UCC Bans Conference over security concerns

At 12pm last Friday we were informed by UCC's General Services office that the 9/11
Conference planned for November 12th could not take place on UCC grounds over
security concerns that an Intelligence Agency of a Foreign Government (MI5) might
attempt to assasinate one of the guests (David Shayler) while on campus. The room
was booked by us last June 2005.

At 12pm last Friday we were informed by UCC's General Services office that the 9/11
Conference planned for November 12th could not take place on UCC grounds over
security concerns that an Intelligence Agency of a Foreign Government (MI5) might
attempt to assasinate one of the guests (David Shayler) while on campus. The room
was booked by us last June 2005.

At 4.30pm last Friday we hand delivered the following open letter to the President
of UCC as well as other relevant recipients. We followed up with an email on
Saturday to the effect that because time was now of the essence we would hope to
hear back from the parties involved by 5pm Monday. No response has been forthcoming
as of yet.

The Conference WILL go ahead. However, depending on the size of the room we
ultimately secure it may be necessary to as much as double ticket prices from their
current level of 20.

============================================President Wrixon, Presidents Office.
Sheila Maguire, General Services Office,
Head of Security, General Services Office,
Prof. Ciaran Murphy, Dept AFIS,
Prof. Ray Donnelly, Dept AFIS,
Prof. Neil Collins, Dept. Government,
Dr. Andrew Cottey, Dept. Government,
Prof. Fred Powell, Dept. Social Sciences.

Friday October 21st. 16.15.

Dear Recipients,

I send you this correspondence as a matter of the utmost urgency, the reasons for
which I trust will become self evident below (Contact details enclosed App B).

I am both a graduate of the University (B.Sc 96 MBS 00) and had been a member of the
Graduate Association before I joined as a part-time staff member of the University
(Dept. AFIS - Lecturing in Management Accounting) on Monday September 26th 2005 and
a week later also a part-time member of staff of the Dept. Management & Marketing
(Researcher with Family Business Centre).

Last January, while a lecturer at the Institute of Technology Tralee I saw
photographs for the first time of the Pentagon on 9/11 which clearly show that no
plane hit that building (see attached). Since then I have conducted hundreds of
hours of research into every aspect of that horrific tragedy and found the truth
behind the ‘attacks’ to be more than disturbing, yet hugely important to, I think
it’s fair to say, our civilisation.

Having watched a presentation by Professor David Ray Griffin of the famed Claremont
Institute of Theology on the outstanding US public affairs TV channel C-Span in
April, I undertook to organise a Conference on the topic here in Ireland for the
following November 12th. In June I spoke with and was told by the Communications
Officer of the Students Union that I would need to be co-presenting with a student
or other University Society in order to be able to advertise the Conference on
campus, as we had deemed that an essential means of making both students and staff
aware of the event. We had initially approached the Dept. of Government and the Law
Dept. to see if they would be interested but both declined.

We waited for 6 weeks until the beginning of September to realise that the Philisoph
and the Law Society were not in fact interested after all, and we read this for the
first time in an Irish tabloid Sunday newspaper with the rationale given ‘that we
were not presenting both sides of the argument.’ We had attempted to contact the
Philisoph approximately 20 times but our phone calls and emails went unreturned. We
are still looking for an institution of the University to partake (if only in
spirit) in order that we can advertise on the campus.

Approximately two weeks after the publication of the factually incorrect article in
the Sunday tabloid we went to the accommodations office to clarify if their quote in
the same article was correct. The girls in the office denied that any such quote was
given to the newspaper. At that meeting I requested that the room booking be changed
from the Philisoph/Law Society into my name as a private individual albeit member of
the graduate association etc. It should be noted at this point also that there is a
difference in the rates for room rental if we had not received a University
co-sponsor. The figures are €270 v € 675. I also clarified that we were happy to pay
the higher fee if we did not find a co-sponsor.

At the very same meeting I told the girls in the accommodation that we really should
have a meeting ASAP in order to prepare for security and indeed generally. The date
was between 10th -15th September. A meeting was duly arranged for a week or so later
maybe longer. At the meeting were representatives of the Security Guards and General
Services. I outlined at the meeting what the conference entailed and how
‘controversial’ it would be. I naively made the mistake of saying that some of the
speakers lives are in danger so I wanted us to take all sensible precautions for
their security. I said naively because I believed that might spark an interest in
those in attendance into wondering why these men’s lives might be in danger. I
couldn’t have been more wrong. The General Services manager requested at the meeting
any media coverage that we had received to date, not specifically about the
conference but in general. I did not see the rationale for this then or now but in a
spirit of full cooperation I said I would drop it in the following day which I did.
The meeting finished and we all agreed we would meet again soon.

About a week later I got a call from John Deasy of the Barracks Street Garda station
who said that he had been in touch with the University and said that they had some
concerns about security. He asked if I would call in to see him and we arranged a
time again a couple of days later. Before ending the call however he asked where I
was from. I said without thinking Listowel. Only then did it dawn on me that Mr.
Deasy wanted to ring Listowel to investigate me. Realising this I suggested he speak
to Garda Mike Sheehy who is my next door neighbour. At the meeting Mr. Deasy told me
that he did not think the risk would be sufficient to warrant the presence of a
Garda on the day. I said that was fine as between the Security and Conference
Volunteers we would be fine. Where the risk has come from since then has baffled me
and I can not seem to get any answers for other than that ‘we cannot guarantee
security.’ How long is a piece of string?

Approximately 2/3 weeks after the first meeting I was invited to attend a second
meeting last Friday 14th October. Attending were both General Services, Security
Guards & John Deasy. I brought along a poster of the Conference event to show
everybody present. When the General Services Manager saw the poster she asked if I
had gone ahead advertising the Conference ‘without her say so’. I never realised
once that I needed approval from the General Services Manager as either alumni of
staff in order to book a room in the college as a private citizen. I replied simply
that we hadn’t started advertising the Conference yet. Wondering all the while how
long it takes General Services to organise a Conference with six International
guests.

It became clear during the meeting that security shared the ‘reservations’ of
General Services. I was asked if it would be likely that people would be picketing
the event I said absolutely not. The problem, I said, was not protesters, the
problem was getting media organisations to cover the event as the general tendency
is not to, as has been to date. I was asked about the speakers and especially David
Shayler, former MI5 agent and whistleblowers who, at massive personal cost told the
world of the endemic corruption of that organisation. I explained that Mr. Shayler
had in fact had an attempt on his life a number of years ago presumably by an
intelligence agency, but that these would have to be plausible natural/accident
assignation attempts i.e. they wouldn’t be trying to shoot him in the Boole basement
for example. Securi ty pointed out that I could not guarantee that they would not
try to kill him on UCC property. I agreed that I could not, in the same way I cannot
guarantee that anybody who crosses a road will ever be knocked down. The general
Services Manager said that she would ‘let me know their decision.’ I asked when
given that the Conference was 28 days away at that point. I was told by Monday or
Tuesday. I was also asked by the General Services Manager if I would drop in the
media coverage as she had requested weeks previously. I told her that I had dropped
it in the following day as requested. Apparently it was lost. I dropped in another
copy of the media coverage two hours after this meeting, still failing to see it’s
relevance.

I then received a call the following Friday morning, which is today 21st October, 22
days before the Conference. I went to the General Services office and was told to
wait for Security. At the meet this morning, which lasted about 60 seconds, that
because of ‘security concerns’ the entire Boole basement would have to be closed off
but because there were other room bookings this would not be possible and thus it
would not be possible for the Conference to go ahead in UCC. I pointed out that if
there were concerns with security we could screen people or take tickets only at the
top of the stairs. It is still unclear to me why this was not deemed possible.

Now in the past week I had been comforting myself witb the thought that there was no
way they could cancel a room booking four months after it was made and 22 days
before the event itself. And what are the protocols for security at such an event?
Because when we booked the room and when three months later WE requested a meeting
we were never told about such security protocols. And if we have agreed to rule out
the ‘risk’ of protesters and agree that the only ‘risk’ comes from a British
Intelligence organisation then what exactly are we saying, because I think it is
helpful to codify;

“Security Protocols will deem an event unhostable by UCC if one of the participant’s
lives is in danger from an Intelligence Unit of a foreign government?”

And if all recipients of this letter agree that this is an appropriate stance for
our University then so be it. You will not hear from me again if that is confirmed.

However, such a concept is abhorrent to me and I think would be abhorrent to anybody
who believes that a University should be institutions of enquiry into truth for the
betterment of mankind. Should we qualify that to say except in controversial
circumstance? Again, the notion is incredulous.

As an aside I have been part of an online group ‘Academics for 9/11 Truth’ since
July which is headed by Professor Paul Zarembka of Buffalo State University and
editor of Research in Political Economy. Approximately a dozen academics, myself
included, are preparing a Volume on 9/11 that is to be published in the new year and
only yesterday I noted in a discussion about possible titles that ’I was so proud to
work on a Volume with academics from all over the world who have in many cases put
their research interests to one side to work on this most important issue of our
time.’ Details of the Volume are on the attached sheet (App C). In fact, the
deadline for submission of chapters is Nov 1st and I was just clearing my schedule
of non work related stuff in order that I could take some time out to write that
chapter next week. Now it seems I might have to spend the next week looking for a
new venue for our Conference instead.

Regardless at this point whether the Conference goes ahead or not in UCC I intend to
fight the absurd principle that this case seems to establish (see above). I do so
not out of spite and animosity but because should such a principle be established it
will sully the name of our University around the world as a place where only
convenient ‘truths’ are permissible. If that happens it will be akin to the
proverbial dagger through the heart of my love for this institution, our University,
famed far and near.

If any recipient of this letter supports the principal of academic freedom in its
truest sense I would love to hear from them ASAP. I am not familiar with the rules
or regulations for academic freedom as they pertain in UCC and so will defer to
others more familiar on that. The key questions that we need to address immediately
therefore I propose are:

1) Under what ‘security’ grounds can General Services/Security refuse to host
an event on campus by either alumni or current staff and

2) Is one of those grounds that a guest speaker might be assassinated by an
Intelligence Agency of a Foreign government?

I stress the urgency with which I hope to tackle these questions because a
Conference that has taken a group of people 6 months to prepare is in danger of
disappearing. And again I stress that if I am the only person to think the way I do
I will accept that and as soon as I do I will contact sympathetic local media to
announce on air that we are looking for a new venue. We have no time to spare if we
do it any other way.

Finally, some concerns have been expressed about perception that because the event
is held in UCC it might be interpreted as being supported by UCC. I pointed out
before and again now that all anybody has to do is ask that question and they will
be told the answer. No. This answer is endorsed by the fact that we are paying €675
for the room. i.e. the rate an external party pays. And if a Dept or Society did
decided to co-present the event, this still cannot be interpreted by any reasonable
yardstick that UCC is ‘endorsing’ the event. On the other hand should this decision
stand the word will spread like rapidly around Cork city and beyond that UCC ‘banned
the 9/11 Conference.’ I can appreciate the benefits of this ironically in raising
public awareness about the event but believe me when I say that I would take cold
comfort by selling more tickets in this manner. And my book on this campaign will
have an extra chapter on this fiasco that might make it a better read. Again, that
brings me negative joy.

Ultimately what this may be about is, to coin an unpleasant phrase, people covering
their asses just so no finger can be pointed at them if something ‘did go wrong.’
This is a common and simple motivation and can be easily understood. However, if it
takes precedence over the central core work of a University then we have reached a
sad chapter in our 160 year history.

What this should be about is to quote Professor Fred Powell of the Dept. Social
Sciences at a Graduation last month (full address attached App A):

“Knowledge is about the search for truth. The underlying purpose of truth-seeking
is the most noble and useful activity of humankind. In the university the pursuit
of truth is underpinned by academic freedom, which is usually described as the right
of each individual to enjoy the freedom to study, to inquire, to speak their mind,
to communicate their ideas, and to assert the truth as they see it. This claim to
freedom of the mind stretches back to Ancient Athens. Socrates, who was Plato's
teacher, became the embodiment of knowledge as the quest for truth. Democracy and
truth are interdependent”.

Should not the guiding principle for our University be then to ‘endorse the search
for truth’ however ‘controversial’ and/or ‘unpalatable’? After all, there is only
one truth. Surely we cannot abandon it on occasion?

Yours Urgently,

Morgan Stack B.Sc M.Acc MBS


Lecturer Dept. Accounting, Finance Information Systems,
Room 3.11,
O’Rahilly Building,
UCC.