I write in order to highlight to your readers and my erstwhile friends at the Atheist and Humanist Society a few irregularities apparent in their letter to you on the 8th November regarding an article that appeared in the 25th October entitled ‘Explaining Shariah’.

I draw the authors attention to the second sentence of the letter, which reads; “While every student at the LSE has the inherent right to practice and express any religion or belief of their choice, they have no right to push it on others as Morley so unsolicited did in the past issue”. This sentence is internally contradictory. The author asserts, on the one hand, an inherent right to freely express one’s religious beliefs and in the next breath denies that one has a right to express their opinions in a public newspaper. To argue that freedom of expression does not extend to Mr Morley a freedom to express his views, however unpopular, in a public forum and in a manner consistent with the law entails an assertion so obviously oxymoronic  that the authors surely cannot have intended it.

The third through seventh sentences of the letter provides a further irregularity, this time stemming not from blaring inconsistency but instead from the oddity of an atheist group taking offence to the attribution of a particular belief to Islam. That the Atheist and Humanist Society should feel the need to publicly express their offence to the misattribution (as they consider it) of the Shari’ah to Islam demonstrates a dangerous paternalistic arrogance on their part. If Mr Morley had wrongly attributed certain practices or beliefs to Islam, it would appear prudent for the Atheist and Humanist Society to allow Muslims the opportunity to clarify the tenants of their faith, and not to purport to do so for them.

The fifth sentence contains an assertion of fact which is unsubstantiated and, I would be so bold as to say, patently false. An assertion that the vast majority of the world’s 1.5 or so billion Muslims reject the Shari’ah, when one grasps exactly what the Shari’ah is, is astonishing.

Toward the end of the letter, the author’s endorsement of ‘the absolute freedom of speech’ is contradicted by the subsequent demand for the then-editor of the paper to reconsider her position for failing ‘to appropriately determine what constitutes bad taste’. Perhaps the author should consider amending their position on the absolute freedom of speech (perhaps by formulating it thus; “we believe in the freedom of speech, in so far as it conforms with good taste, which is to be determined with recourse to my personal opinions”), or amending their position on the Editor’s decision to permit the article to be published.

Finally, the author’s reference to ‘Hadd offences’ should read ‘Hudood offences’; Hadd referring to the singular (Hadd offence/Hudood offences).

Yours sincerely,

Zachariah Sammour

I think, like many, I would quite happily join Tom Maksymiw and other secularists in a movement against religious extremism, whether it be the disgusting theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the genital mutilation of millions of women in the Islamic world or the more local outrage of the bishop of Carlisle who publically pronounced that the 2007 floods in Cumbria were God’s punishment against homosexuals. However, I have very little time for atheists who think that they are smarter and morally superior to religious people.

Not only do I think it is good manners to keep these kinds of thoughts to myself but I also cannot see any constructive use in doing so either. This is because, as easy as it is to thumb through the Old Testament and find both strange and horrific verses giving divine sanction to rape and genocide, it is disingenuous to then claim that these are beliefs and morals upheld by anyone except Christian fringe groups. In reality the vast majority of Christians don’t even know of the existence of such verses and, instead, believe in and practise a set of perfectly praiseworthy moral guidelines.

Admittedly this might sound to many like an absurd hypocrisy of cherry-picking from biblical verses but, if it makes people think about their actions and give generously to charity, then it seems like a hypocrisy worth having and certainly not worth disturbing. It is a hypocrisy which has inspired and empowered people to do great things, a favourite example of mine being Lech Walesa telling the Polish police that he did not fear them because the only person he feared was God.

History and contemporary experiences tells us that human beings are metaphysical animals in desperate need of a greater purpose and position in the universe. For many people it is understandably comforting to think that they are at the centre of a divine plan and it is a wonderful way to escape what can be the unnerving uncertainty of existence.

Even those who pertain to be non-believers reveal similar fears when they indulge in UFO stories, pay through the nose for homeopathy and spiritual medicine or align themselves with conspiracy groups such as the “9/11 truth movement.” Mr. Maksymiw quite boldly tells us that it is questionable if Christianity’s objective morality “is a basis on which a free society can function” but what he does not realise is that the society he wishes to create says and offers very little to human beings. Karl Marx once described religion as the flowers which mask and sit between the links in the chain of what is human misery and oppression and he subsequently called for man to remove the flowers in order to unmask and then break the chain.

However, it seems more sensible to say that in a liberal society we should hold out to people the opportunity and freedom to remove the flowers and break the chain but crucially we should not force them to do so as some people behave better with the flowers in place and some will find more absurd and harmful chains to wrap themselves in.

Like Nona, I too voted for Ed Miliband in the last Labour leadership election. Like Nona, I too was optimistic that he “conveyed a change from Blairite politics”. And, like Nona, I too must admit that I have been left deeply frustrated by much of his recent performance. However, unlike Nona and so many other commentators up and down the country, I stand by my original vote.

The Ed Miliband for whom I cast my ballot in the 2010 leadership contest was an engaging, principled and hugely intelligent young politician. Impressed by his extremely competent performance at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, I swung towards him when it became apparent that he was the only candidate offering a credible alternative to the bland centrism of the Blair years. Ed Miliband, it seemed, cared about social justice, equality and the most disadvantaged people in our society.

Although he has undoubtedly got a lot wrong since his election, I steadfastly believe that Ed Miliband the Labour leader is more or less the same person as Ed Miliband the Labour leadership candidate. It is this enduring faith in his world view that gives me hope that he can turn things around, both for Labour and for the country. He will never be able to do this, however, unless his party, and those in the ideological space surrounding it, throw their weight behind him. If we can bolster Ed’s confidence, reinforce his message and contribute to his battle of ideas with the coalition, then maybe, just maybe, Labour can win again next time.

Although claims have been made that Ed has lurched to the right, I would argue that the true weaknesses in his performance can be narrowed down to one central problem: the fact that he has allowed the Tories to set the agenda. This is partially the fault of the media for disseminating his message. For example, his recent (quite reasonable) assertion that Labour may not be able to reverse coalition cuts come 2015 was disgracefully misrepresented as an unconditional endorsement of coalition fiscal policy.

Most of the blame, however, must be attached to the Labour party, which has been inexplicably defensive about its own merits in recent months. The Tories have fought tooth and nail to promote the narrative that Labour are not economically credible and are the same old profligate party of tax and spend. So completely has Miliband bought into this narrative that he is now trying  to establish himself as a proponent of the cuts himself, quietly disagreeing on the (not unimportant) minutiae but making sure he is seen to support the overall thrust of fiscal consolidation.

In convincing him that he cannot stand up for public services, the Tories have shoehorned him into the ridiculous position of trying to outflank them on their own turf, a position which is both an apparent endorsement of coalition policy, unappealing to his core vote and spectacularly unlikely to reap electoral benefit (as the public, after all, will vote for the Conservatives at the next election if they want more austerity). To my mind, then, Miliband’s insipid performance so far does not make him a weak leader. It is instead attributable to the fact that he has been encouraged to embrace a narrative he doesn’t really believe.

There is, however, a way out of this electoral trap. Although it will undoubtedly involve a big gamble on Miliband’s part, it is encouraging to remember that the big risks he has taken so far have provided the high points of his tenure. Against all conventional wisdom, he took on Murdoch and made Cameron look desperately behind the curve. He set the agenda on boardroom responsibility which ministers from across government are now desperately trying to claim. And his much-mocked targeting of the “squeezed middle” has, I believe, translated into a pervasive message at a time when swingeing cuts, high unemployment and stagnant growth are pinching previously comfortable socioeconomic groups. The big question, of course, is how does Miliband wrestle back the agenda on the economy?

To my mind, he has to do two things. Firstly, he needs to take a couple of the government’s most regressive cuts and turn them into symbols of his opposition to the make-up of their deficit reduction programme. It is perfectly possible, for instance, that he could major on the government’s borderline evil cuts to Disability Living Allowance without having to claim that he wouldn’t make any cuts whatsoever. Secondly, he needs to rediscover his commendable willingness to engage with new ideas from across the party. If he can reconcile himself with Glasman’s communitarian ethos, for example, then he can begin to reconceive how the state should care for the vulnerable when money’s tight, seizing back the Tories’ badly-sold ‘big society’ agenda and using it to force the government squarely onto the back foot.

