Let’s not go to extremes

October 22, 2015

The irony of Rupert Sutton’s letter is that his organisation’s lack of credibility is the very reason why we raised concerns about Downing Street’s apparent plagiarism of its output (“Credibility of sources is vital”, Letters, 15 October).

Sutton works for Student Rights, the campus-monitoring arm of neoconservative thinktank the Henry Jackson Society – about which he claims we raise no “substantive criticisms”. On the contrary, our report on the HJS details the many flaws in its research and its authoritarian and Islamophobic tendencies.

The former director of Student Rights was Raheem Kassam, who proved too right-wing even for the UK Independence Party as Nigel Farage’s aide. Now HJS’ associate director is Douglas Murray, who once said that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”. Do such views qualify the HJS as fit to label others as “extremists”?

Sutton’s claim that Spinwatch is “funded by the very extremists whom the policy aims to challenge” reveals the contested nature of the term “extremism”. For the HJS, it appears that politically active British Muslim groups are extremist if they have the temerity to question British foreign policy, the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, or support Palestinian human rights.

It is this kind of misrepresentation that might lead readers to view his organisation – not Spinwatch – as trading in “smears and innuendo”.

Spinwatch is transparent about its donors, HJS is not. It chose to withdraw from its role in two All Party Parliamentary Groups rather than reveal its funders, as Westminster rules require.

Our research did, however, uncover some donors to the HJS, such as the New York-based Abstraction Fund, which also funds the Gatestone Institute. Gatestone publishes the Islamophobic writings of Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Lars Hedegaard and others.

So, we agree with Rupert Sutton: credibility of sources is vital. The debate on extremism is far too important to be left to the covert influence of shoddy research produced by neoconservative thinktanks.

David Miller and Hilary Aked
University of Bath; Spinwatch

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham