In the Times today

University is accused of censoring anti-Semitic Islam lecture, by Sean O'Neill

The University of Leeds was accused of infringing free speech last night when it cancelled a lecture on “Islamic anti-Semitism” by a German academic.

Matthias Köntzel arrived at the university yesterday morning to begin a three-day programme of lectures and seminars, but was told that it had been called off on “security grounds”.

Dr Köntzel, a political scientist who has lectured around the world on the antiSemitic ideology of Islamist groups, told The Times there were concerns that he would be attacked. He said that he was “outraged” that his meetings had been cancelled and had yet to receive an explanation.

The university, which acted after complaints from Muslim students, denied that it was interfering with the academic freedom of Dr Köntzel, and said that proper arrangements for stewarding the meeting had not been made.

The lecture, entitled “Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic antiSemitism in the Middle East”, was organised by the university’s German department and publicised three weeks ago. A large attendance had been expected.

Dr Köntzel, a former adviser to the German Green Party, said: “I have been told that it has had to be cancelled for security reasons. It seems there were concerns that there could be violence against my person.

“I have lectured in lots of countries on this subject. I gave the same talk at Yale University recently, and this is the first time I have been invited to lecture in the UK. Nothing like this has ever happened before – this is censorship.

“It is a controversial area but I am accustomed to debate. I value the integrity of academic debate and I feel that it really is in danger here. This is a very important subject and if you cannot address it on university property, then what is a university for?”

Dr Köntzel, a research associate at the Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said that he had been shown two e-mails that had been received, which objected to his lecture.

One, apparently written by a student, said: “As a Muslim and an Arab this has come to me as a great shock. The only intention that you have for doing this is to increase hatred as I clearly regard it as an open racist attack.”

Ahmed Sawalem, president of the university’s student Islamic Society, confirmed that he had contacted the office of Professor Michael Arthur, the Vice-Chancellor, to register an official complaint.

“The title of the talk is provocative and I have searched the internet to read his writings and they are not very pleasant,” Mr Sawalem said. “We are not opposed to freedom of expression. We just sent a complaint, we did not ask for the talk to be cancelled.”

The university authorities contacted the German department on Tuesday and asked for a change in the title. The department agreed to relabel the talk as “The Nazi Legacy: the export of antiSemitism to the Middle East”.

Yesterday morning, the head of the German department, Professor Stuart Taberner, was called to a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor’s staff and the head of security. After the meeting, Dr Köntzel’s lecture and workshops were cancelled.

Annette Seidel Arpaci, an academic in the German department, said: “This is an academic talk by a scholar, it is not a political rally. The sudden cancellation is a sell-out of academic freedom, especially freedom of speech, at the University of Leeds.” A spokes-woman for the university said that it valued freedom of speech and added that the cancellation of the meeting had been a bureaucratic issue.

“The decision to cancel the meeting has nothing to do with academic freedom, freedom of speech, antiSemitism or Islam-ophobia, and those claiming that is the case are making mischief,” she said.

Introduction to the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace

Founded in 1998, the CMIP (Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace) examines the content of school textbooks used in the Middle East, to determine whether children are being taught to accept and recognize the right of the “other” to exist. They believe that education should be utilized to encourage an attitude of tolerance, pluralism, and democracy, and to promote peaceful means of solving conflicts.

As a non-profit, non-political organization, their purpose is to identify what is being taught in the schools with regard to recognition and acceptance of the “other” by drawing on the text itself, rather than the interpretation of it. Pioneers in the field of textbook analysis, CMIP endeavors to present a clear picture of how different countries instruct and educate their youth with regard to different religions, societies, cultures, democratic values and the “other”.

After Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, their latest report focuses on Iran and looks at the Attitude to the 'Other' and to Peace in Iranian School Textbooks and Teacher's Guides.

Overview

War Curriculum

The Iranian school system prepares its students for a global war against the West in the name of Islam. This is the main finding arrived at, following an overall research
conducted on 115 Iranian school textbooks and teacher's guides of all grades. Although all the books and the vast majority of the teacher's guides were published under the apparently moderate former president Mohammad Khatami, they all reflect the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Revolutionary Iran.

In Khomeini's vision, Iran is destined to lead that global struggle against the
oppressors in the name of Islam. This role is part and parcel of the Islamic Revolution, and the victory over the oppressors will also be Islam's victory in this world. Hence, Iranian education should be aimed at preparing the students for participation in that war.

The Attitude to America and the West

Numerous "others" are referred to in Iranian school textbooks – religious and ethnic,
inside and outside Iran, in historical and contemporary contexts. Yet, two specific
"others" – the United States and the West in general, and the Jewish-Zionist-Israeli
"other" – attract special attention.

America is the "Great Satan", the "World Devourer", the "Arrogant One", in short – a
target for hatred indoctrination. America is the arch-oppressor worldwide, leader and partner of other oppressive powers such as Britain and France.
The West, including Czarist Russia and the former Soviet Union, is responsible for
much suffering: Colonialism, exploitation and impoverishment of Third World nations,
encroachment on the world of Islam – including Iran – in history and at present,
cultural attack against Muslims and others, world hegemony, environmental abuse, etc.

The Attitude to Israel and the Jews

The Jews are mostly referred to in the context of their relations with the Prophet of
Islam in Arabia, where they are negatively portrayed: "…After some time, the Jews'
pretext-seeking, hostility and treachery were exposed…" (History of Iran and the
World, Grade 10 (2004) p. 109). Zionism is described as an idea "that is based on the
establishment of the Jews' greater homeland, and on this ethnic group's dominance over the world" (Social Studies [Humanities], Grade 12 (2004) p. 41) – which reminds us of anti-Semitic texts, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Israel, which is not recognized in any way and whose name does not appear on any of the maps, is portrayed as a danger to the whole world of Islam and as a tool in the
hands of its enemy – America.

To read the full report or earlier reports, http://www.edume.org

In the papers...

A Children's Christmas tale starring Pete (Doherty) and Kate (Moss), reveals Adam Sherwin in today's Times.

Pete plays guitar, eats special sweets and falls over a lot. Pete met a famous girl called Kate and the pair went ballistic on Class A drugs.
The cautionary tale of Pete Doherty has been turned into an
illustrated children’s book that is becoming a Christmas bestseller.
A Boy Called Pete details the rise to fame of the notorious rock singer who “sings
songs and wears hats”. But his predilection for “mind-bending drugs” means that
Pete and his friend Kate are “always getting into trouble”.
The book claims to be a moral story and warns children that “Class A drugs are not very good for you. They make you smelly and a bit untidy-looking.” Pete finds that he is no longer famous for singing songs and is made to stay in “a very big house
with high walls” because “London has lots of rules and lots of authority”

Is it just me or is there something really wrong in offering this adorable couple as role-models for children? If a society gets the role-models it deserves, it is even more worrying.

(from The Times)

Cartoon of the Year: The Independent's Dave Brown's Tale of Two Leaders

The Political Cartoon Society awarded him the honour for his
cartoon "Venus Substitute" at a ceremony hosted by The Economist in central London.
The Independent on Sunday's Peter Schrank was named runner-up in the same category at the awards.

(from The Independent)

Janet Street-Porter in The Independent: 'Ignore these killjoys - and happy Christmas '

Celebrating Christmas in a traditional manner seems increasingly unfashionable, as a wave of political correctness has resulted in an increasing number of offices all over the country banning decorations in case non-Christian staff members are offended.
I can cope with my festive feast of goose being under attack from turkey-lover Nigella Lawson, but it's time for ordinary citizens to demand the right to enjoy Christmas in the way we always have, with carols on the radio, paper chains in the living room, drunken office parties, twinkling fairy lights and a marathon of television watching. Gordon Brown is always banging on about "Britishness", whatever that might be, and there's no other time of year which so perfectly sums up what's unique about this country.

(from The Independent)

Readers from The Guardian's Art & Architecture blog have selected the 50 masterpieces they wouldn't miss for the world. It's here. What do you think of it?

The Screens are Alive with Competition - Peter Whittle in the Sunday Telegraph

Watching television last night, it occurred to me that Simon Cowell should be a national treasure. For those of you who insist on avoiding Saturday night TV and screaming tabloids, Mr Cowell is one of the judges of ITV’s talent show The X Factor. He’s regularly reviled for the supposedly heartless way in which he punctures the illusions of the hundreds of contestants who come before his panel, convinced of the god-given creativity which is going to take them to the top. He weathers the self-pitying tears of tuneless would-be entertainers. Sometimes he is even forced to square up to parents outraged by his dismissal of their off-spring’s unique gifts.