Whatever he does, he has got to allow his principles to come to the fore in articulating a proper opposition to this weak coalition. Both Milibands talked of “challenging old orthodoxies” in the leadership campaign, although it seems that it is a current orthodoxy, the new norm of fiscal conservatism, that Ed has got to combat today.

The Ed Miliband I believe in can do this, but only if the left gets behind him. The Fabian Society conference last weekend showed me that brilliant ideas still exist on the left. If we can use them to galvanise Ed’s leadership then we can win again next time. Ed Miliband may not be perfect but he is still an exceptionally talented politician. By encouraging him to unleash his inner principles, we may just be his political salvation.

I do think there is a God and I believe that I am saved by Him. I’ve done sinful things in my life. If Karma is real and my final judge then I am positively screwed. To balance the great cosmic scales, I am going to have to suffer. And that I accept. But then I have this concept of Grace. I believe that God has saved me from that. God is good and loving, despite what others say. And He doesn’t want evil. With me so far?

I bet you’re thinking, that’s easy for this guy, he’s had an easy life, made it into the LSE, pretty much got his life sorted. What has he got to worry about? Believing in a fairy in the sky is easy for him. He’s never had to put that to the test!

Well, perhaps that is true for some, but if you think that Christians have never had to face the problems of suffering in the world, that we just blot them out, because without them God as a concept makes more sense, then you are deluded.

I lost my mum to brain cancer three years ago. I had to watch her grow worse daily. On her death bed she had decayed to the point where all she could do was cry. Suffering is real and it is a problem I deal with day after day. The fact that my mum was a student at the LSE means that every day when I walk down Houghton Street I am reminded that she is gone. To say that we ignore suffering is so arrogant and conceited that it fills me with such rage.

Perhaps, you retort, that God is just a psychological crutch. He’s this absent father figure, designed to make you think the world will turn out alright, a childish delusion. And I can answer that by saying, to me personally, of course He is. So what? My life was awful before Christ. Christ gave my life meaning. The suffering I went through helped me open my eyes, to rouse me from my sleep, to think: is there really a God?

I think there is a God. I see nothing to say there cannot be.  Maybe you think that me, and other Christians, must be poor scientists or must live in a world of delusion. Besides, surely it is up to the theist to prove God rather than the doubter to disprove it.

I cannot win you over with logic. Though some of my friends do believe that is possible, I do not. Christ is a personal God. He promises that, if you seek Him, you will find Him. That is a promise which I have personally found true.

However, I have often felt that, if you turn to Christ, particularly when in desperation, He is not that easy to find. I am certainly not saying that reading the Bible will provide a sudden epiphany of, “Wow, I was wrong. There really is a God.” My own experience has shown me that this is rubbish. Frequently I seek God and all I find is the silent echo of eternity.

Now, however, when I turn to him, I don’t find the locked door anymore, though it seems to creak open and closed a little each day. If I might quote C.S. Lewis, “There was no sudden striking and emotional transition. Like the warming of a room of the coming of daylight. When you first notice them they have already been going for some time.”

I cannot force you to read a Bible, and I agree that some of the things it contains are capable of deterring people from religion. I don’t think the book is contradictory but it can be hard to read, filled with verse after verse of things I struggle to accept. However, it is the best route to God that I have found, a book that grows in meaning to me the more I read it.

“Christ died for us” is the central tenant of our faith. God saw our sin, our rebellion, our evil. If you genuinely think that you have never done anything wrong then Christianity has nothing to offer you. But if you think you are not quite perfect, surely there are consequences. If God is just, he can’t let sin go unpunished. But instead of us having to face the music, Jesus faced it for us. I think that Christians are just as bad, just as sinful as the next person. We do all manner of wrongs on a daily basis. It is not that we are perfect, though we strive to do good. It is that God showed his love to us, so we try for his sake to do better.

It is not that God said, “Well, I’ll punish this guy, Jesus, instead of you,” as though He has some bloodlust that must be sated. Jesus was God so it was not that God redirected his anger from us to someone else. Instead, God gave himself up for our sakes. That is what Christians believe. That is the fundamental tenant of our faith. That Christ, God, gave himself up for us and, as a result, we are saved. God died. That is our belief, as contradictory as it sounds. Not as an accident, but for our sake, He hung on a cross, and died the death that was ours. We are freed by Him. Is that not an attractive thought?

