Idiotic Academic of the Day

THE head of a Celtic supporters' trust has provoked outrage by defending the singing of pro-IRA songs by the club's fans during matches.

Dr Jeanette Findlay [actually Ms Findlay - she doesn't have a PhD], who chairs the Celtic Trust, which represents supporters and small shareholders, claimed chants about the IRA were "songs from a war of independence".

She was speaking during an interview on BBC Radio Five Live's breakfast programme. Her comments prompted a furious response from listeners.

Dr Findlay, who is a research fellow and economics lecturer at Glasgow University, had been replying to questions by presenter Nicky Campbell about the trust's opposition to the appointment as club chairman of the former home secretary, John Reid, who was a cabinet minister at the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Dr Findlay said the trust's opposition was to do with Mr Reid's "leading role in relation to what many believe is an illegal and immoral war".

Mr Campbell then asked her if she was more uncomfortable with the singing of pro-terrorist songs or the appointment of Mr Reid.

Dr Findlay responded: "I have tried to explain about the nature of Celtic as a club. It was founded to help the poor Irish immigrants to Scotland.

"They may take a particular view of the history, of what happened in Ireland, which is different from many other people, so I don't call those pro-terrorist songs. What history tells us is that it is facile to say that politics and sport will ever be separated."

Mr Campbell said he was not referring to songs such as The Fields of Athenry, but to "actually chanting: 'The IRA'."

She replied: "Many of those songs are songs from what was essentially a war of independence going back over a hundred years."

What a vile woman. Still, I can't say that I'm surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from within the groves of academe. After all, academics have repeatedly sided with the various terrorist organisations seeking to destroy Israel - supporting the IRA, or at least acting as an apologist for those who do, is simply in character for most of them.

An eminent academic speaks...

Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s [sic] Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at [Lahore's] Government College University (GCU) on Monday.

What, every single one of them? The internet, the motorcar, the human genome, DNA, penicillin, the lot? Wow. Then why have there only ever been eight Muslim Nobel Prize winners, of whom five received the utterly worthless Peace Prize and two the Prize in Literature, which, whatever its merits, cannot be considered a science? It must all be a big Zionist plot...

Of course, I don't wish to imply that I am in any way doubtful regarding the validity of Prof. Saliba's claim. I believe it just as much as I believe Dr Jerry Brotton's claim that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the Turks, or Prof. Jean-Claude Milner's suggestion that "Harry Potter is a war-machine against Thatchero-Blairism and the 'American way of life'". Because if an academic says it, it must be true...

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Harry Potter and the (vain) Search for the Philosopher's Brain

In the world of Hogwarts there are certainly inequalities. But at the same time, since culture is open to all, Hermione – the child of Muggles – can outperform Malfoy, the child of wizards.

So what appears as elitist is in fact real equality, as opposed to the false equality of the Muggles. In this, Harry Potter is a war-machine against Thatchero-Blairism and the 'American way of life'.

So says left-wing French philosopher (oh dear, oh dear, oh dear) Jean-Claude Milner, speaking on the day that the last Harry Potter novel was released in France. He added that:

Reading it, one can see that J.K. Rowling -- like many cultured English people -- believes there was a real Thatcherite revolution, that it was a disaster, and that culture's only chance is to survive as an occult science.

Which rather ignores the point that British culture was not destroyed by Margaret Thatcher, but by generations of leftist "intellectuals" attacking all notions of cultural worth, partly through their doctrine of multiculturalism, but mainly through their conserted effort to destroy all notions of high culture, to assert that all forms of "artistic" expression are equally valid (think of the kind of trash that, year-on-year, wins the Turner Prize, for example, while any artist who attempts to produce anything of any value whatsoever is denounced as "kitsch", or dismissed as someone who "paints pretty pictures", or, worst of all, accused of being "old-fashioned"). It is the left, not Thatcherism (or even "Thatchero-Blairism", whatever that is), which has been in the vanguard of the attack on culture.

But the eminent philosopher, that worthy heir to the mantle of Aristotle, has more pearls of wisdom up his sleeve:

According to Mr Milner – a professor of linguistics at Paris university – the scene in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in which Harry's aunt is blown up like a balloon is a satire on Thatcher.

"Here we can see a reference to [the film] The Great Dictator by Chaplin, featuring an all-powerful middle class figure gone mad.

And one cannot help but note that the aunt is called Marge – a clear allusion to Thatcher."

Um, "a clear allusion"? Really?

Marge is short for Marjorie. Not Margaret. And I have certainly never heard anyone refer to Baroness Thatcher as "Marge". Had the character been called Maggie, he might almost have been one-hundredth of the way to having a valid point. As it is: he's talking merde.

However, while the professor is clearly either mad, stupid, or, most probably, both, he does make some valid points about the extent to which culture has been undermined (I would agree, for example, with his belief that education is good in itself, rather than simply as a means to an economic end), even if he wrongly blames the right for doing the undermining, and wrongly implies that it will be the left that will save it.

As a further point of interest, I would add that this is not the first time that a lefty has used the Harry Potter stories to illustrate their point. Dumb Jon has previously recorded Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti using the boy wizard to illustrate a point about torture, while, in the aftermath of JK Rowling's recent outing of Dumbledore, a spokesman for the homosexual organisation Stonewall practised torture on a defenceless victim, when he said:

It shows that there's no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster.

Sadly, satire was left so badly injured by the treatment he received at the spokesman's hands, that the decision was made to turn off his life support machine...

Frankly, it's just bizarre the way the left seems obsessed with finding deeper meanings in what is no more than a rather successful set of children's stories. And Professor Milner's intervention, with its blatant factual inaccuracies, is more bizarre than most. Still, what else do you expect from a twenty-first century professor of linguistics? The cancer of post-modernism has been eating away at universities across Europe and America for forty years, and this is the result: legions of professors who spout utter crap, the actual intellectual content of which would disgrace an educationally subnormal five year-old, but who routinely denounce those who disagree with them as being "anti-intellectual".

Definitely not goodthinkful

I am indebted to Mr Smith for bringing the following story to my attention:

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full".

Is that a threat? As Mr Smith puts it:

Somehow I can't shake the feeling that 'studying the remarks in full' translates to 'seeing if we can jail this one after the Nick Griffin fiasco'.

Personally, I doubt that even the EHRC would go so far as to seek the prosecution of a Nobel Prize-winning scientist for making comments that have at least a degree of support among those who have done research in this area. But you never know with these race relations industry nutters. Each time you think that they have reached the absolute nadir of sanity and decency, they manage to surprise you by going lower still.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".

Similar comments were made by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics in a paper published last year. That sparked a bit of a row as well, although at least no one tried to prevent him from expressing his views. Dr Kanazawa should perhaps have counted himself lucky. Earlier in 2006 Leeds University's Dr Frank Ellis had been forced out of his job by left-wing student groups for asserting a link between race and intelligence (Dr Ellis, a lecturer in Russian, made his comments in an interview with a student newspaper). Thankfully, the evil racism of Doctors Ellis, Kanazawa, and (particularly) Watson is being challenged by a far more eminent scientific expert, exemplar of moral perfection, and all round good guy:

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

To quote Mr Smith again:

Isn't it nice when unelected race-agitators of such prestigious background know better than Nobel-winning scientists?

Meanwhile, the 1990 Trust, which publishes the virulently racist Black Information Link, has also got its oar in:

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

And, reportedly, they will be backing up their arguments with a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal early next year...

As I said above, I doubt that even the EHRC will go so far as to prosecute Dr Watson for making these remarks. But the fact that the 1990 Trust is even putting forward the suggestion that he should be prosecuted (a suggestion which, I would point out, even Vaz appears to have shied away from making) really does highlight quite what a bunch of little fascists they are. What other word can describe people who wish to have academics prosecuted for expressing a view, however controversial, on a scientific issue?

Regarding the substance of Dr Watson's claims, I think it more likely than not that he is correct, although I appreciate that arguments have been raised by scholars on both sides of the debate. What I would point out, though, is that while there are those who do not believe that race and intelligence are linked, and who have attempted to disprove such a link by means of calm and rational argument, the far more common reaction, as demonstrated by Keith Vaz and his fellow race hustlers (as well as by PC white liberals), is simply to scream "racist" at anyone who suggests that there could even possibly be such a thing as inherent racial differences. Sadly, the word 'racist' is probative of nothing: it is simply not a rational or objective argument, no matter how often it is repeated, with what vehemence, or at what volume. The fact that we may not like what Dr Watson and others have said about this issue - the fact that we might be happier if what he has said were untrue - does not mean that it is untrue, and simply expressing one's dislike of Dr Watson's views with the cry of "racist" does not disprove anything that he has said. If Keith Vaz or anyone else disagrees with what Dr Watson has said, then let them debate with him on the issues. The attempts of those on the left and in the race relations industry to shut down debate on this issue simply serve to undermine their own position, by suggesting that they are not sufficiently confident in their own arguments to hazard them in debate with their opponents.

Update: Another great scientist has now weighed in on the issue:

The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has today condemned the comments made by scientist Professor James Watson, reported in the Independent newspaper today.

Mr Livingstone said:

'Professor James Watson’s comments about the genetic inferiority of Africans, and of black people being less intelligent than white people, represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.

[...]

That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succour to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought.

'His offensive and grossly inaccurate comments will no doubt be seized upon by extreme right wing groups to fuel their campaigns of hatred.

'Such views are not welcome in a city like London, a diverse city whose very success demonstrates the racist and nonsensical nature of Dr Watson's comments.'

Quite how London's success disproves Watson's views is unclear to me, I must say. Indeed, the fact that a successful city like London is situated in Britain, a European country, rather than in, say, sub-Saharan Africa, would seem to give support to Dr Watson's claims, insofar as it has any bearing on the matter.

I'd also point out that, his remarks about London aside, Livingstone also makes no attempt at argument, but simply repeats and rephrases the word 'racist' over and over and over again.

Update (2): Now, via Pub Philosopher, I see that the Wicked Watson has been banned from the Science Museum. Despite the fact that the talk that he was due to give on Friday had sold out, the museum cancelled the event, on the grounds that the evildoer's comments had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate". Personally, I'd always assumed that science was about the fearless and impartial search for truth, and that a museum dedicated to science would be the last place to be intimidated into censorship by the squealing of an irrational lynch mob. Clearly I was wrong.

UCU Israel Boycott Defeated

The union that represents academics in the UK has announced today it will not proceed with plans to debate a boycott of Israeli universities following legal advice.

The University and College Union, whose members passed a motion at its conference in May to circulate and discuss a call to boycott, has been told by lawyers that the move would be unlawful.

Sally Hunt, the union's general secretary, has called a halt to a proposed regional tour to discuss the issue with members. Branches are to be told that making a call to boycott Israeli institutions would "run a serious risk" of infringing discrimination legislation.

The boycott call was also deemed to be outside the aims and objectives of the union.

Delegates at the UCU conference voted by 158 to 99 in favour of a motion to recommend boycotts in protest at Israel's "40-year occupation" of Palestinian land and to condemn the "complicity" of Israeli academics.

However, lawyers told the union that while members were free to debate Israeli policies, it should not spend resources on gauging opinion of something that should not be implemented.

The union said it would now consider ways to press ahead with the non-boycott elements of the motion, such as ending joint projects between UK and Israeli academics.

This decision of the UCU's actually leaves me with somewhat mixed feelings. I have always opposed the boycott, so I am happy to learn that it will not be going ahead. However, I would much prefer the pro-boycott campaign to have collapsed due to lack of support from within British academia, rather than simply because it infringed anti-discrimination laws. Had it collapsed as a result of opposition from within the UCU, then that would have indicated that the majority of British academics were not rabidly anti-Israel. As it is, we are left with the distinct possibility (and, indeed, the strong impression) that the majority of our university professors would love to push ahead and boycott Israel, and that only the law is stopping them from doing so.

On a related topic, I would like to point readers in the direction of two posts at Melanie Phillips's blog, describing some of the ways in which left-wing teachers feed anti-Israel propaganda to our children, under the guise of teaching "citizenship". Well worth a read.

ATW Post on Academia

At ATW, I've written a short post on the unutterable pretentiousness and political liberalism now dominating and corrupting British academia.

Oxford academics condemn UCU boycott

Oxford University academics have voted overwhelmingly to call a ballot on whether to boycott Israeli universities and expressed opposition to the general value of boycotts.

The University and College Union sparked international controversy last month when members voted to debate the possibility of boycotting Israeli academics at their annual conference.

The majority of Oxford's union members - 96% - wanted to call a ballot on the contentious issue, piling more pressure on the union to have one. A similar number - 94.8% - supported the view that Oxford is opposed to academic boycotts per se.

Nice to see academics at the UK's best university (discuss) showing commendable common sense in this matter.

