Gaddafi, Human Rights Champion
Canada also extolled the horrific Libyan regime, apparently out of sheer moonbattery.
Meanwhile, money stolen from your paycheck keeps the whole charade rolling along.
At least it must be some solace to the Libyans beingÂ bombed by their own government that their human rights have not been violated.
Sir Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics, has at last done the honourable thing and resigned from the university’s governing council. The LSE’s shameless prostituting of its good name in return for Muammar Gaddafi’s blood money (as the Tory MP Robert Halfon has rightly called it) is as great a betrayal of the spirit of a university as there has ever been in Britain.
But while it will take the LSE quite some time to regain a seat at the table of respectability, it is not the only university that has reason to feel ashamed. The LSE is said to have received no more than Â£300,000 of the Â£1.5 million it was due from Libya. Â (Telegraph/full post below the fold)
Just the tip of the iceberg. A hundred more to go. Georgetown’s Islam promoter & clown-in-chief John Esposito should be next:
The London School of Economics once had a global reputation. The Libyan revolution wiped it away as easily as if it was mist on a window.
I cannot find precedent for the collapse in liberal and academic standards Howard Davies, the LSE’s director, presided over. The Cambridge spies met at Cambridge University, as their name suggests. They did not, however, work for Stalin with the blessing of the university’s chancellor, vice chancellor, senate and masters of its colleges.The LSE’s hierarchy sold itself to a tyrant for a handful of silver. If you doubt me, watch this video of Alia Brahimi, a research fellow at its Gaddafi-funded Global Governance Centre, simpering and gurningÂ as she introduces Gaddafi to her students by reading a welcome message from Davies worthy of Malvolio or Uriah Heep:
Davies resigned tonight, and good riddance. He was warned by the late LSE academic Fred Halliday, one of the most intelligent and principled writers on the Middle East, about the nature of his new business partner, but chose to ignore a wiser and better man.
Thilo Sarazzin, who was falsely smeared as an anti-Semite and who’s ‘safety could not be guaranteed’ when he was supposed to speak at LSE, should be pleased. Perhaps he gets another chance now.
UN Watch Asks Rights Chief: “Why Were You Silent on Qaddafi’s Crimes?
Around the globe, the Qaddafis were kings. No longer. The head of the London School of Economics has just resigned over his ties to the Qaddafi regime. Rock stars Beyonce, Nelly Furtado and Mariah Carey are expressing remorse for paid peformances at Qaddafi family parties. Former Egyptian minister of culture Gaber Asfour renounced his 2010 “Qaddafi International Award for Literature.”
Yet at the U.N., no one is willing to take the slightest responsibility for the world body’s tight embrace of the Qaddafi regime. In the plenary of the UN Human Rights Council yesterday, UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer urged U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay to begin the soul-searching. She refused to respond. Click here for video. The text follows below.
UNW’s Hillel Neuer Asks U.N. Rights Chief: “Why Were You Silent on Qaddafi’s Crimes?”
- Kumbaya event: Gaddafi bought the London School of Economics: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/03/03/sir-howard-davies-resigns/
But they were not the only ones dancing for the dictator:
Yet, on the most conservative estimate, other British universities have received hundreds of millions of pounds from Saudi and other Islamic sources â€“ in the guise of philanthropic donations, but with the real intention of changing the intellectual climate of the United Kingdom.
Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities â€“ Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City â€“ accepted more than Â£233.5 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them.
Much of the money has gone to Islamic study centres: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies received Â£75 million from a dozen Middle Eastern rulers, including the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; one of the current king’s nephews, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gave Â£8 million each to Cambridge and Edinburgh. Then there was the LSE’s own Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, which got Â£9 million from the United Arab Emirates; this week, a majority of the centre’s board was revealed to be pushing for a boycott of Israel.
- LSE struck deal to train Libya’s future leaders03 Mar 2011
- LSE to donate Â£300,000 to Libyan students02 Mar 2011
While figures since 2008 have yet to be collated, the scale of funding has only increased: such donations are now the largest source of external funding for universities by quite a long way. The donors claim that they want only to promote understanding of Islam â€“ a fine goal for any university.
But the man who gathered the earlier figures, Prof Anthony Glees, argues that their real agenda is rather different: to push an extreme ideology and act as a form of propaganda for the Wahhabist strain of Islam within universities. They push, he says, “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor”.
This is not simply scare-mongering. The management committees of the Islamic Studies centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh contained appointees hand-picked by Prince Alwaleed. Other universities have altered their study areas in line with their donors’ demands. And it works.
A study of five years of politics lectures at the Middle Eastern Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford, found that 70 per cent were “implacably hostile” to the West and Israel. A friend of mine, a former Oxford academic, felt that his time was largely spent battling a cadre of academics overwhelmingly hostile to the West, in an ambience in which students â€“ from both Britain and abroad â€“ were presented a world-view that was almost exclusively anti-Western.
Although much of the money is claimed to be directed towards apolitical ends, this can often be misleading. The gift by foreign governments of language books, for instance, can have a significant effect on what is taught; in one case, the gift of an art gallery was found to have had a direct impact on teaching and admissions policy.
This is all so easily done because there is no requirement for serious scrutiny of either the source of funding or its impact on research. As a report from the Centre for Social Cohesion puts it, our universities “are now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder”. If the LSE’s actions have a saving grace, is that they could help to expose the wider scandal surrounding the behaviour of UK universities.