Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. #21
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Prevent strategy stigmatising Muslim pupils, say teachers

    School and college staff question effectiveness of anti-radicalisation drive and say it undermines inclusion efforts

    Monday 3 July 2017 15.42 BST Last modified on Monday 3 July 2017 17.59 BST

    Teachers fear Muslim pupils are being increasingly stigmatised as a result of the government’s Prevent strategy in schools and colleges, potentially making them reluctant to share concerns about extremism, according to research.

    School and college staff who were surveyed for the study by Coventry, Durham and Huddersfield universities also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the strategy, warning that genuine cases of students being drawn into terrorism were unlikely to be picked up.

    They warned that the Prevent duty, introduced two years ago as part of the government’s counter-radicalisation strategy, is undermining efforts to build an inclusive environment in schools and colleges for students from diverse backgrounds.

    The lead investigator, Dr Joel Busher from Coventry University’s centre for trust, peace and social relations, said: “Approaching Prevent as part of safeguarding appears largely to have been accepted by schools and colleges and has helped to foster fairly widespread confidence about the duty.

    “However, linking the duty to the promotion of ‘fundamental British values’ – and in particular the pressure on schools and colleges to emphasise the ‘Britishness’ of these values – is often seen as more problematic.

    “We heard about fears that this element is both hampering effective curriculum work around shared values and democratic citizenship, and creating uncertainty about the focus of the Prevent duty.”

    The study comes as the government prepares to announce an expansion of Prevent after a Whitehall internal review.
    Though small-scale, the universities’ study provides a valuable insight into the views of those responsible for implementing the duty in schools and colleges, and the impact it may be having on their students.

    As a result of their findings, the team behind the study called for urgent research into how, if at all, the Prevent duty has affected student experiences.

    According to the study, staff were concerned that Muslim students may feel singled out by the Prevent strategy. A minority warned that it could backfire and that, rather than preventing vulnerable young people from being drawn into terrorism, it risked fuelling a sense of being marginalised by state and society among Muslims.

    Prevent has been widely criticised since it came into force in July 2015, for the first time placing a legal responsibility on schools and colleges to play their role in preventing students joining extremist groups and carrying out terrorist activities.

    They are required to refer any concerns about students to a local Prevent body, which then decides if further action needs to be taken. They are also expected to build resilience against extremism by promoting “fundamental British values”.

    On the positive side, the study found that schools and colleges felt largely confident about implementing the Prevent duty as part of their safeguarding duties. It failed to identify widespread resistance to the scheme and, despite earlier fears, found little evidence that it had limited free speech, thanks to efforts by staff to set up debating clubs and encourage Prevent-related discussion in classrooms.

    But many of those who took part expressed concern about what they described as an ill-conceived link between Prevent and the promotion of “fundamental British values”, which they said undermined efforts to promote shared values.

    Busher said: “Widespread and sometimes acute concerns about possible feelings of stigmatisation among Muslim students highlight an urgent need for systematic evaluation of how, if at all, the Prevent duty has impacted on student experiences.”

    The study involved in-depth interviews with 70 education professionals in 14 schools and colleges in West Yorkshire and London, and eight Prevent practitioners at local authority level.

    Researchers also conducted a national online survey of 225 school and college staff and discussion sessions with Muslim organisations, school and college staff, education trade unions, government departments and local authorities.

    “It is likely to be some years before we are able to truly assess the impact of the Prevent duty and further research is needed,” said Busher. “In the meantime, we hope that this research can serve as a stimulus for constructive yet critical discussion about what the Prevent duty means for schools and colleges.”

    Responding to the study, University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt said: “This report again raises the issue of increased stigmatisation of Muslim students and the bizarre focus on ‘British values’. There is a risk that closing down debate drives a subject underground, and makes people less likely to speak up or out.

    “Some of the subjects up for debate may be difficult ones, but shying away from them is no way to deal with any issue. The government could lead by example and commission an independent report into the impact and effectiveness of Prevent in schools, colleges and universities.”

    The Department for Education said the Prevent duty was about helping to keep children safe and equipping them with the knowledge to question extremist and radical views. “This report shows that not only is there widespread understanding of this but schools and colleges are confident about how to deliver it in the classroom.

    “Schools and colleges also agree the suggestion Prevent shuts down debate or discussion of controversial issues is simply not the case. We will continue to help schools and colleges with the Prevent duty by providing guidance, support and teaching resources through our Educate Against Hate website.”


  2. #22
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Prevent scheme 'built on Islamophobia and should be axed'

    The government's anti-radicalisation strategy, Prevent, is "ineffective and counterproductive" and should be withdrawn, according to a new report.

    Racial equality organisation JUST Yorkshire says it is "built on a foundation of Islamophobia and racism".

    The report was based on interviews with 36 people including students, faith leaders and academics.

    The Home Office said it was one of a number of reports to "peddle falsehoods and create myths".

    A Prevent coordinator also questioned its methodology, saying the document was "confusing".

    Created in 2003, Prevent is one of four strands of the government's counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest.

    According to the Home Office, its aim is "to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism".

    It aims for police and other organisations to build relations across the UK and requires faith leaders, teachers, doctors and others to refer any suspicions about people to a local Prevent body.

    The scheme has been criticised by some MPs, the National Union of Teachers and Muslim Council of Britain, while JUST Yorkshire says it has a "disproportionate and and discriminatory" focus on Muslim communities.


    Report author Dr Waqas Tufail, said: "Our independent report has engaged with grassroots perspectives and has highlighted the many harms of Prevent, particularly those impacting on Muslim minorities.

    "[Prevent] is broken, it's counterproductive and I think there is a lack of accountability.

    "This strategy has been in place for over a decade and there's been no discernable impact."

