT, and submitted last-minute amemndements – which resulted in the withdrawal of the motion a day before the UGM.
Estelle Cooch, who proposed the motion, said: “The amendments that they sent me included lengthy abhorrent quotes from HT about murdering Jews and homosexuals and as a result there was no way we could vote against their amendments without looking like we supported HT.
Well, just imagine that!
This SWP supporting activist was scared away from her defence of Hizb ut Tahrir because she was afraid that people might think she was, er, defending Hizb ut Tahrir.
She could, of course, have accepted and voted for a motion that condemned Hizb ut Tahrir while supporting Muslim students generally. But, of course, the SWP couldn’t do that. Because, to do so would mean that they implicitly condemned Reza Pankhurst’s political activity. And that, apparently, was a no-go.
But have no fear. Estelle Cooch plans to have another go, according to her article in Socialist Worker:
Last week students proposed a motion to the union general meeting calling for the union to back the statement and unite against Islamophobia.
Yet sadly the effect of the media lens on the Islamic Society, and indeed any foreign student on campus, led to the motion being withdrawn. Many felt too intimidated to come to the meeting.
Students are now discussing trying again.
Yeah, you try again Estelle. See if you and the rest of the Socialist Workers Party can think of a way of supporting the fascist Hizb ut Tahrir, without the embarrassment of having others point out that you’re running defence for an organisation that would murder religious dissenters, including socialists, execute gays, subject women to gender apartheid, and promote antisemitism as official state policy. Go on. I bet you can do it.
There’s a real problem here. Most of us have read a sufficient number of Hizb ut Tahrir’s pamphlets and its Constitution to be left in no doubt as to its nature. Yet, whereas there would be no scope at all for confusion about the vicious nature of a White fascist organisation like Blood and Honour, there is a general failure to appreciate precisely what Hizb stands for, and why it must be opposed.
Think of Ed Balls’ response to the discovery that Hizb ut Tahrir has set up a primary school, to peddle its vicious message to children.
Or take this remarkable editorial on NOUSE, from the University of York:
But how would we feel if we discovered our lecturers were members of controversial societies or radical religious groups? Would we embrace them as humans with individual opinions or reject them as dangerously influential on students minds?
…
Pankhurst is just like the lecturers we all see before us everyday, a human being with experiences, with beliefs, with a purpose and a desire to teach and inspire young people. Just because his beliefs are more controversial than the average women’s rights activist there is no need to bombard him with ridiculous accusations.
Pankhurst’s views aren’t just “more controversial than the average women’s rights activist”. He is a member of a group which seeks to establish a nightmarish totalitarian state in which the democratic and civil rights of all will be trampled on. Asking about that is not a “ridiculous accusation”.
The failure to recognise Hizb ut Tahrir for what it is, in part, is caused by racism. If you’re brown, you’re expected to be a little bit savage.
But, significantly, it is also the product of political parties like the SWP running defence for the Islamist far Right.