God has offered us a path to salvation. It is not that God picks those who have behaved the best. That is the opposite of Christian doctrine. Instead, God offers everyone forgiveness, rich or poor, saint or sinner. He stands with a free gift, with arms outstretched willing to embrace anyone who will accept it.

The whole big versus small government debate involves a great deal of political theory and is not something that can be fully addressed here. So I will try to keep it relatively straight-forward. I think the debate has been manipulated in the interests of those who have most to gain from small government: businesses, wealthy elites, state-level politicians, etc. Having been raised in the “statist” social-welfare country that is Germany, I have witnessed that big governments can be both strong and dynamic as well as benevolent and useful. The clichéd argument made by US conservatives is that the founding fathers wanted a limited government, but this is outdated in the 21st century. I know that in the US it is blasphemous to question the eternal wisdom of the founding fathers, but we have to realize that these individuals were writing over two centuries ago when the US was a newly-developed entity with a population of between two and three million. Nowadays, with over 300 million citizens and an intricate infrastructural and institutional system, the argument for small government is no longer tenable.

In fact, calling for a dismantling of the state and its services is a completely irresponsible policy, especially when it is affluent politicians who are making these arguments. After all, an extreme slashing of federal spending would hit the poorest and weakest members of society the hardest. It is easy to be a libertarian if you have a good income but, as a single mother working two jobs and living off of food stamps, it is a different case. Furthermore, and perhaps to sound less anti-elitist, even the “good life” as we know it in America would not exist without the assistance and protection we get from the extensive government network.

European big government regimes are based on the idea of a strong, pro-active state. While much is required of the citizen – including moral, legal and fiscal responsibilities – he or she receives extensive social services and protections in return. So, high levels of taxation are balanced out with high levels of government spending, including healthcare, welfare and education. Also, there is a different relationship with the private sector. In social democratic states such as Germany and to, an extent, Nordic countries, the state plays a strong role in the economy in trying to guarantee a level playing field but also doubts the capability of the private sector to successfully take over duties of the state.

Of course, even with a big government there is the danger of unrestrained excessive growth and spending. Since there is no competitive market-logic as in the private sector, the oversight has to come from within. Efficiency and effectiveness has to be reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure that taxes are not being wasted and that citizens are still benefiting from the services. And this is where President Obama’s recent announcement falls. Clearly, he was hoping to increase bureaucratic efficiency. However, changes and improvements have to come gradually and evolve naturally since they are, after all, dealing with the livelihoods of individuals. His plan may be too drastic and too rash.

What remains important is to understand that just because we might not agree with the policies of a particular administration, that doesn’t mean that the whole system of governance is faulty and should be cut to its bare essentials. This is something that the Republican candidates seem to be forgetting. A small government also implies the emergence of a massive private sector – and I think putting your life into the hands of a business is a lot more precarious than into the hands of an elected government. There is less accountability, transparency and sense of responsibility in the private sector.

We can’t forget that government spending must be properly financed and going into large deficit financing, as in the US, cannot be sustained long-term. Instead, there needs to be a reshifting of spending priorities (with military spending at the very bottom) as well as a reformed tax system, similar to the one in many social democratic European regimes. With a balanced economy, big government can also be financially justified.

At the end of the day, governments do make mistakes. Big governments can be wasteful with spending, some politicians can be corrupt and some regulations ridiculous. Furthermore, government is not always as democratic as we hope it to be – special interests and powerful lobbyists play an excessively powerful role in political decision-making. After all, governments, big or small, are not infallible. But at least with a big government you know that if it makes a mistake, you still have a social safety net to fall back on.

The ASH society launched a petition against the Students’ Union, claiming to be defending “freedom of expression at University College London.” The petition received over 4,000 signatures and several endorsements from leading Atheist and Humanist organisations. Despite several complaints from UCL students,  the Students’ Union backed down from their initial request and the ASHs claimed “victory”.

This particular incident may have been resolved but the debate about “offensive” cartoons and freedom of speech endures. It is easy to polarise the discussion between two opposing, irreconcilable camps, whether between defenders of freedom of speech and irrational followers of faith or between advocates of anti-Muslim hate speech and a targeted religious minority. The reality, I would argue, is far more nuanced. Simplifying the issue is an obstacle to resolution.