    However, Hifsa Haroon Iqbal, a Prevent coordinator, criticised the report's methodology.

    She said: "To base your judgment on an interview with 36 people, to state what actually is very much more opinions from newspaper reports and to claim that a strategy that has been working for a number of years is broken, I think, is misrepresenting it and is confusing people."

    'Bullies or terrorists'

    Asked about the sample size, Dr Tufail, a senior lecturer at Leeds Beckett University, said some academic studies used as few as 10 to 20 people.

    Security Minister Ben Wallace MP said: "The Prevent duty sits alongside the duties to protect people from sexual, bullying or criminal manipulation.

    "As a parent, if my children were being targeted by bullies or terrorists or paedophiles at school I would expect that such occurrences were reported and dealt with.

    "But this report seems to suggest such reporting be stopped when it relates to exploitation by terrorists."


  3. #23
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Prevent gives people permission to hate Muslims – it has no place in schools

    Teachers are right to reject a counter-radicalisation strategy that frames terrorism as a Muslim problem and demonises an entire community

    The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has recently backed a motion to reject the government’s counter-radicalisation Prevent strategy at its annual conference. This motion follows the National Union of Students (NUS) motion to boycott the Prevent strategy and its subsequent activism under the banner of “students not suspects”.

    The NUT claims that the Prevent strategy is targeting Muslim students, and indeed, the available referral data disclosed under freedom of information shows that between 2007 and 2010 67% of the referrals involved Muslims, and between 2012 and 2013, that figure was 57.4%. This is despite the fact that, according to the 2011 national census, Muslims made up only 5% of the national population.

    When one reads the Prevent strategy and the broader UK counter-terrorism strategy (Contest), the gross disproportionality starts to make sense
    . While the government claims that its counter-terrorism strategies target all forms of extremism, and do not target specific individuals or groups, it is clear that the Prevent strategy centres on Muslims in the way that it frames the threat of extremism and terrorism. Added to this, the allocation of Prevent funding, which was based on the number of Muslims in a local authority. This explicit targeting demonstrates that Islamophobia is central in shaping how the government (and wider society) define and construct extremism and terrorism as solely Islamic problems.

    The definition becomes instrumental in targeting specific groups and communities. For example, if as a lawmaker I understand and define crime as a white problem, then I shouldn’t be surprised if most of the suspects in police custody are white. Since the Prevent duty came into force in the education sector in 2015, the guidance offered to those working in schools, colleges, and universities has in many cases served to reinforce the relationship between being Muslim and vulnerability to extremism and terrorism.

    Given this, the NUT is right to suggest that the Prevent strategy makes Muslim students more vulnerable to being attacked. Already, there have been numerous cases of Islamophobic attacks against Muslims on the streets of Britain, including those who have been murdered. The academic research suggests that attacks such as these, often called hate crimes, flourish in environments where they are enabled. The practices, policies and rhetoric of the state question the loyalty of Muslims to Britain, cast them as an ever-present security threat, and treat whole Muslim communities as suspect and suspicious. This not only institutionalises, legitimises and reinforces Islamophobia, but also provides the framework in which Islamophobia emerges.

    This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature of Muslims in Britain, and is influential in shaping people’s assumptions about Muslims and Islam– forming the basis of Islamophobia.
    It sets the tone for how ordinary people interact with Muslims and can be seen to provide permission to hate. The dogwhistle nature of politics also means that politicians disseminate messages that tap into the basest fears, insecurities, and stereotypes to attract new voters – finally, think about the message that the disproportionate levels of stop and search of Muslims sends to wider society about guilt by association and racial and religious profiling.

    Right now, the Prevent strategy is securitising and criminalising the most banal of behaviours and ideas, and encouraging an environment of vigilance in ever wider areas of society. In this environment, mainstream Islamic ideas and practices, legitimate political discussions and dissent have been the basis for many Prevent interventions and referrals.

    Although in many cases there have been no further actions taken, we cannot underestimate the mental health implications for young students who will have their views affected on the purpose of education, the nature of their relationship with their teachers and lecturers, and about the school and campus space as arenas for open and free discussions.

    Prevent is an exercise in Islamophobia
    that continues to undermine democracy, equality, and justice. The state is complicit in undermining “British values” rather than upholding them.


  4. #24
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Thousands of Muslim children being referred to counter terror police

    Thousands of Muslim children and teenagers were referred to the government’s controversial anti-terror programme in England and Wales last year, new Home Office figures show.

    There were 7,631 referrals to Prevent in 2015-16, a quarter of which were of under-15s.

    Advcacy group CAGE said Prevent is creating a “suspect” community where Muslim children and their families are being dragged through disastrous state intervention.

    CAGE added that the figures ignore the climate of fear created by Prevent, which has led to many more formal and informal interventions by public sector workers that do not make these official statistics.

    This is the first time the government has published detailed figures on Prevent which was created in 2003 with the stated aim of stopping terrorism.

    Under the law, public sector workers, including teachers, lecturers and doctors, are obliged to look out for the “signs of extremism” and report them to counter terrorism officers if necessary.

    The figures reveal that 2,127 of those referred to the scheme in 2015-16 were under 15, including more than 500 girls.

    Another 2,147 people reported were aged between 15 and 20 – meaning more than half of the 7,631 people referred in the 12 months to March 2016 were aged 20 or under.

    Approximately 65% of the Prevent referrals related to “Islamist/jihadist extremism” and 10% concerned right-wing extremism.

    The remaining cases were either impossible to initially categorise, because the individual was flitting between ideologies, or involved smaller threats relating to Northern Ireland, or Sikh extremism.

    The highest number of cases came from London – 1,915 individuals – followed by 1,273 the North East, an area covering Yorkshire to the Scottish border.

