Ed Balls accused of ‘double standards’ over mosque schools

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has been accused of refusing to ban Islamic schools from smacking children for fear of upsetting Muslim “sensitivities”.

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole which gives teachers in Britain’s estimated 1,600 schools associated with mosques the right to smack children – even though it is banned in other schools. He refused, prompting claims that he is allowing an alleged “culture of physical abuse” in some of the mosque schools – or madrasahs – go unchecked.

Smacking is banned in all State and private schools. However, it does not apply to madrasahs, where pupils usually study in the evenings or at weekends, because the ban exempts schools where children attend for less than 12.5 hours per week.

Lib Dem schools spokesman David Laws, who is spearheading the campaign to close the smacking loophole, said: “The Government needs to legislate to protect children – not leave an opt-out simply because it fears some ethnic or religious backlash.”

He was supported by Labour MP Ann Cryer, who said it would be “bonkers” if the Government did not act. She said: “I suspect people are frightened of upsetting the sensitivities of certain members of the Muslim faith.” She denied she was biased against Islamic schools and said classes run by “strange Christian sects” should also be covered by the smacking ban.

A spokesman for Mr Balls’ department denied that his refusal to change the law was based on fears of upsetting Muslim opinion. “We have no evidence the law is being abused or that children are being abused in these circumstances,” he said.

Mail on Sunday, 17 January 2010


If there are any double standards here, they are on the part of Ann Cryer, who is not proposing that the law should be extended to cover Sunday schools run by the Church of England, for example – only to classes run by mosques and “strange Christian sects”, which she evidently regards at the religious equivalent of Islam.

As you might expect, the Mail article has been approvingly reproduced over at Jihad Watch.

UKIP chief Nigel Farage calls for burka ban

The burka and other face-covering veils worn by Muslim women should be banned, the UK Independence Party says.

Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who leads UKIP’s 13 MEPs in Brussels, told the BBC’s Politics Show they were a symbol of an “increasingly divided Britain”. He also said they “oppressed” women and were a potential security threat. But Schools Secretary Ed Balls said it was “not British” to tell people what to wear in the street, and accused UKIP of indulging in “unpleasant politics”.

UKIP is the first British party to call for a total ban, after the BNP called for it to be banned in Britain’s schools.

Mr Farage said: “I can’t go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on. I can’t wear a balaclava going round the District and Circle line. What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It’s a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain.

“And the real worry – and it isn’t just about what people wear – the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture.”

A “different” culture was “being forced on parts of Britain and nobody wants that”, added Mr Farage, but he denied the policy was an attempt to grab votes from the BNP, insisting it had “nothing to do with the BNP”. “There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous about this, but we can’t go on living in a divided society,” he told The Politics Show.

BBC News, 17 January 2010

See also UKIP news report, 17 January 2010

UKIP calls for ban on veil

Lord Pearson and WildersThe UK Independence Party is to call for a ban on the burka and the niqab – the Islamic cloak that covers women from head to toe and the mask that conceals most of the face – claiming they affront British values.

The policy, which a number of European countries are also debating, is an attempt by UKIP to broaden its appeal and address the concerns of disaffected white working-class voters.

UKIP would be the first national party to call for a total ban on burkas, though the far-Right BNP believes they should be banned from schools.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP, said yesterday: “We are taking expert advice on how we could do it. It makes sense to ban the burka – or anything which conceals a woman’s face – in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”

Nigel Farage, the former UKIP party leader, will announce tomorrow that the party believes the fabric of the country is under threat from Sharia and that forcing women to conceal their identity in public is not consistent with traditional Britishness.

UKIP believes that the burka and the niqab have no basis in Islam, are a threat to gender equality, marginalise women and endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity.

Times, 16 January 2010


See also the Times editorial, “Veil of ignorance”, which condemns UKIP’s proposal as “deeply cynical and wrong”:

“They claim that the burka marginalises women. This is a new concern for UKIP. It is, after all, the party of Godfrey Bloom, the MEP who says that ‘any small businessman or woman who employs a woman of child-bearing age needs their head examined’. Perhaps Mr Bloom, who thinks that women do not clean behind the fridge enough, worries that their burkas are getting in the way.

“UKIP argues further that the burka has no place in Islam and that the religion does not require it. The Times had not hitherto realised that Nigel Farage was an authority on such matters, or that the party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was visited by God when on the operating table in 1977, thereby gained not only his Christian faith but also a mastery of the Koran. This newly acquired scholarship notwithstanding, the religious insights of politicians are entirely irrelevant when judging the right of British citizens to dress as they wish.”

Update:  The fascists aren’t happy. See “Phony UKIP steals BNP burka policy”, BNP news report, 17 January 2010

Government restores links with MCB

Daud Abdullah, Muhammad Abdul Bari, Inayat BunglawalaMinisters have restored official ties with the Muslim Council of Britain despite its refusal to remove a deputy leader accused of supporting attacks on British soldiers

Tory MP Paul Goodman said: “It is a surrender to extremism by a bunch of politicians who are scared witless over losing their seat and are prepared to compromise real cohesion and real integration in order to appease an organisation that remains tainted.”

Daily Mail, 16 January 2010

The Spectator reports this as “The government caves in to the Muslim Council of Britain”.

‘Mosque on Christian site’ story was fake

An internet story claming a mosque was being built on a Christian-run centre has turned out to be fake.

More than 1,500 people protested on a Facebook page opposing ‘plans’ to demolish the YMCA building, in Lisieux Way, Taunton, to build “a giant mosque”.

A YMCA spokesman said he was aware of the Facebook group and concerns about the future of the facility, which hosts sports, activities and meetings, including Islamic worship. He added: “We’d like to reassure the community there are no plans to demolish Taunton YMCA.”

Fr Julian Lawrence, Taunton YMCA chairman of the board, said: “The rumours are completely false and somewhat spurious. Maybe they’re more to do with the originator’s attitude towards Islamic worship on the site.”

Somerset County Gazette, 14 January 2010

Wilders to be tried for hate speech

Geert Wilders will be tried for hate speech and inciting discrimination in a Dutch court next Wednesday. A ruling on Tuesday took away the last obstacle standing in the way of the case against anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, when the court dismissed his objections against prosecution.

NRC International, 14 January 2010

Update:  See also “Geert Wilders hate speech charges widened”, Middle East Online, 15 January 2010

Why HT should be suppressed, according to Shiraz Maher

“There is a real danger with allowing the group to operate freely. Although it subscribes to a non-violent philosophy, on occasion its words may have inspired terrorist activity.”

Shiraz Maher in the Times, 15 January 2010

This comment piece accompanies the report “Senior member of extreme Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir teaches at LSE“. The reference is to Reza Pankhurst, who is a research student and graduate teaching assistant at the London School of Economics.

The shock-horror impact of the report is rather undermined by the revelation that HT “states on its website that its ‘political aim is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate as an independent state’. It says that it rejects forcing change ‘by means of violence and terror’.” Not to mention the quote from an LSE spokesperson regarding Mr Pankhurst: “No concerns about his conduct have been raised with the school and we are not aware that he is a member of any proscribed organisation or has broken any laws or LSE regulations.”

The Evening Standard, for its part, weighs in with an article headlined “LSE’s Islamist teacher ‘groomed suicide bomber for Tel Aviv attack’” – an accusation for which it provides no evidence whatsoever.

Update:  See “Standard and Mail pay damages over suicide bomber slur”, Press Gazette, 28 July 2010

Nazir-Ali: Muslims must accept Judaeo-Christian values

Nazir Ali 2The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said the country must never again repeat the multicultural experiment of recent decades. He also called for an end to the segregation of Muslims in British cities, which he warned provides a breeding ground for extremists.

“Not only is there over-crowding, especially of metropolitan areas, but social, educational and medical services are placed under increasing strain and there is always the concern about jobs and housing for the indigenous population, particularly from its poorer sections.

“The question, however, is not simply one of numbers but also of the quality of would-be immigrants. One of the missing features of the mass immigration of the 50s and 60s was any concern for the congruence of such immigration with the values, culture and language of the host country. We must never again allow this to happen.”

The bishop admitted some immigration would be necessary, particularly with an ageing workforce, but added: “All would-be immigrants should be willing to adapt to living in a context shaped by traditional British values, which have been largely derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.”

Daily Telegraph, 15 January 2010

Who supports the ban on Islam4UK?

BMSD protest

Well, not the Muslim Council of Britain, who have issued a well-reasoned statement, “Ban groups if they break the law, not on the basis of media hysteria“. But support for the government’s stupid move comes from the Quilliam Foundation, the British Muslim Forum and the Muslim Women’s Network – all of whom are in receipt of state funding.

Backing for the ban also comes from Shaaz Mahboob of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. Remind me, weren’t BMSD the organisation that protested against Islam4UK last October brandishing placards reading “Free speech will dominate the world: All may speak their minds”? All except those who BMSD decides are not entitled to free speech, it would appear. The BMSD demonstrators urged us to “laugh at those who insult freedom”. However, their response to the ridiculous Anjem Choudary isn’t to draw attention to his comic potential but to support a state ban on his group.