As a European Muslim, I find myself at the heart of the debate and the recent controversy has led me to reflect on how the solution to this tension will shape the future of our society.

It is argued that drawing cartoons in order to ridicule religion is a natural extension of freedom of speech and freedom to criticise religion. Therefore cartoons ridiculing religion should be published without restrictions. Any opposition to the cartoons is an attempt to silence criticism of religion, and, in particular, criticism of Islam.

When analysing the nature of the cartoons, however, one could conclude that defending the right to draw such cartoons is not related to promoting freedom of speech if the cartoons serve no purpose in actually criticising religion (or anything else). I will propose that the cartoons are designed to promote and reinforce a reductive and perverse view of religion often based on prejudice or ignorance. However, I will not argue that the cartoons should be censored or banned because they may cause offence.

I strongly believe that the question shouldn’t be whether “offensive” cartoons should or shouldn’t be published. Rather, we should question whether using freedom of speech to cause offense and provoke sections of society is compatible with civic responsibility within a pluralist, tolerant and diverse society.

So my argument can be summarised as follows: (1) the cartoons do not promote a critical discussion of religion and (2) just because you are allowed to do something, it doesn’t mean you should do it.

Before I continue, it is important to introduce three points. Firstly, there is, and must be, a limit on what we can and can’t say (and, therefore, draw). Legislation against discrimination, antisemitism and incitement to violence are entrenched in most democracies to balance the liberty of the individual with the protection of wider society. Therefore, absolute “free speech” can’t really exist. Secondly, violent responses to “offensive” cartoons are wrong, counter-productive and, frankly, illogical. They follow the same logic of violent and extremist “pro-life” campaigners that murder doctors who perform abortions. Thirdly, “offensive” cartoons are a particularly sensitive issue for Muslims because the depiction of any prophet (including Jesus Christ) is strictly forbidden. Also, perceived attacks on Islam can easily escalate due to the contemporary geo-political situation. For example, extremists can easily manipulate the issue to reinforce their West versus Islam narrative.

The use of sarcasm, ridicule and irony to highlight vices and abuses of individuals with the primary objective of constructive criticism is at the essence of satire. Neither the Danish cartoons nor the “Jesus and Mo” comic strip can really be categorised as satire.  What is the critical observation behind Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad sharing a pint or sleeping together? What’s the intellectual and witty suggestion behind a picture of the Prophet with a bomb on his turban? The latter example is clearly Islamophobic and promotes the prejudice that all Muslims are terrorists. It is simply reducing a religion or people to a perverse perception and then broadcasting that as legitimate criticism.

If you were genuinely concerned about the violent message of Islam, is drawing a provocative cartoon which attacks all Muslims a reasonable way to begin an intellectual discussion? The “Jesus and Mo” strip is also useless in promoting critical dialogue. In reality, the comics are for entertainment purposes only and promote simplistic and dogmatic views of religion which may be humorous to atheists, but are of little value to the case for scrutinising religious beliefs and practices. People should be allowed to be entertained by whatever they see fit in the private sphere but what purpose do these cartoons have in the public sphere?

In a diverse society people are bound to hold differing opinions on a range of issues. Managing our diversity so that we promote cohesion through mutual respect and avoid imposing our views on others is therefore essential. In order to maintain this harmony our responsibilities towards one another may sometimes be a priority over our personal freedom.

From my understanding, radical or militant atheists would like to eradicate religion from society. At least for now, religion and religious people will continue to exist, so I would like to ask them what should happen to people that disagree with the radical atheist worldview? Aren’t your attitudes as dogmatic as the people you claim to be fighting?

In the name of maintaining tolerance and developing a strong, pluralist and cohesive society, we must reassess the role of offensive cartoons in the public sphere. I reject UCL ASH Society’s claim of “victory” in defence of free speech and at the same time believe that it is unwise to take these cartoons seriously – I am convinced that Prophet Muhammad wouldn’t be troubled by these pathetic drawings, but he would definitely be distressed by those who distort his message.

The cartoon depicted the eponymous characters sharing a beer and engaging in pub banter. Unsurprisingly, the cartoon caused outrage at UCL, mostly emanating from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Students association of UCL and, a separate organisation, the Islamic Society, also of UCL.

After receiving a number of complaints the UCLU requested the society remove the image. As of yet, the image has not been removed as the ASH society professes they are merely exercising their freedom of expression. The society has also launched an e-petition asking the UCLU to withdraw their request which has received over 4,000 signatures.

As an atheist and student of political science, the incident interests me greatly. Reflective of the 2005 Danish Cartoon controversy, three questions are (re)raised, all of which I will try to address here. Firstly, should speech and expression ever be limited? Secondly, if it cannot, is the UCL ASH society justified in publishing an image that will knowingly offend a community? Finally, should the Beaver stand in solidarity with one side or the other?

To the first, there is never a legitimate reason to forcibly preclude the expression of free speech. In extreme cases, say when one incites violence, denies what common consensus has called “the truth” or, in a famous example, shouts “Fire!” in a crowded, conflagration free, theatre, it is still, more I would posit, necessary to protect the freedom of expression.

There are three reasons for this. First, dissenting opinions, no matter how seemingly unjustified, always have the effect of sparking thought and debate which are unfailingly necessary prerequisites to discovering the truth.

Questioning taboos, putting forward controversial or even ‘offensive’ theories are the manifestation of this. The effect of honestly answering, and potentially disproving, such questions and controversial or offensive theories will, each time, bring about another enlightened soul.

Second, the exposure of fabricated and extremists views to criticism does far more to eliminate extremism, as it publicly disproves it, rather than merely censoring it, where it can remain to be disseminated underground.

Thirdly, even if it was concluded that it is necessary to limit freedom of speech, to whom would the responsibility of censorship lay? Can you, dear reader, think of anybody you would feel comfortable with telling you what you can and cannot say? Who is an appropriate arbiter, a better judge than you, of your own thought and expression? Who should limit what you, as a thinking individual, are exposed to?

Thus, returning to the controversy at the UCL, I can find no appropriate reason for the UCLU to actually attempt to ban the expression of the ASHS. However, this brings me to my second point.

Even if the UCL ASH have a right to publish an image of Prophet Muhammad, is it a kind thing to do? It is my belief that accusations against the ASHS of hate speech must be immediately dismissed. The cartoon in question (which may be seen on their Facebook page), neither calls for the incitement of violence against Muslims nor does it make any claim about the moral status of a Muslim nor does it attempt to act as a legitimate interpretation of the Islam.

It is a humorous depiction of Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad, people who supposedly lived centuries apart, sitting in a 21st century pub sharing a pint and engaging in pub conversation. However, as the publisher(s) must have known, the cartoon would cause controversy and upset – the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in Islam as is the consumption of alcohol.

While I am of the opinion that some ideas in Islam are so illogical you could make a cartoon about them, I am more ambivalent when it comes to the effect such a cartoon would have. While I cannot honestly empathise with any Muslim distraught by a cartoonish depiction of their Prophet, I do not wish to act insensitively to anyone who at least respects my right to say whatever I wish. That said, browsing the UCL Islamic Society’s website, I came across a number of (real, not cartoonish) pictures that offended me. However, neither I nor the UCL ASH, call for the censorship of such expression. We do not hold a right to be free from offence.

This brings me to my final point. What stance ought the Beaver to take? My friends and colleagues at the LSE ASH society feel the cartoon should be republished. My first intuition was to agree with them. As previously established, the UCLU has no right to ban freedom of expression. Debating the issue with a (religious) friend I considered a different perspective. While the only intent of the UCL ASHS was to advertise an event in a humorous way, perhaps they should have shown some sensitivity – after all, there is more than one way to advertise a pub crawl.

However, if we are to restrict our action by what might offend others a dangerous precedent would be set. How can we be sure to take enough precautions? I quote the late Christopher Hitchens’ response to the Danish Cartoon controversy: “we cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.” Thus, I can only conclude that the Beaver should, in an act of defiance to those who wish to control speech and as a celebration of free speech, republish the cartoons.

Well, no hard feelings: smile politely, keep calm and carry on. Dr. Leape should know however, that when it comes to “rerum cognoscere causas” of the Greek crisis, the average LSE student is less industrious and diligent in commending solutions than they are in “Greek-crisis-banter.” It appears that, for the future analysts and traders of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the current crisis is “all Greek to them.” As a Greek, I feel compelled to say a few things about the current situation. Unfortunately I am not a columnist at the FT or The Economist, which would have rendered my opinions Gospel-like to any LSE student.