    The latest figures show that the vast majority of people referred to Prevent required either no official support, or were given help with a problem unrelated to violent extremism.

    But 1,072 individuals caused such alarm they were assessed for inclusion in Channel, the government’s intensive de-radicalisation programme.

    Of those cases, 381 went on to receive specialist help in an attempt to change their thinking – and 302 were later given the all-clear.

    Sixteen of those were still in the process at the time the figures were collated, but a further 63 people withdrew from the scheme – meaning they stopped co-operating with expert mentors altogether.

    Chief Constable Simon Cole, the national policing lead for Prevent, said the number of referrals showed that “trust and support is growing” for the programme. And Security Minister Ben Wallace said the Channel scheme was helping to “save lives” and had seen “real results” in helping divert people away from terrorism.

    However, Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, called on the government to scrap Prevent.

    He said: “The massive over reporting and racial profiling is due to the fact that the Prevent policy has no scientific basis. The science does not exist and these figures reinforce the bare fact that the policy does not work. The Government’s own figures show that 95% of people referred to Prevent required no Channel intervention.”

    “The idea that a failed policy that has largely impacted on Muslims should be implemented against other communities is not a position that should be endorsed. Seeking credibility by applying Prevent on other communities does not make it okay.

    “We again call on the Government to repeal the Prevent Policy, roll back the training and make every effort to repair the damage that has been done.”


  5. #25
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    UK Court Rules Islamic School Gender Segregation is Unlawful Sex Discrimination

    Islamic faith school's segregation of boys and girls ruled unlawful sex discrimination by Court of Appeal

    by Lucy Pasha-Robinson - 10/13/2017

    An Islamic faith school's policy of segregating boys from girls is unlawful sex discrimination, Court of Appeal judges have said in a landmark ruling.

    Ofsted placed the mixed-sex Al-Hijrah school in Birmingham into special measures last June after it claimed dividing classes was discriminatory.

    But a High Court ruling last year found inspectors were wrong to penalise on the basis of an "erroneous" view that segregation amounted to unlawful discrimination.

    Three Court of Appeal judges have now unanimously overturned the previous ruling, finding the complete segregation of classes to be contrary to the 2010 Equality Act.

    The judges ruled the segregation caused detriment and less favourable treatment for both male and female pupils by reason of their sex.

    "It is common ground that the school is not the only Islamic school which operates such a policy and that a number of Jewish schools with a particular Orthodox ethos and some Christian faith schools have similar practices," they said.

    For religious reasons, the voluntary-aided school, which has pupils aged between four and 16, believes that separation of the sexes from year five onwards is obligatory.

    It has complete segregation of boys and girls from nine to 16 for all lessons, breaks, school clubs and trips.

    Inspectors found the Birmingham school had left pupils "unprepared for life in modern Britain".

    The decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences for any schools that have a segregation policy.

    The judges said there was "a strong argument" for the Education Secretary and Ofsted "to recognise that, given the history of the matter, their failure (despite their expertise and responsibility for these matters) to identify the problem and the fact that they have de facto sanctioned and accepted a state of affairs which is unlawful, the schools affected should be given time to put their houses in order in the light of our conclusion that this is unlawful sex discrimination".

    Speaking after the ruling, Ofsted's chief inspector Amanda Spielman said the ruling would set a precedent for future inspections.

    "I am delighted that we have won this appeal," she said.

    "Ofsted's job is to make sure that all schools properly prepare children for life in modern Britain. Educational institutions should never treat pupils less favourably because of their sex, or for any other reason.

    "The school is teaching boys and girls entirely separately, making them walk down separate corridors, and keeping them apart at all times.

    "This is discrimination and is wrong. It places these boys and girls at a disadvantage for life beyond the classroom and the workplace, and fails to prepare them for life in modern Britain"

    She added: "This case involves issues of real public interest, and has significant implications for gender equality, Ofsted, government, and the wider education sector. We will be considering the ruling carefully to understand how this will affect future inspections."



    These Islamophobes need to worry about their own schools of "equality" where gender-mixing is promoted and has resulted in students failing, and thousands of cases of abuse and rape among the students.

    This is what their students do in their gender-mixing schools: https://www.facebook.com/alfalta90/v...60921677278731

  6. #26
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    School inspectors to question Muslim girls who wear hijabs amid concerns they are being forced to wear headscarf

    Schools could be in breach of equality laws if only girls are required to wear religious clothing

    by Samuel Osborne - 11/19/2017

    Muslim girls who wear the hijab to primary school will be asked why they wear it by inspectors.

    The reasons given will then be recorded in school reports, amid concerns girls are being forced to wear the headscarf by their parents.

    Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools, announced the move on Sunday.

    She said schools could be in breach of equality laws if they only require girls to wear religious garments.

    There were also concerns wearing the hijab at such an age could be seen to be sexualising young girls, as they are traditionally worn by young women after puberty as a sign of modesty in the presence of men.

    “In seeking to address these concerns, inspectors will talk to girls who wear such garments to ascertain why they do so in the school,” Ms Spielman said.

    Responding to the move, Harun Khan secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "It is deeply worrying that Ofsted has announced it will be specifically targeting and quizzing young Muslim girls who choose to wear the headscarf.

    "It sends a clear message to all British women who adopt this that they are second class citizens, that while they are free to wear the headscarf, the establishment would prefer that they do not."

    He added: "It is disappointing that this is becoming policy without even engaging with a diverse set of mainstream Muslim voices on the topic."

    It comes after a survey for The Sunday Times found 18 per cent of 800 primary schools in England list the hijab as part of their uniform policy - most as an optional item.

    Previous research by the National Secular Society (NSS) found 42 per cent of Islamic schools, including 27 primary schools, have a uniform policy requiring girls to wear a hijab.

    The NSS wrote to Justine Greening, the education secretary, to ask for Muslim girls to be given "free choices," adding that forcing children to wear the hijab is "entirely at odds with this fundamental British value and with wider human rights norms on children’s rights".

    The letter also expressed concern several non-Islamic schools were "acceding to fundamentalist pressure to incorporate the hijab into their uniform".



    "fundamentalist"? So asking for hijab to be part of a uniform makes the parents fundamentalist extremists? These are the same British values their kids follow who are having sex at an even younger age than before and in school, and raping each other.

    They say hijab sexualizes girls? What they want to deny is that hijab protects girls from being sexualized like they are doing to their own girls.

    "According to the American Psychological Association’s 2007 Task Force into the sexualisation of girls, sexualisation occurs when:

    • a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

    • a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

    • a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

    • sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person "

  7. #27
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Toxic PREVENT is turning young girls into suspects

    London – The announcement that primary school girls will be interrogated by OFSTED for wearing hijab is part of a broader neo-conservative policy driven by PREVENT, and which aims to make “conditions harder for Muslims across the board”.

    This is a clear sign that PREVENT is a policy which is poisoning public life and creating an environment in which it is now acceptable to interrogate young children.

    This toxic environment is maintained through the infiltration of the public sector by neo-conservative hate networks. The politicisation of OFSTED can be explained in part by the links between the current head Amanda Spielman and Michael Gove.

    The move indicates that the regulator is enforcing a climate in which the state has a say over such minutiae as children’s dress codes and, in an attempt to bring about a state-sanctioned Islam, young girls are now being targeted.
    Ibrahim Mohamoud, spokesperson for CAGE, said:

    “This is yet another example of how PREVENT is allowing Muslim children to be selected for special discrimination within the education system. There is no mention of these kinds of measures being taken in the case of other religious groups that wear head coverings. As such, it is wide open to abuse and the application of Islamophobic criteria.”

    “The policy is a signal that OFSTED has been given exemption from the rule of law, since it is in clear breach of the Equalities Act 2010.”

    “Such a policy is a further extension of PREVENT, a toxic politically-driven programme that aims to control belief and which teachers themselves have stated has led to a breakdown in debate and trust in the classroom. PREVENT must be completely abolished, as should all policies associated with it.”


  8. #28
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Governor at school which banned hijab said he was on “crusade to limit Islamisation”


    The Chair of Governors at an East London primary school which banned the hijab talked about his “personal crusade” to “severely limit the Islamisation process.”

    This week authorities at Arif Qawi’s school – the majority Muslim St Stephen’s Primary in Newham – banned the hijab for children up to the age of seven. They had already banned the hijab for young children in sports lessons because it “hindered movement” and, according to Qawi, the school discourages them from fasting during Ramadan.

    In their public comments both Qawi and the school’s headteacher, Neena Lall, emphasised health and safety and integration issues as being behind their decision.

    But in a Facebook post in November Qawi said: “I am on a personal crusade to severely limit the Islamisation process, and turn these beautiful children into modern, British citizens, able to achieve the very best in life, without any restrictions and boundaries.”

    The Facebook post was in the context of praising Stephen’s Primary School achievements after it topped The Sunday Times League as the best primary school in the country.

    The supposed Islamisation of schools has been a hot topic since the “Trojan Horse” affair in Birmingham, which was alleged to be an organised attempt to introduce an “Islamist ethos” into several schools in Birmingham.

    Several Muslim teachers and educationalists were removed from their posts and outstanding schools were put into Special Measures. The letter upon which the alleged plot was based later turned out to be a fake.


    Munafiq Exposed

    "Crucify the unholy b******", "I will put an end to this disgusting mullah menace permanently". This is how the chair of governors at St Stephens school in Newham referred to the local Imam.

    Arif Qawi who resigned today sent this email to headteacher and deputy heads - Qawi was responding to an email the head sent to the local Imam. Shows a disturbing attitude towards practicing Muslims.

    Email text:



    Don't by fooled by their "Muslim" names. These people are munafiq/atheists who go around pretending to be Muslims to attack Islam and Muslims from within.

    Primary school reverses hijab ban after major backlash sees chair of governors resign

    Primary School in Whitfield Road, last week following a backlash against the ban.

    More than 20,000 people signed a petition calling for it “to be withdrawn immediately”, while a second petition calling for Mr Qawi’s resignation was signed by almost 1,500 people.

    A spokeswoman on behalf of the school said: “The school’s uniform policy is based on the health, safety and welfare of our children.

    She also confirmed Mr Qawi’s departure.

    The outcry was sparked after an article in the Sunday Times, which featured both headteacher Neena Lall and Mr Qawi discussing both the hijab ban and a policy of discouraging fasting on school days.

    Ms Lall had told the newspaper that the changes had been made to help integrate children into British society.

    But Imran Sham, a spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK, had criticised the claims.

    He said: “If it’s about integration, are they going to ban Jewish and Sikh religious wear?

    “Schools have an obligation to ensure their uniform is does not cause a barrier between them and the community. They have done just that.”

    In addition, an open letter jointly signed by a group of Newham councillors claimed that the ban set a “dangerous precedent”.

    It read: “Freedom to practice one’s faith is one of the fundamental freedoms that we cherish in Britain.

    “Parents must be trusted to bring up their child in the best possible manner to be full and active members of society and they should have the freedom to decide for themselves how to dress or bring up their child in their particular faith.”



    Should kick that bimbo of a lead teacher, Neena Lall, out as well. She doesn't belong there either with her secularism ideas.

  9. #29
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Minister says schools that ban the hijab and fasting will get Government backing

    Schools that receive a backlash from parents, activists and the local community for banning the hijab and fasting will be supported by the Government, the schools minister has said.