Cowell should be congratulated for his refusal to ingratiate and patronise, but he’s not alone. His is just one of the louder voices to emerge from television’s current love affair with all forms of contest, Whether it’s to be told ‘You’re Fired!’ by Alan Sugar in The Apprentice, or be proclaimed the heir to Julie Andrews by Andrew Lloyd Weber in How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?, thousands line up in the full glare of millions of viewers to be judged, not by a panel of specialists in empathy training, but by people who’ve made it to the top of their fields, and who’ve presumably earned the right to be listened to.

Of course, these TV contests are predictably condemned for being modish exercises in crass populist sadism, the equivalent of throwing Christians to lions. It can certainly look that way when you witness budding entrepreneurs reduced to wordless terror on Dragon’s Den. But the critics are missing the point.

Television has an odd way of reflecting our concerns and anxieties. After all, what accounts for the popularity of the endless stream of diet and make-over shows, from the worthy Honey, We’re Killing the Kids to the comical Laddette to Lady, if not our fears of creeping social breakdown? No, the fashion for ruthless competition on television represents one of the healthiest trends to emerge in broadcasting for decades – one which shows conclusively that all mustn’t, and shouldn’t, have prizes.

Cowell, Sugar and their fellow judges are providing a desperately needed outlet for our smothered tribal memory that to be the best is a good thing, that a desire to be inspired by the sight of talent rising to the top is perfectly natural. Suppressed for so long in the name of engineering a more ‘fulfilled’ society, it’s seeped out onto the box and hence right back into the centre of our lives.

And we should be grateful: in a time when, according to a report published this week by the think tank Civitas, a full 73% of us can, if we wish, justifiably wallow in official victim status, and when the politically correct promotion of self-esteem takes precedence over any activity which might hurt the feelings of others, such shows can claim to provide the very best in public servicing broadcasting – not in a form that would be immediately obvious to Lord Reith perhaps, but genuine nonetheless.

Perhaps these TV judges should be given control of our state education system. It’s here, after all, that the child-centric ethos of past decades has produced generations of kids who have been told that the necessity for striving, practise and mental self-discipline all come a poor second to their innate, infinite creativity. Anyone who has witnessed a softened-up sports day, or a classroom being encouraged to clap a fellow pupil simply for getting a right answer, realises that children are being sold down the river. It’s not all about feeling good about yourself. So, parents, don’t be afraid – for once, television might actually be setting a good example.

Enlightening the future 2024 - Key challenges for the next generation

In association with Orange, Spiked-online has tried to identify the key challenges for the next generation. What about the arts? Peter Whittle gives his answer.

The challenge facing the arts in the coming years is to halt their accelerating decline into a merely self-flattering leisure activity for the urban middle classes. At the very time at which cheap accessibility has become a priority, the numbing predictability of much artistic output has made them increasingly irrelevant to more and more people. Their ability to shock (as opposed to simply generating the faux-outrage of the media) and open up real discussion, will require enormous courage on the part of individual voices, whether from the left or right.

That we will see this is highly feasible. At the moment, the arts are just as risk-averse as many other parts of society. It is arguable that as the largely liberal arts and broadcasting establishment starts to genuinely experience, on a personal level, the effects of widespread social and civil breakdown, the desire to cleave to the dominant cultural orthodoxy will weaken. In creative terms, this could only be a healthy development.

Despite – or indeed because of - the gradual disintegration of public life in its traditional sense, people will retain the need to come together, and here cultural activity could become increasingly important. For example, it was predicted twenty years ago that the massive growth in personal entertainment systems would spell the death of the cinema as a collective experience. In fact, the opposite happened, and attendances in the UK are at their highest in thirty years. This has also happened despite film loosing much of its wider cultural resonance.

On a different note, I see the growth in discussion groups, think tanks, even contemporary versions of the salon, as one of the most encouraging cultural developments in recent years. These will continue to prosper as traditional party activity declines, and individuals feel that the artistic landscape offers little real stimulation or variation of viewpoint. The fact that people, especially the young, want to come together in this way is a cause for real optimism for the future.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/surveys/2024