I believe that solutions exist as long as the handling of this crisis is not left to individuals who have the leadership charisma of a seven year old boy scout (#AngelaMerkel). Those who influence public opinion through columns, newspapers and magazine articles should stop propping up leaders like ex-Prime Minister Papandreou, whose notion of how the economy works was as bad as Herman Cain’s notion of geopolitics. Nonetheless, an Austrian magazine named Mr. Papandreou 2011 Man of the Year, while the LSE boasts about Mr. Papandreou being a member of its alumni.

Similarily, publications such as The Economist should stop glorifying technocrats such as the current, unelected Prime Minister Loukas Papademos. Greece entered the Euro with flawed statistics having entrusted Goldman Sachs to make cross-currency-swaps. Government debt issued in yen and dollars was exchanged for euro debt for a certain, short-term period, to be exchanged back into the original currency later on, making Greek debt seem smaller. Well, Mr. Papadimos was Governor of the Bank of Greece at that time, so just follow the late Steve Job’s advice and “connect the dots” about this man’s integrity and credibility.

How about propping up the Greek people? Have faith on the cohorts of the Greek population which do not strike for leisure and who’ve learned that only through hard work one is able to succeed in life. The current stereotype, however, is that we Greeks are inherently lazy. Some of you might have read The Guardian’s online article, “Who works the longest hours in Europe?” Greeks are tied with the Austrians in first place.

Maybe the average Greek citizen does not sit in a cafe all day, his shirt unbuttoned, his dense chest hair blowing in the Sirocco under the sounds of “Zorba the Greek.” Clearly not lazy, but one might guess that we are unproductive. Policy and measures endorsed by the EC should be geared towards creating a meritocratic society, where a nexus between productivity and remuneration defines employment.

A glimpse at the Greek diaspora’s performance proves that in well functioning societies, Greeks and Cypriots alike are able to fully exploit their potential. Sir Basil Markezinis or Sir Stelios Hadjioannou are two examples. Most of you here at the LSE will have come across some Greek teacher or lecturer with a funny accent. Why abroad? Unfortunately, party affiliation is more important than an academic’s quality of research in Greek Universities.

Selling Mykonos, the Acropolis or a few marble emasculated Adonises, is not an option. On the one hand, cultural heritage is not an exchangeable asset while the selling of land is against our Constitution. Although some austerity was necessary to convince markets in the short run, debts are repaid in the long run through surpluses. Without any prospects for growth, markets will remain unconvinced.

To put it mildly: unless growth policies are implemented in Greece, we will most definitely default on our debt, creating a financial tsunami several times the magnitude of the Lehman Brothers demise.

If you’d like to help, make sure you book a “lads and ladettes” holiday to some Greek Island; Marbella and Salou are at best a poor man’s Zoo Bar. Also, make sure you do not blindly annex the opinions of those whose judgement is both Standard and Poor; those who once upon a time gave triple-A ratings to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Greek government is unfortunately close to bankrupcy, but we are not a bankrupt nation.

Technion is a research university which collaborates with the Israeli government to develop technology at the heart of Israel’s worst excesses. The Palestinian people are enduring the longest military occupation in modern history and this means that every aspect of a Palestinian’s life is controlled, regulated and policed – using soldiers, teargas, tanks and the illegal wall separating people’s land

Israeli research insitutions – such as Technion – provide the technological foundation for Israel’s military occupation. Technion is not just linked to the occupation but deeply complicit to it, working hand in hand with Israel’s military.  In order to illustrate this, I will outline some of the specific projects which Technion has assisted with.

Firstly, Technion has developed a remote-controlled “D9” bulldozer, which is used by the Israeli army in order to demolish Palestinian homes. Experts estimate that Israel has demolished 24,000 Palestinian homes since the occupation began in 1967. Israel’s demolition of Palestnian homes breaches international law, which allows destruction of property only where it is a military necessity.

Secondly, Technion develops techniques designed to detect the tunnels Palestinians have built to smuggle essential supplies into Gaza. The movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza is severely restricted by Israel.