    Lord Agnew of Oulton said he would assist head teachers make “sensitive” decisions if they faced opposition and would “not allow a culture of fear and intimidation to pass through the school gates”.

    Writing in The Times on Saturday, Lord Agnew said school governors and teachers were “completely within their right to make decisions on how to run their schools in the best interests of their pupils […] and we back their right to do so.”

    His statements comes after St Stephens Primary School in the London borough of Newham banned Muslim girls under the age of eight from wearing the hijab, and told parents their children should not fast during the school day in the month of Ramadan.

    The school’s head of governors, Arif Qawi, announced his resignation after a leaked email revealed his use of derogatory language when he referred to the local imam as an “unholy bastard”.

    Lord Agnew gave his personal backing to Neena Lall, the head of St Stephen’s, following last month’s incident, saying she had suffered alleged “abuse” from “opponents” to the hijab and fasting ban.

    However, in a meeting of staff and parents on 22 January, Ms Lall criticised The Sunday Times article written by Iram Ramzan and Sian Griffiths, and said that she was misled into believing the paper was interested in reporting on St Stephen’s school’s strong academic record.

    Ms Lall has since reversed the hijab ban after widespread opposition from Muslim parents.

    “The article which came out in the Sunday Times was completely misleading. Some of the things that happened in that article were not things that have happened at this school and it just inflamed the situation,” Ms Lall told parents at the in which she also described the decision to ban the hijab as a “huge error in judgement”.

    Deputy Head Adam Bennett also delivered a damning assessment of the Sunday Times’s story, suggesting the paper had set out to create a “big debate” around the issue of the hijab.

    “They took a lot of footage, they chopped it up, they used it how they wanted, they had their agenda and they put stuff forward to create this big debate and unfortunately our school was left in the middle of this debate,” he said.

    In very strong words, Lord Agnew said the Government would “not hesitate to take action” if there were allegations of schools promoting “religious ideologies” that undermine “British values” – terms which remain very ambiguous and politicised.

    The head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, recently urged schools to adopt a “muscular liberalism” and not cave into “conservative or zealous voices” in a community when setting school policy.



    So rather then support the community they islamophobe will support the islamophobic schools who go against the communities wishes and want to preach to the communities' children as they see fit. The community should take a stand against such bigots like they did before and just take their kids out and home school them or not send them till they schools obey or open their own school.

  10. #30
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Ofsted – The tool used by “muscular liberals” to convert Muslim children

    Ofsted has become a tool to enforce secular liberal values on Muslim children.
    by Dr Abdul Wahid - November 22, 2014

    Britain’s “counter-extremism” policy, Prevent is a lie. It has nothing to do with protecting the public from bombs, guns and knives. Over the past few years, it has slowly exposed itself as an exercise in demonizing political and religious views by calling them “extreme”, so making “Joe Public” fearful that the people who hold those views are only a step away from acts of ‘terror’.

    Once upon a time British politicians used to pretend that they wanted to see Islam “adjusted” to fit into modern Britain. Now they’ve dropped this pretense in favor of muscular liberalism, meaning that they won’t be satisfied until a Muslim leaves his or her religion at home, espouses secular liberal values and is unquestioningly loyal to Britain’s colonial policies in the Muslim world.


    Ofsted was once the impartial schools inspectorate. Now it has become one arm of the Secular Inquisition to force Muslims to convert to liberalism, transforming its role from inspecting school standards to dictating values.

    The Witchfinder-General in the anti-Islamic witch-hunt is Ofsted chief Michael Wilshaw. In June 2014, after his investigation into the so-called “Trojan Horse” affair, he apparently told concerned parents in a closed-door meeting in Birmingham that the sum total of his investigation that there was some evidence of “bullying of teachers” and some issues of “preaching conservative Islam”. So it was Islam that was his problem – not “extremism”.

    People would be forgiven for missing the actual conclusions of all the inquiries in the Birmingham case because of all the media sensationalism. The former head of the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism command, Peter Clarke, who had been asked to investigate the “Trojan Horse” affair, concluded that there was no evidence of “terrorism, radicalization or violent extremism in the schools of concern in Birmingham”.

    This week Wilshaw has once again triggered sensational headlines – alleging that pupils at independent Muslim faith schools in Tower Hamlets may be vulnerable to “extremist influences and radicalization” and called on the government to act with urgency!

    Once again the details that eventually emerged didn’t quite match the alarmist nature of the headlines before and after, which passed their message by using different combinations of the words “Muslim”, “extremism”, “schools” – throwing in the term “radicalization” for good measure!

    The latest reports conclude the schools are “not actively and systematically promoting fundamental British values” – values that as yet remain ill-defined.


    One Church of England School in the area, formerly ranked as “outstanding”, has been downgraded for failing to protect pupils from extremism. The school’s sixth-form Islamic society’s Facebook page allegedly had links to a speaker who apparently might once have said something critical of homosexuality.

    In 21st century Britain, no one bothers to look beyond a selective quote of what a speaker may or may not once have said. That is usually enough to pin an “extremist” label on any speaker, and indeed anyone inadvertently tainted by a tenuous associated.

    Today, the mere mention of the word “extremist” has the same effect as saying “Communist” in 1950s America. The term is defined so broadly it can be used arbitrarily, creating a hysteria that allows governments to pursue almost any policy they wish – whether it is to invade another country, institute police-state measures against Muslims or (as in this case) to force a community to change their beliefs and views.

    By deliberately conflating the views of socially conservative or politically outspoken Muslims with violence, successive British governments justify deeply oppressive and bigoted policies, in a manner that would make Moscow or Beijing proud.

    Muscular liberalism

    Speaking in June 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron said, ”we need to be far more muscular in promoting British values”. He has advocated this “muscular” approach before, against those who hold Islamic values and are critical of state policy towards Muslims and the Islamic world.

    But it now appears that children are their biggest target. It is as if they have accepted they have no hope with the over 20s, so are intent on forcibly converting young Muslims to their values.

    Ofsted has become the thought-police in implementing these policies – targeting the souls of the children, not just their minds.

    Numerous anecdotes have emerged as evidence for this over several months. Inspectors have allegedly interrogated primary school children alone about matters of sexuality.

    They have allegedly told teachers at Muslim primary schools that posters depicting statements of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) opposing racism or promoting environmentalism are “too Islamic”, and should be replaced by statements by Mandela, Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

    Anyone who resists this forced conversion either has to go through a form of compulsory re-education – known as the Channel program – or be punished in one of a series of ways like being ridiculed or demonized.

    The Prophet of Islam and the earliest Muslim community in Makkah faced a similar situation. They were labelled as dissenters, agitators and traitors. They faced verbal and physical abuse, as well as economic sanctions.

    But eventually, the general public from amongst the non-Muslims of Makkah opposed the sanctions and vilification encouraged by their leaders. Despite the propaganda, the abuse meted out to Muslims exposed the oppressors as failing to have an argument to counter the Islamic argument – as well as being a nasty and vindictive bunch.

    Amongst all this, there is one thing people should not forget. In bullying Muslim children, the state cannot expect that Muslim parents will simply shrug their shoulders and accept a narrow set of values to be forced on their kids.

    It may well be that these unjust rulers will hear more than a word or two of truth from the Muslim mums and dads!


    Muslims oppressed yet still living in these lands will be questioned in the grave about it. What will be their answer?!

    "Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the Aveearth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination!"(Quran 4:97)

  11. #31
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Living in fear: One in three Muslim students attacked on campus as Islamophobic hate crime surges

    One female Muslim student was left ‘in tears’ and felt unsafe after she was targeted at university

    One in three Muslim students are living in fear of Islamophobic attacks or abuse on campus – and women who wear traditional garments are most concerned for their safety, a report has found.

    More than half of Muslim students have been subjected to harassment or abuse online. A third say they’ve been victims of crime or abuse at their further education college or university.

    The National Union of Students (NUS) survey, shared with The Independent, reveals that most students (79 per cent) who suffered abuse felt they had been targeted because of being Muslim.

    Hate words or symbols, and the incident coinciding with a terrorist incident
    , were cited by Muslim as indications that the perpetrator’s actions were motivated by religious prejudice.

    And women who wear a traditional Islamic garments, such as a hijab, niqab or jilbab, were significantly more likely to worry about abuse or attacks
    , the report found.

    Fatima Diriye, a history and politics student at Soas University of London, told The Independent that she felt unsafe when two students took photos and drew a sexualised image of her in a jilbab.

    “They drew a picture of me because I wear a jilbab – the head to toe piece – so they drew that, and then explicitly exaggerated my figure and wrote: ‘I like penis.’

    “I didn’t feel safe. I was really upset, I was in tears,”
    she said.

    In another incident, Fatima was called out for expressing views during a student union activity. “He said ‘You are a Muslim woman. Why are you even speaking? Aren’t you normally oppressed?’”

    The 22-year-old added that she has consciously changed her actions and behaviour following terrorist attacks, to reduce the chance of Islamophobia.

    “I think ‘will I have to be a lot friendlier today on campus to make sure people feel safe?’ I also do not know what people’s reactions are going to be on the way to university,” she said.

    “I usually think it is safest to get taxis for the next few days
    [as oppose to public transport], because I don’t know what is going to happen. Because I am wearing the jilbab, there is not a way for me to hide that I am a Muslim.”

    The new findings follow a rise of hate crimes facing the Muslim community across the country. Hate crimes targeting mosques across the UK more than doubled between 2016 and 2017, figures revealed last year.

    Fiyaz Mughal, director of Faith Matters, which works to increase community cohesion, called the new NUS report “concerning” and added the reports of Islamophobia were “unsurprising”.

    He said: “There is more anti-Muslim rhetoric, insults and abuse in the real world than there ever was in 2012. The level of fear in Muslim communities of young people has risen. They don’t feel that secure anymore because they have suffered these incidents.”

    The study, believed to be the first of its kind in the UK, reveals that 43 per cent of Muslim students do not feel comfortable discussing terrorism in class, and a third do not believe that there is a safe space or forum on campus to discuss the issues that affect them.

    And the Government’s Prevent duty, which requires education institutions to report students “vulnerable to radicalisation”, has made Muslim students more reluctant to speak up, the NUS says.

    A third of respondents felt negatively affected by the Prevent duty – and of those Muslim students affected, 43 per cent felt they were unable to express their views or be themselves because of it.

    Muslim students reported feeling less comfortable in engaging in political debate, or for running for roles in their students’ union – while some experienced barriers to organising events.

    One male student, who was surveyed, said: “When I was getting a certain speaker for an event, Prevent were involved and had to be present for the talk, in addition to police as well, shockingly.”

    Mr Mughal said students often kept “themselves to themselves” because of a perception that Prevent – which became a legal duty for universities in July 2015 – clamps down on all free speech.

    He said: “It comes down to one simple fact that our universities are not properly making clear to students that universities are places where debate and discussion like this has to happen.

    “I think universities are failing miserably in their ability to communicate to students effectively on these issues. Universities have a lot more to do, and student unions need to do more.”

    The NUS has previously come under fire for reports of anti-Jewish sentiment – and their new report suggests that many Muslim students feel disillusioned and disengaged from the students’ union.

