The Muslim cricket test

Ruth KellySchool teachers are to force Muslim children to take sides with lessons involving imaginary terrorist plots. Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly wants to change the national curriculum so that pupils will be asked where they stand if a friend wanted to launch a “holy war” attack on a local supermarket.

Community leaders are outraged by ministers plans to target Muslim schools with questions to kids about what they would do if Islamic extremists sought to buy fertilizer for a bomb plot. The proposals raised fears of a creeping surviellance culture in which teachers could come under pressure to reveal the identities of Muslims children who sympathised with terrorism.

Critics pointed out that the government did not seek to “educate” Catholic children in Northern Ireland about the dangers of sectarian violence but instead moved to achieve a political settlement. The government needed to deal with real causes of terrorism, such as the war on Iraq and Afghanistan and segregation caused by economic policies, rather than brand young kids as terrorist sympathisers. Muslim organisations voiced concerns that the plans are based on an assumption that Muslim schools are teeming with budding terrorists.

Lester Holloway reports: BLINK, 23 May 2007

Denmark: Proposal to ban veils

The Danish People’s Party wants a total ban on veils in Denmark, but both the opposition and the government don’t support it. Pia Kjærsgaard, leader of the Danish People’s Party, said in an interview: “I want the headscarf to be completely banned in Danish society. It is oppressive and I cannot tolerate it.” She suggested to start with schools and institutions. Kjærsgaard is not talking about Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses, saying they’re not the same and are not religious laws. According to a survey 46% of Danes support a ban on veils in schools.

Islam in Europe, 19 May 2007

FBI agent threatened Muslim student at University of Calfornia

Nearly a year after a top FBI official said the agency does not monitor students at UCI, police are investigating an incident in which a Muslim student says he was threatened by a federal agent. The incident occurred Monday night in view of campus police and dozens of Muslim student spectators, who were helping to disassemble a large wooden representation of the wall that Israelis have built in occupied Palestine.

Orange County Register, 18 May 2007

7 July probe tactics criticised

Police investigating the 7 July attacks on London have been criticised by the lawyer for Hasina Patel, the widow of suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. Imran Khan, who represents Ms Patel, spoke after she and two other men had been questioned over eight days and were released without being charged.

Mr Khan told BBC News 24 that police relations with the Muslim community have been further damaged. “Those in her community are incredibly angry at the way the police have approached this,” he said. “In my view, if their intention in this case was to destroy what relations they had with the Muslim community, then they have done that.”

He said he was “relieved” at Ms Patel’s release, but remained “shocked” at the police’s handling of her arrest. He did not reveal specific details but said police had been for some time in possession of evidence that “unequivocally” proved she had known nothing about what her husband was planning two years ago.

He added: “To arrest her in these circumstances – a woman who lost her husband, who has been accused of the most atrocious events that have taken place in this country, has now spent seven days in isolation in Paddington Green – I wonder what she must be feeling. She’s quite clearly innocent of anything, because she’s been released by police having trawled through her life and possessions and caused her a tremendous amount of grief.”

BBC News, 16 May 2007

Poll: Ban veils in shopping centres

“More than four out of 10 Britons want to ban garments that hide the face – such as the Muslim veil – from shopping centres, a survey has said…. The online poll of 1,000 people for G4S Security Services showed shoppers were more worried by anti-social behaviour than by the threat of terrorism. However, the poll was conducted before a jury at the Old Bailey convicted five Muslim extremists of plotting to use a stash of 1,300 lbs of fertiliser to blow up targets including Bluewater shopping centre…. Of those polled, 41% called for a ban on items of clothing that obscured the face. The survey did not specify any particular type of garment, although a G4S spokesman said it would be fair to assume some people interpreted the question to refer to a veil.”

Press Association, 14 May 2007

Reid plots to tear up our rights

Reid PlotsCivil rights campaigners condemned Home Secretary John Reid on Sunday after he claimed that current human rights laws are no longer acceptable and must be “modernised.”

At a summit in Venice of interior and home affairs ministers from the six largest EU countries, Mr Reid urged ministers across Europe to begin a major rethink of how human rights legislation works in practice. In a controversial speech, Mr Reid said that politicians who followed existing case law “to the letter” were failing to do everything they could to guard against terror attacks.

Human rights legislation has caused problems for new Labour, including the defeat in the House of Lords of emergency laws passed in 2001 to detain terror suspects indefinitely without charge or trial. Enforcing its replacement system – known as “control orders” – has also been fraught with difficulties because of human rights legislation. The government is also unable to deport foreign suspects because the European Convention on Human Rights prevents people being sent back to countries where they may face torture or ill-treatment.

Human rights group Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said that it is clear to all observers that Mr Reid is no friend of the post-war human rights framework. “He would like to rip it all up and start again, casting aside an international framework that was agreed by democrats all over the world in the wake of the Holocaust and the Blitz,” Ms Chakrabarti said. “In particular, he would like to lock people up for long periods without due process and deport foreign nationals to places of torture.”

Morning Star, 14 May 2007

Danish government backs veil ban

A majority of parliament is ready if necessary to ban face-covering Muslim niqab veils after a family care worker refused to remove hers on the job. Politicians at parliament are prepared to give employers the right to ban Muslim niqab and burka veils for employees as a result of yet another incident involving the culture clash between conservative Islam and the West.

Odense municipality requested that the Ministry of Consumer and Family Affairs rule on a case where a Muslim woman refused to remove her veil for her job as a family care worker. Odense indicated it was not certain whether it had the authority to reject the woman as a legitimate caretaker on the grounds of her veil under the existing provisions.

Politicians had already been in an uproar over an incident last week where a Muslim parliamentary candidate indicated she would continue to wear her headscarf if she were elected. The niqab covers all of the wearer’s face except the eyes.

Carina Christensen, the Conservative family affairs minister, indicated she would not get involved in the case, which angered many parliamentary members. Conservative leader Bendt Bendtsen made it clear that his party would not accept family care employees hiding their faces from their charges. “We say no to burkas and veils in family care. Care workers are role models and accordingly must promote a proper image of women,” Bendtsen told Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

Bendtsen has the backing of the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who believes public institutions should be able to determine the dress of their employees. “The burka does not belong in family day care nor in public care institutions,” Rasmussen told Politiken newspaper. “We will naturally ensure that there are provisions in the law that allows Odense municipality to forbid the veil.” “I personally believe it’s quite fair that children should be able to see who is caring for them,” said the prime minister.

The far-left Red-Green Alliance also understood the need to have strict regulations in the matter, but did not commit to supporting any change in the law. “This is neither about special treatment or religion. It is a well-founded desire to stress that it is important in family care situations to see the caretaker’s facial expressions,” said Jørgen Arbo-Baehr, the party’s integration spokesperson.

Copenhagen Post, 3 May 2007

Swiss rightwingers want nationwide vote on minarets

Zurich mosqueThe construction of minarets in Switzerland looks sets to go to a nationwide vote after a group of rightwing politicians launched a campaign calling for a ban. The country’s Muslim community says it is stunned by what it sees as an “Islamophobic” move, which it warns will undermine already fragile relations. Those behind a people’s initiative, who include members of the county’s biggest political party, the Swiss People’s Party, have until November 2008 to raise the 100,000 signatures required to force a ballot.

People’s Party parliamentarian Ulrich Schlüer, who is co-president of the campaign committee, argues that the construction of minarets will create problems in communities and threaten the peace. “The minaret has nothing to do with religion: it is not mentioned in the Koran or other important Islamic texts. It just symbolises a place where Islamic law is established,” Schlüer told swissinfo.

The rightwing drive to force a nationwide vote on minarets is being seen as a major setback by the League of Swiss Muslims. Adel Méjri, the organisation’s president, says the construction of minarets is not even a priority for Swiss Muslims. Méjri also points to a report by the Federal Commission against Racism in September last year, which revealed that Swiss Muslims face discrimination in all walks of life – a situation that could be exacerbated by the minarets’ affair. “Through dialogue we can find solutions but the aggressive – or dare I say ‘Islamophobic’ – way in which this is being treated could have unforeseen consequences. This kind of initiative threatens peace and hurts Muslims,” he said.

Both the Protestant and Catholic churches have rallied to the defence of the Muslim community, claiming the constitutional right to religious freedom allows the building of minarets. “We must recognise that there are a large number of Muslims in Switzerland and they have a right to practise their religion,” said Walter Müller, spokesman for the Swiss Bishops Conference.

Swissinfo, 3 May 2007

‘Close all Islamic schools’ demands Wilders

geert_wildersTHE HAGUE – Freedom Party PVV faction leader Geert Wilders is arguing that all Islamic schools in the Netherlands should be shut down immediately. He says this measure is necessary in order to “protect children against the spread of Islamic doctrine.”

Wilders writes this in a column that appeared on the website Nieuwnieuws.nl. “Islam is rapidly pushing our Western civilisation close to the edge of the abyss. We have too much Islam in the Netherlands. Islam is more a violent political ideology than a religion,” the MP writes.

Expatica, 1 May 2007

Wilders receives the enthusiastic approval of Adrian Morgan over at Western Resistance.

Muslim woman sues judge over veil

DETROIT – A Muslim woman whose small-claims court case was dismissed after she refused to remove her veil sued the judge Wednesday, saying her religious and civil rights were violated. Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, of Detroit, says in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit that Judge Paul Paruk’s request to remove her veil – and his decision to dismiss her case when she didn’t – was unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

Muhammad wore a niqab during the October hearing in Hamtramck, a city surrounded by Detroit. She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into. Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: take off the veil while testifying or have the case dismissed. She kept it on.

Associated Press, 28 March 2007