Thirdly, Elbit Systems is an Israeli company that builds military, surveillance and security equipment. Technologies and projects that Elbit has created for specific use in the occupied Palestinian territories have been both directly and indirectly designed and developed by Technion.

Elbit is involved in the construction of Israel’s illegal wall around occupied Palestinian territory. The wall is designed to pen Palestinians into an area dictated by the Israeli state. In 2004 the wall was deemed to violate international law by the International Court of Justice. Elbit has developed and supplied a surveillance system especially for use in the wall and is therefore complicit with this unlawful act.

The LSE is conducting joint research with a consortium of universities, including Technion. Technion is directly implicated in the violation of Palestinian rights and in the violation of international law.

Universities such as Technion directly contribute to such crimes by providing the knowledge, research and technology to facilitate the crime. I believe that the LSE should not be conducting research in this consortium while Technion are involved as they are complicit in such egregious violations. The student body should be active in discussing LSE’s connections with Technion and take action if necessary.

As Blue Monday passes by this week, the dismal pessimism of the modern condition drags itself across every news headline and pervades the public mind. Talk of the economic condition is (more than likely) a gloomy one; protests, strikes and riots are rolling out week by week. We’re told authorities are lying to us, that crime is further pervading our communities, our environment is deteriorating rapidly; and stuck in the midst of this is the reputation of the LSE: another example used by the media to predict how far away the light at the end of the tunnel really is. So what will change if our institutes of higher education don’t? How can we be hopeful of the future when even our leading universities have dirty hands?

I can only assume that what most people are searching for in the management of government bodies and large organisations is a better future, whether for themselves or for society as a whole. No generation is without its problems and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that perfection is achievable. However, when looking for potential leaders and academic minds to control the country, it is inevitable that we will want to search for individuals with compassion and honesty, as well as intelligence.

The banking crisis of 2008 painted the leaders of banks and big business as selfish, egotistical and careless and many had little faith in government ministers to lend a helping hand, especially in light of the issues over government expenses. And where, in the public’s eyes, did the majority of the culprits of such controversy come from? The leading UK universities.

With many London School of Economics graduates going into high-flying careers and leadership positions across the world, the media can hardly be blamed to see the school as the potential source of future issues – and although the hyperbole of headlines may stretch contentious occurrences out of proportion, the media can be seen as nipping foul play in the bud.

But is this culture of finger-pointing, blame and revealing of secrets something more than just highlighting the imperfection of academics and professionals? Are we moving towards a self-assessment of society as a whole? The new weapon of the public, as I mentioned last week in my article about Tata Funding and the LSE, is the call for accountability and transparency at all levels of business, policy-making, correspondence – anything a potential lack of clarity can be buried in.

The immediacy of modern life, hitching a ride on the back of modern technology, is one cause of the steady dissolution of the notion of privacy. Whether this is a benefit or harm to society is debatable; but it is nevertheless an inevitable wave of progression that we all seem to be swept away by.

Whether it’s the wrath of Wikileaks, spying on celebrity lives in “reality” TV shows or Twittering about your fascinating daily life (to the few others who actually care that you’ve just been to another soul-sucking franchised coffee shop for a soya double-shot caramel macchiato), the fascination we seem to have adopted for the ins-and-outs of everyone else’s business is beginning to attack every barrier, behind which a potential secret could be waiting.

It is in the context of this world that the LSE needs to see itself. The common portrayal of the school is, more often than not, as one at the forefront of innovation. In order to keep its  reputation as a leading and admirable institution, the inner workings of its correspondence, funding sources and any potentially controversial action needs to be as transparent and honest as possible.

As for those individuals responsible for other controversial issues unconnected to the school’s inner workings, we can only condemn their actions and see them as unfortunate anomalies amongst the admirable student body. The school has done fairly well in treating recent matters seriously, in acknowledgment that it is in the achievements and successes of students that the LSE’s reputation should be founded. If we are to be consistent and confident of the school as an institution which provides students with the ability to achieve their highest academic potential, we have nothing to worry about.

However, even though the apparent lack of morality, conscientiousness and tactfulness of individuals connected with controversial current events of the past few years can hardly be seen as a cause of the influence of institutions of higher education, the media will not cease in its search for the source. In light of the “revolution of transparency,” all the LSE can do is adapt to the culture of thorough accountability.