    Two-thirds of respondents said they thought the NUS would not respond appropriately to allegations of Islamophobia. Eight out of 10 had never attended any NUS events of any kind.

    One female student surveyed said: “NUS Muslim representatives have faced disproportionate abuse over recent years and the NUS has not dealt with it adequately.”

    On the report, Hareem Ghani, NUS women’s officer, said: “We are deeply concerned about islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment within the education sector and society as a whole.

    “Action must be taken immediately by institutions and students’ unions to safeguard Muslim students – especially women – against racism in or around campus.”

    Angela Rayner, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, told The Independent: “The details revealed in the NUS report about the experiences of Muslim students are shocking. No student should ever feel like they are not safe because of their ethnicity, gender or religion.

    “Our universities are places of learning and debate, and should also act as a safe space for all students from fear of persecution, harm and bigotry. Universities have a duty of care towards the physical and mental wellbeing of their students, first and foremost.”

    A Department for Education spokesperson said: “There is no place in higher education for hatred or any form of discrimination or prejudice, and we expect providers to act swiftly to address hate crime, reported to them, including anti-Muslim incidents.

    “The Prevent duty builds on universities’ safeguarding responsibilities and aims to stop people being drawn into terrorism. Prevent deals with all forms of extremism; it is not about shutting down free speech or spying on students and should not be used to discriminate against any particular group.”


  12. #32
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    School Bullies to Forcibly Secularise Young Muslim Girls

    January 17, 2018

    A primary school in East London has decided to force secularism on its youngest Muslim girls, as it bans them from wearing headscarves outright, having previously banned all children from fasting in Ramadan.

    The headteacher claims that she was motivated by an apparent lack of “Britishness” that the students felt, so she realised that she “had some work to do here… to help integrate Muslim children into modern British society” and that “they have got to realise how fortunate they are to be here in the United Kingdom, in this education system.” She also claims that Muslims girls are already banned from wearing headscarves during physical education lessons, because it “hindered movement,” so it was also inappropriate for them to wear them during the rest of the day too.

    Such twisted logic and false claims only expose the
    desperate lengths that those with a secularisation agenda will take to suppress Islam in the Muslim community. Having no intellectual argument at all against Islam, but emboldened by the establishment’s “muscular liberalism” agenda, it is not surprising that secularist activists try to win “by hook or crook” to remove visible symbols of Islam. Apparently they have no shame in bullying the youngest most vulnerable group in society, girls under eight years old.

    The education system that Muslims are expected to be so grateful for, is designed by a secular elite to serve the interests of the wealthy capitalists, to churn out consumers who know their place in society and do not question or challenge the establishment’s right to rule. After being conditioned by such an “education” and witnessing centuries of British colonialism, a group of Muslims adopted a colonised mentality, where they became grateful of whatever scraps the colonists threw their way. They became ashamed of their Islam, which they felt held them back, so they too started to “lord it” over the rest of the Muslims, attempting to “enlighten” and secularise them too. The British colonial masters claimed to know what is best for the Muslims, as they carried Kipling’s “white man’s burden” to civilise the uncivilised.

    British gutter press wasted no time in trumpeting the calls of secular activists for such a total ban on Islamic headscarves in British schools, regardless of age. It is not surprising to read in such papers the quotes of some Muslims allegedly in support of this ban, using all kinds of bizarre justifications in doing so. However, most telling was the quote attributed to the school’s chair of governors, who said that he always asks parents “‘Do you want your daughter to grow up to be like you or like Neena (the head teacher)?’ They say, ‘Like Neena.’ When I hear that I think we have done our job.”

    Muslims in the UK need to be vigilant in holding onto our Islamic way of life, not succumbing to pressure to bend or twist it to fit in with the values of the liberal British elite. We must recognise that such cases are not few and far between, rather an intended outcome of the British government’s counter-extremism
    strategy that is designed to impose the secular liberal lifestyle on the next generation of Muslims.

    Muslims should not get drawn into debates about the age at which a Muslim girl is required to cover her body and hair, as accurate adherence to the Islamic shariah is not the concern of the secularist, rather it is the love that Muslims have for the Islamic shariah rules that bothers them so much.

    It should be clear that these school girls are being used by the liberals
    to forcibly remove Islam from the lives of Muslims, because they are vulnerable and their scarves are a visible symbol of being a Muslim. This has nothing to do with safeguarding, as that is the last of their concerns.

    We need to expose the forced secularisation agenda of the establishment and their agents, who know that
    they have no intellectual argument against Islam, so resort to all manner of shameless lies and pressure tactics.

    We should mobilise our family, friends and other parents to reject such bullying school policies and make it clear that we will not compromise our beliefs and children’s beliefs in order to further the secularisation agenda. We should work with our local mosques and community to exert pressure on the schools that seek to undermine the Islamic values.

    Such direct pressure on Muslims, by imposing it upon the children who are incapable of arguing against its fallacy, should only strengthen our resolve to stand up on their behalf, calling all mankind to understand and witness the pure deen of Islam.

    “Do not grieve and get disheartened: for you have the upper hand if you are the believers”(Quran 3: 139).

    We should stand up to explain and demonstrate how Islam came as a mercy to mankind with a complete way of life that we believe is the cure to failed liberal values. Britain faces widespread sexual abuse, domestic violence and child abuse from all segments of society including the media, celebrities and politicians. Instead of forcing Muslim children to suppress the natural expression of their Islamic values, schools should instead be learning from the sublime values of Islam, and teaching the children to reject liberalism to truly safeguard them and prepare them to avoid the dangers and rotten fruits of the sick secular society.

    "You are the best nation brought forth for mankind: you bid what is right and forbid what is wrong, and have faith in Allah. And if the People of the Book had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them [some] are faithful, but most of them are transgressors"(Quran 3:110).