Also, it seems to me that the more distinguished the academic, the less likely they are to support the boycott. For example, while academics at Oxford are overwhelmingly anti-boycott, the motion supporting the boycott was put forward by academics from the universities of Brighton and East London, which presently languish in 66th and 99th place (out of 100) respectively in the Times Good University Guide. Coincidence?

Academia: A rare burst of sanity

I read in The Times that 250 leading academics have signed a statement condemning the Universities and Colleges Union's move towards a boycott of Israel.

There's not really a huge amount to say about this, beyond the fact that it's good to see at least a few people in the academic world who are prepared to come out and challenge the shrill-voiced extreme-left/Islamic alliance. Although, I did find the claim of the boycott's chief proponent, Brighton University's Tom Hickey, that the boycott "would enhance the international reputation of British academics", intriguing. Quite how does he think it will do this, I wonder?

A brief flash of common sense

And in the academic world, of all places! Edinburgh University (alma mater of Gordon Brown) has elected to withdraw Robert Mugabe's honorary degree, awarded back in 1984. Of course, the original decision to award this lowlife any recognition was dubious, to say the least, but at least they've rectified the error.

Of course, I'd rather just shoot him.

Academics: Ban the promotion of heterosexuality

In 1988 the Thatcher government passed into law the famous Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This legislation was repealed by the Blair government in 2003, as a result of which homosexuality can be, and is, promoted in schools.

Now, in a bizarre twist, the University and Colleges Union, whose leftist madness I have discussed very recently, is calling for the promotion of heterosexuality in schools to be criminalised. By a unanimous vote, delegates at their annual conference have given their backing to a motion which reads:

All negative characterisations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.

It should be noted that this motion is not simply calling for acts of discrimination and victimisation directed against homosexual individuals to be prohibited. They already are. Rather, the motion is calling for teachers to be prevented from even suggesting that heterosexuality could in any way be superior to the homosexual lifestyle. Alan Whitaker, of the Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, who proposed the motion, feels that a particular injustice is done by allowing teachers to express the view that heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual "civil partnerships".

So, there you go. If these liberal academics have their way, then it will become unlawful even to tell children that the institution of heterosexual marriage, which is - or should be - the very bedrock of our society, is the best kind of relationship. This would be disastrous. Marriage has been continually undermined for many years now, and is more than ever in need of protection and promotion. But it seems that, for these academics, the demands of whining homosexuals take precedence over the needs of society.

Cross-posted at ATW

UCU Little Vichyists Update

Following on from last night's post on the subject, the BBC reports that academics of the University and Colleges Union have now officially voted, by a unanimous majority, to refuse to take any steps towards challenging Islamism on university campuses. The UCU's general secretary, Sally "Witch" Hunt, said:

Lecturers have a pivotal role in building trust. These proposals, if implemented, would make that all but impossible.

Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.

Hmm. It sounds like old Witch Hunt is a real libertarian defender of free speech. The kind of principled advocate for her position that one can really respect, even when that position is patently absurd.

But wait. Astonishingly, she isn't. Here's what she had to say when Nick Griffin was banned from speaking at Bath University:

It was the correct decision. Allowing the BNP to speak would have compromised the safety of students and staff and sent out a very worrying message about Bath University's commitment to diversity.

Okay. So on the one hand universities should allow free discussion of all views no matter how "challenging, offensive and even extreme" they might be. But on the other, the BNP should be prevented from speaking at universities because their views are seen as being, essentially, "challenging, offensive and even extreme" by Miss Hunt. It would appear that our great champion of free speech is in fact a bit of a hypocrite. Ultimately, as I wrote yesterday, the stance of the UCU simply suggests that, while they really, really hate the BNP, they have more than a sneaking sympathy for Islamic terrorists.

Hypocritical Little Vichyists in the Ivory Tower

Academics are threatening to derail a Government drive to root out Islamic extremists on university campuses.

The University and College Union, will ask its 120,000 members to refuse to take part in the Government-led "witch hunt".

It insists that Muslims are being "demonised" because of new guidance that asks staff to look out for students falling under the influence of radical preachers.

The Department for Education and Skills has warned university staff to log suspicious behaviour amid fears that campuses are being infiltrated by fanatics recruiting for so-called jihad. In a 20-page report published in December, ministers warned of "serious, but not widespread, Islamic extremist activity in higher education institutions".

It asks lecturers to vet Islamic preachers who have been invited to campuses, ensure that "hate literature" is not distributed among students and report suspicious behaviour to police.

So, in essence, academics are supposed to be vigilant in an age when vigilance is required, they are supposed to pay particular attention to a group whose members have shown something of a proclivity for violence, and they are supposed to do their best to stop books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being distributed. Seems like common sense to me.

But at the UCU annual conference in Bournemouth, lecturers will warn of a "recent rise" in racism and its "apparent promotion by Government policies".

Do they have any evidence to back up their claims?

Academics at the union's London Metropolitan University branch will say that "increasingly restrictive measures and the xenophobic language surrounding them" has led to an increase in racist attacks on Muslims.

It would behove academics at London Met to be particularly vigilant. After all, one of the would-be bombers arrested in the big raids last August was the president of the London Met Islamic Society. Not many universities can claim to have had a practising terrorist on their student roll.

It is sickening that these lecturers refuse to play any part in fighting against terrorism. If their professed concerns about civil liberties and witch hunts were genuine, then that might somewhat reduce the disgust with which I regard them. But those concerns are not the real reason these academics object. Rather, they, or at least, a large number of them, object to helping fight terrorism because they are on the terrorists' side. We've seen, in their boycotts of the Middle East's only democracy, how they are willing to throw their weight behind Islamist murderers, and we are seeing the same thing here. Many of these pampered leftist professors, luxuriating in their Ivory Towers at taxpayers' expense, actually want us to lose: they want to see Western civilisation destroyed by Islam.

Also frustrating, and further evidence of their true thoughts, is the utter hypocrisy of their professed concerns for "civil liberties" and worries about "witch hunts". For the benefit of any academics reading this:

Keeping an eye out for people who might commit terrorist acts, and focussing on the group most likely to commit such acts, is not a witch hunt.

By contrast:

Threatening people with expulsion for publishing cartoons in a student newspaper is a witch hunt.

Hounding academics from their jobs for expressing politically-incorrect views, or attempting to do so, is a witch hunt.

Subjecting Jewish students to anti-Semitic intimidation on a routine basis is a witch hunt.

All of these events have taken place in leading British universities recently, either with the active participation or the tacit endorsement of those same academics who are now protesting so very loudly. As for civil liberties in general, the academics might like to consider the following cases in which they have been restricted:

The bans on Nick Griffin and Dr Kuentzel from speaking at the respective universities of Bath and Leeds.

The prohibitions imposed on Christian Unions.

Again, these instances of the suppression of the freedoms of speech and association were either actively or tacitly encouraged by academics. I guess that "witch hunts" are only bad when directed against people the academics like. A category which apparently includes Islamic terrorists.

Homosexual Penguins 2: The Leftist Strikes Back

Remember the government-funded "academics" whose great contribution to modern life was to promote homosexuality, by, among other methods, publishing and promoting books about homosexual penguins? I wrote about it back in March.

Well, the Northern Echo has an interview with Dr Elizabeth "Thick Lizzy" Atkinson, the post-modernist cretin responsible for this colossal waste of public money:

Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, 48, of Sunderland University, is the director of the No Outsiders project, which uses books such as King & King in an effort to combat homophobic bullying. The two-year project - which is halfway through its first year - is being run in 14 primary schools in the South and the Midlands, with plans to expand it nationally.

Yes. Why read them Enid Blyton, when you could brainwash them?

Sitting in a cafe in Newcastle, Dr Atkinson says she doesn't mind that the project has attracted such vehement opposition - it's all part of the wider debate. "To be attacked is a sign of recognition that you are doing something to change the world and the job of education is to change something for the better," she says. "Fair enough if I'm attacked for changing the world for the better - so be it."

Note to Thick Lizzy: the purpose of working in education is not to change the world for the better (something which you certainly aren't doing anyway). Astonishingly enough, it is to - wait for it - educate! And, by the way, that doesn't mean the same thing as 'indoctrinate'.

And can't you just hear the sanctimonious tone of this woman's voice? "I'm changing the world for the better", forsooth! I can think of many, many people doing rather more towards that end than her, and bragging about it rather less.

"We knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising."

Does anyone else get the impression that she doesn't like Christians?

The £568,000 research project has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

As I said last time: that means it's been funded by the taxpayer. That's us, folks!

It is led by Dr Atkinson, reader in social and educational inquiry [not quite a Regius Professorship is it? - FR], and her colleague at Sunderland University, Renee DePalma, in conjunction with Exeter University and the Institute of Education in London. The aim is to help primary school teachers develop their own school-based projects to combat homophobic bullying. Those projects can use books, such as King & King, or they can be arts or theatre based. But, says Dr Atkinson, it is not about teaching four-year-olds about sex.

"It's got nothing to do with sexual activity, it's an equality issue and a human rights issue," she says. "It's no more talking about sexuality if you've got two princes falling in love than if you have a prince and a princess falling in love. If they raised questions about sex between a prince and prince you would use the same appropriate language as if they'd asked about the prince and the princess.

"But children as young as four are quite aware that there are gay relations. If they turned to a teacher and said 'oh it's a gay dad', it's a quite straightforward acknowledgement for a teacher to say 'that's right' and leave it at that."

One factor behind the scheme, she says, is about recognising that some children do not have heterosexual parents. "If there's somebody with two mums, who comes from this loving family background, but discovers that there's nothing which reflects her life, she may find that she has to be silenced for fear of not appearing to be normal."

Is there any evidence that what Thick Lizzy calls "homophobic bullying" actually takes place? When I was at school, we did actually have a boy whose mother had left his father for another woman. He seemed to be treated pretty much as everyone else, despite the absence of gay penguins enriching our lives, and expanding our wicked, prejudiced, minds.

In any event, a homosexual coupling is far from being the ideal family background for any child, and depicting it as such is simply misleading.

"That silence is imposed on her [by whom? - FR] from the age of three or four, not at 12," she says."If you leave it until secondary school to address those issues you've left it too late because children are already living with the expectations of how girls should behave and how boys should behave. All it takes is to understand that being different is part of normality."

Ooh, how very post-modern. And utterly meaningless.

That normality, says Dr Atkinson, can be reached with help from the books.

Okay, now it just sounds like a sales pitch.

After burbling on a bit, Thick Lizzy continues:

"Section 28 led to the continued marginalisation for children and adults who did not fit into specific norms," says Dr Atkinson. "What repealing Section 28 has done is make it possible for that group of people to have their human rights recognised. It's no good saying we're going to have equality but there's going to be an exception. There should be no exceptions."

Yes. Right, wrong, good, bad. Why discriminate between them? All judgements are just evidence of prejudice, etc, and the facts that homosexual relationships are less stable than heterosexual ones, or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father should just be cast to the winds. After all, why let the facts get in the way of promoting liberal ideals?

This is not simply a question of protecting innocent, and unfortunate, children from bullying because of the dubious lifestyle choices of their parents. For a start, as I said above, there is no evidence that "homophobic bullying" is a problem. Rather, this is an attempt to make children think that homosexuality is a normal, and a good, thing, entirely equal to heterosexuality. And that is simply not the case.

Bath University stifles free speech

A while back, Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, was invited to speak at Bath University. Now, following protests from the usual bunch of trade unionists, students' union hacks, extreme leftists, and assorted other soap-dodgers, the event has been cancelled by the university:

In a statement [the university's vice-chancellor and secretary] said they had taken into account the views of staff and students about the meeting and the university's belief in freedom of speech.

They said: "In addition, some staff and students have registered with us their serious concerns for their safety if this event proceeds, as well as fears of disruption to examinations given the likely scale of protests on the day.

"These considerations do need to be balanced against the need to hear and challenge a variety of opinions in an institution committed to high quality learning and research. Freedom of speech is a principle to be highly cherished by academic institutions.

"The university has, however, now learned that a very large number of protesters intend to arrive on campus. This creates the likelihood of substantial public order problems and real possibility of disruption of the essential activities of the university community, making it impractical for the university to allow the event to go ahead."

What we have here is yet another example of the power that the far-left wields in our universities, and which they use to stifle the free speech of all who oppose them, often in alliance with Muslims. The Cambridge Motoons case would be an obviously comparable case, as would that of the German academic Dr Matthias Kuentzel, banned from giving a lecture at Leeds University after Muslim students threatened to get violent. The hounding of Dr Frank Ellis from his job, also at Leeds, was a particularly revolting instance of leftist opposition to free speech, although the fascists have thankfully failed in their machinations against Oxford's Professor David Coleman.

In at least two of the above cases, the left-Islamic axis used the threat of violence in order to get their way. It appears from Bath University's statement that fears of violence from the anti-Griffin demonstrators influenced their decision to cancel the event. One assumes that they had realistic grounds for their fears.

The deeply disturbing willingness of the left and of Muslims to use force to silence opposition is not a peculiarly British phenomenon. American universities have had similar problems, and talks from anti-Jihadi commentators are often greeted with violent protests, or cancelled outright through fear of violence. Jewish student groups suffer regular intimidation from Muslims and far-leftists.

What is also disturbing is the sheer hypocrisy shown. People like Mr Griffin, or Dr Kuentzel, are banned from speaking at universities, because their views are non-PC. And yet at the same time George Galloway can speak freely (warning: offensive link) in whatever institution he wishes. And as for the kind of people that Muslim student groups routinely let in: well, suffice it to say that Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) a known terrorist supporter, is a favourite of university Islamic societies.

Bath University's decision is to be regretted, but it is not surprising. Sadly, unscrupulous elements have learnt that those who shout the loudest are often listened to, particularly if the unspoken threat of violence is left hanging in the air. This appears to be what has happened here. And it will happen at some other august institution of learning before long.

Hat-tip: The Green Arrow

Cambridge Motoon Student Apologises

Subject to the CPS making a sane decision, the Cambridge Motoon case appears to be drawing to an ignoble close:

A CAMBRIDGE University student who sparked a huge row when he published anti- Islamic material has issued a grovelling apology.

The 19-year-old second-year Clare College student went into hiding after he printed a cartoon and material satirising religion in college magazine Clareification.

For his own safety and that of others, the student, who is British, has not been named. During the initial furore surrounding the publication he was taken out of his accommodation and put in a secure place.

Cartoons which had sparked worldwide protests in the Muslim community were reprinted in the edition. The college has promised to take action to prevent a similar incident occurring.

Part of the student's apology read: "I understand that this edition has caused deep offence and hurt to very many people, both inside and outside Clare, through its derogatory references to individuals and also to various groups, including women, Jews, Christians and Muslims."

Of course, he didn't get death threats from women, Jews, or Christians, did he?

A Clare College spokesman said:

"Because of the gravity of the situation and the diversity of views expressed about the best way of handling it ("Kill Him", "Respect free speech in an institution of learning" - who knows which one is right? - FR), the Dean of Students set in train procedures for convening the Court of Discipline.

"As events unfolded, however, a collective decision was taken to pursue instead a course of restorative justice and reconciliation."

Restorative justice and reconciliation? It sounds like they'll be getting Desmond Tutu in next.

The Cambridge University Muslims have graciously accepted the apology (there'll be no beheading tonight, folks), and the university authorities can now return happily to the safety of dhimmitude. I don't blame the student for apologising - after all, if it's a choice between that and being sent down then learning to be a good dhimmi is a small personal price for an individual to pay. But virtually everyone else involved should hang their heads in shame.

It'll make beheading them much easier, next time something like this happens.

Academic Idiocy Watch

Every now and then, some obscure academic at one of our great seats of learning comes out with something indescribably stupid. Usually, this has some relationship to the far-left political views which are the norm in academia. Today, Professor Ann Jacoby of Liverpool University has produced quite the most ridiculous piece of "research" that I have seen for some time. The purpose of this research: to demonstrate that villages - all of them - are hotbeds of that most evil of sins (indeed, in the post-modern world, the only sin), prejudice!

Professor Jacoby, a social scientist, said: "The rural idyll is very nice so long as you fit into certain categories, but problematic if you don't.

"You should be married, have children, and live in this conservative family unit."

Well, there's a statement I can quite agree with. I don't think she's talking about her own views, though.

How did Professor Jacoby reach her deeply profound conclusions:

For the study, the professor's colleague, Francine Watkins, spent some time living in Stonycroft, a village with a population of 450, somewhere between London and Birmingham.

The village's name has been changed to protect the identities of those interviewed.

Life in the 16th-century village revolves round the thatched inn, church and village hall. Most of the residents are white. Three-quarters are married or co-habiting.

Heaven forfend! White, married heterosexuals! Such wicked people can't help but be prejudiced.

But, to return to Professor Jacoby's methodology: it seems that her colleague, Miss Watkins, went to one village, found a few malcontents, and then used their whining to smear everyone who lives in the countryside. Not, perhaps, the most accurate method. Rather like tossing a coin once, and then declaring that a coin will always land heads up. But more inaccurate than that.

Obviously the learned professor really earns her £60,000 or so of taxpayers' money per year.