  13. #33
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Ofsted school hijab ban stance challenged by teachers' union

    Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman risks splitting communities by backing head teachers who may wish to ban the hijab
    , says a teaching union leader.

    National Education Union leader Kevin Courtney said she overstepped her remit in February when she backed an east London head who tried to stop pupils wearing the Muslim head-scarf.

    He said heads should not ban the hijab without consulting the local community.

    Ofsted said head teachers needed to be able to take uniform decisions.

    But Mr Courtney said ahead of his union's conference in Brighton, he feared schools might introduce bans because they were frightened of Ofsted, which could then put social cohesion at risk.

    'Uniform policies'

    Mr Courtney was referring to a speech in February in which Ms Spielman said: "School leaders must have the right to set school uniform policies in a way that they see fit, in order to promote cohesion.

    "It is a matter of deep regret that this outstanding school has been subject to a campaign of abuse by some elements within the community.

    "I want to be absolutely clear - Ofsted will always back heads who take tough decisions in the interests of their pupils."

    She gave her backing to head teacher Neena Lall, of St Stephen's state primary, who had been involved in a row with Muslim community leaders over young pupils wearing the scarf in school.

    Ms Spielman also said her inspectors would speak to pupils wearing the scarf to find out why they were doing so in school, adding that wearing it could be interpreted as ''sexualisation of young girls.''

    A motion to be heard at the conference says that Ms Spielman went beyond ''the remit of Ofsted'' and that members should robustly challenge it.

    'Very political'

    It says: ''These [the HMCI's] statements could have ramifications beyond the school gates and must be seen in the context of increasing attacks on the Muslim community.''

    It adds that such comments could have ''a negative impact on local communities and lead to the further marginalisation of... Muslim women and girls'.'

    Mr Coutney said: ''We don't think it makes any sense for there to be a ban on the wearing of the hijab.

    "I think it is a problem that Amanda Spielman, her majesty's chief inspector, speaks out on this in a way which I think is frankly very political.

    He said that when she talked about using "muscular liberalism" to confront these sorts of issues she was making the issue political.

    An Ofsted spokesman said: ''The NEU's comments are disappointing. There's nothing political about ensuring that schools and parents aren't being subject to undue pressure by national or community campaign groups.

    ''Head teacher need to be able to take uniform decisions on the basis of safeguarding or community cohesion concerns and Ofsted will always support them in doing that.''



    She wants to back bigots who want to ban hijab. How are they going make decisions against the community and yet claim to serve the community. How do the teachers know whats best for their students over their parents.

    They are engaged in "sexualizing" their girls and they accuse Muslims of this crap when Muslims teach their kids the importance of modesty and respecting their bodies through proper covering. This is what they teach their girls and they have the audacity to claim wearing hijab is "sexualizing".

    How western culture sexualizes children:
    https://imgur.com/a/LlgzB and


  14. #34
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Ofsted chief's hijab comments could provoke assaults on girls, union claims

    Spielman's comments could 'lead to further marginalisation of, and increased physical and verbal attacks on, Muslim girls and Muslim women'

    Comments by Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, about young girls wearing the hijab in primary schools risk provoking physical attacks on Muslim women and girls, according to a motion proposed by the executive of England’s largest teaching union.

    In November Ms Spielman said her inspectors would speak to young girls wearing hijabs in primary schools to “ascertain why they do so in school”.

    She also publicly supported the head of an east London primary school which banned the hijab for younger pupils. The ban was later removed following concern from the local community, but the school received official backing from Ofsted.

    The annual conference of the NUT section of the National Education Union in Brighton will debate the issue in a priority motion, published this morning.

    It says Ms Spielman’s comments “go beyond the remit of Ofsted. The motion states there is “no evidence” that particular clothing has an impact on a child’s learning, and says the chief inspector’s comments “have ramifications beyond the school gates”.

    It adds: “These statements could have a negative impact on local communities and lead to further marginalisation of, and increased physical and verbal attacks on, Muslim girls and Muslim women.”

    The motion calls for the union to reissue its guidance to schools on how to develop a dress code policy, and “provide resources to support NEU members to collectively challenge unfair targeting or inappropriate dress codes in their workplaces”.

    NEU joint general secretary Kevin Courtney told a press conference today that Ms Spielman’s words were “frankly very political”, using the phrase “muscular liberalism” that had been used by former prime minister David Cameron.

    He said he was worried that fear of Ofsted could lead to some schools deciding to ban pupils wearing the hijab.

    He added that some of the union’s Muslim members had reported that they worried whether they should stop wearing the hijab at work, and male teachers feeling “intimidated” about wearing a beard in accordance with their beliefs.

    "People feel so much pressure from Ofsted , our worry is that instead of consultation we will find schools saying ‘we will ban the hijab’, and we think that will be very damaging to community relations," Mr Courtney said. "It is not a sensible place to go.

    “Our guidance will be about how you have dialogue and respectful dialogue and dialogue based on love for one another.”

    Asked whether the union had noticed an effect since Ms Spielman made her comments, Mr Courtney said: “When we talk to our members who are of the Muslim faith we find teachers who will tell us that they feel maybe they should not wear the hijab even though they have worn it their whole lives through. They find it’s difficult to go into a school with a hijab.

    “Some male Muslim teachers report they feel very intimidated to grow their beard in the way that they think aligns with their faith, so there is a climate where people feel less able to express their faith and that is a very bad thing for our society.”

    An Ofsted spokesperson said: “The NEU’s comments are disappointing. There’s nothing political about ensuring that schools and parents aren’t being subject to undue pressure by national or community campaign groups.

    “Head teachers need to be able to take uniform decisions on the basis of safeguarding or community cohesion concerns, and Ofsted will always support them in doing that.”



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts