The Return of the Trojan Horse

Peter Oborne can be, ahem, rather eccentric on certain issues. Here's one of them, where he backs the MEND view of the Trojan Horse affair...and look who's retweeting his contentious claim that the Trojan Horse plot "never happened in the first place"!

Mark Easton downplayed the significance of the affair at the time, dismissing the claims of Islamic extremism and equating the activities criticised in official reports with those practised in Christian faith schools. For him it showed 'diversity' not 'extremism'.

Islamic extremism

H/T commenter Sisyphus. 

I must admit that when I stumbled across the BBC’s ‘An Extremist in the Family’ I was immediately struck by the overtly sympathetic narrative by the BBC’s Dominic Casciani. The production was  disconcertingly lavish and seductive.

Nicola Benyahia’s ‘extremist’ son had been killed in Syria, having run off without any warning, to fight for Islamic State.

Casciani portrayed Nicola Benyahia as an innocent, moderate - liberal even -  Muslim woman who was completely baffled by her son’s sudden radicalisation. For some reason that didn’t ring true, and it turns out that the reason was a very good one; she was no such thing. 

Which brings me to the second BBC film mentioned. "The Hunt for Classroom Extremists". It was shown yesterday on BBC Midlands, and will be on again on the BBC News Channel on Saturday 26th at 00:30 and 14:30. It’s a documentary about the so-called Trojan Horse plot, and it takes even-handedness to the extreme; nary a value judgment in sight.

Even the blurb contains a couple of slightly alarming signals, which could be so subliminal as to be imaginary. But don’t forget, just because one is paranoid it doesn’t mean they ain’t out to get you.

“Documentary that examines the truth behind an alleged plot by 'hardline' Muslims to seize control of British schools. With interviews from those at the centre of the story, the programme asks what really happened and whether the authorities got it right.”

I won’t spell it out. On the whole, if you are with me and you’re alarmed at the prospect of an Islamised Britain, you’ll come away from the programme feeling uneasy. If you’re against me, and you accept Islam as part of life’s rich pattern and view it as benign, peaceful and endearing, you might feel a little less uneasy after seeing it than I do. 

I’m not sure if the BBC’s indulgent attitude towards people who hold views so antithetical to theirs is because they’re  afraid of causing offence and starting a riot, a breach of the peace, and/ or all- out civil war, but whatever it is, it’s not going to be helpful in the long run.

Cue the people who say “You don’t want impartiality, you want your own bias.” and I have to admit they’re onto something. It’s just that my bias is rational and theirs ain’t. 

Oh, and by the way Nicola Benyahia happened to be one of the school staff sacked following the Trojan Horse enquiry. It’s a bit like that poor chap whose daughter ran away to be a jihadi bride.  Not so innocent, with or without the teddy bear . 

Will the BBC ever learn?

Well, to counterbalance this, there was an excellent programme on radio 4 today. If you didn’t hear it, catch up here. "A Freedom Too Far"

Melanie Phillips addressed one particular problem that the Trojan Horse film touched on by implication, the establishment’s desperate imposition of a false concept, which is that there’s a distinct difference between violent extremism and plain old extremism. This enables them to insist that terrorism is nothing to do with Islam.  

The Trojan Horse film did exactly this by showing footage of terrorist atrocities in the opening moments, when the issue they were supposed to be addressing was entryism, not terrorism. In this context terrorism was almost a red-herring.

Melanie Phillips understands this, but sceptics perceive her objectivity to be compromised by her pro-Israel activism and criticism of Islamism.  This no-win scenario itself shows what an uphill struggle we face.

"Teacher, what will the Angel Gabriel do if a woman says 'No' to sex with her husband?"

Talking about comparing and contrasting things, the difference between Sky News and BBC News in their reporting of terror chief Peter Clarke's report into the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham is quite striking.

From the BBC's Sean Coughlan we get:

Teachers could face misconduct inquiries, she [Nicky Morgan] told the House of Commons, after Mr Clarke's report found a social media group called the "Park View Brotherhood" used by male senior staff at Park View School.

Mr Clarke's report said this included "grossly intolerant" messages.

He said the social media messages included "explicit homophobia; highly offensive comments about British service personnel; a stated ambition to increase segregation in the school; disparagement of strands of Islam; scepticism about the truth of reports of the murder of Lee Rigby and the Boston bombings; and a constant undercurrent of anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment".

From Afua Hirsch of Sky News, however, we go beyond quotes to get some of the shocking details:

Clarke scrutinised 3,000 messages sent via a private, all-male group called the Park View Brotherhood on social networking app WhatsApp, characterising them as "highly offensive".

The messages included the claim that the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich was a "hoax", that gay people are "animals" and their attempts at marriage "Satanic" and that women belong in the kitchen and have a "perpetual role serving men".

Although these messages were sent in private between teachers, the report reveals a correlation between this ideology and changes in the curriculum at the schools concerned.

At Park View, the report says, all discussion concerning sexual orientation was removed from sex education lessons, and boys were told in a worksheet that: "If a woman said 'No' to sex with her husband, the Angel Gabriel would strike her down and condemn her to an eternity of hell."

Girls and boys were segregated and, at Nansen Primary School, the school day was considered inappropriate both for the young age of the children and for a secular school.

That said, if you want to get the shocking details in shocking detail you have to go to somewhere like...er, yes, the Daily Mail: 

Teachers at the centre of the 'Trojan Horse' plot to takeover Birmingham schools exchanged messages that the murder of soldier Lee Rigby was a hoax, it emerged today.

A damning report into Birmingham schools has unearthed 'compelling evidence' of an attempt by a group of hardline Muslims 'to gain control of governing bodies', Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said.

The investigation, led by former anti-terror chief Peter Clarke, revealed details of a WhatsApp group called The Park View Brotherhood which also included a description of homosexuals as 'animals' with 'satanic ways’.

Mr Clarke was called in to investigate claims that schools in Birmingham were taken over in a plot to impose hardline Islamic rule. His was one of four inquiries into the allegations.

During his probe he was handed a dossier of more than 3,000 messages posted in the WhatsApp group from April 2013 until it was shut down in March.

Some of the messages suggested the brutal murder of Lee Rigby and the Boston Marathon bombings were both faked.

One post above a YouTube link attributed to someone identified as Teacher L on 24 May last year said: 'ATTACK ON ISLAM! Plz watch and share ASAP before they remove it!!!!! London butcher incident; It’s is a hoax And this is the link to reveal it.'

A message sent by Teacher C on 19 April said: 'Watch PROOF! Boston Marathon Bombing is Staged Terror Attack on YouTube.'

In May last year Mr Faraz allegedly posted a link to a news article about gay marriage followed by the message: 'These animals are going out full force. As teachers we must be aware and counter their satanic ways of influencing young people.'

There was evidence of young people being encouraged to 'adopt an unquestioning attitude to a particular hardline strand of Sunni Islam'

As they say: 'Compare and contrast'.

Play it down again, Chris

The Guardian's Political Editor, Patrick Wintour, broke the story of the leaked report from the former Met counterterrorism chief Peter Clarke into the Birmingham 'Trojan Horse' affair this week: 

Trojan horse inquiry: 'A coordinated agenda to impose hardline Sunni Islam'

Investigation finds Islamist plan would have confined pupils in Birmingham schools to 'intolerant monoculture' if left unchecked.

The report's findings are alarming, and the Guardian article goes into considerable detail about them. 

Once you've read Patrick Wintour's piece, you might like to compare it with Newsnight's take, as written up on the BBC News website. 

Newsnight's Policy Editor, Chris Cook, has been criticised before for playing down the seriousness of this story, and his latest piece does rather give credence to that charge. It goes into very little detail about the deliberate Islamicising found to be going on in some of these schools, merely saying: 

It really reinforces what we knew: a small group of friends pushed some of the city's schools towards Islamic social conservatism.

That, Mr Clarke says, created an atmosphere where extremism might flourish and an us-and-them attitude to non-Muslims might emerge.

In that category, Mr Clarke found other instances of worrying incidents that were first reported on Newsnight.

Mr Clarke found messages from a chat group on the WhatsApp mobile messaging app called the "Park View Brotherhood".

Newsnight had learned that the police were seeking transcripts of these chats a few months ago. They seem to have got them.

Note the dismissive, 'little to see here' first paragraph there: 

"It really reinforces what we knew: a small group of friends pushed some of the city's schools towards Islamic social conservatism".

Except that, according to the Guardian, Mr Clarke's report explicitly says that there's more to it than that. Here's what Mr Clarke actually says:

"It goes beyond the social conservatism practised in some faith schools which may be consistent with universal human rights and respectful of other communities. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to convert secular state schools into exclusive faith schools in all but name."

That is not what Chris Cook said it was saying, is it? 

Chris Cook is more interested in how bad the report makes Michael Gove and his school's policy look, hence the title of his piece:

'Trojan Horse' report an unhelpful epitaph for Michael Gove

It's quite striking that whereas Chris Cook's take is unambiguous bad news for Mr Gove's education reforms...

The document, commissioned by the DfE, is quite harsh on its own role as a consequence of the former education secretary's most significant reform ['converter academies']

...it becomes clear from reading the Guardian's article that things are not so clear-cut. As Patrick Wintour writes,

Clarke makes it clear he is not making a judgment on academies, and that some of the schools investigated were traditional schools overseen by the council.

That is something Chris Cook failed to point out. 

I'm not a mind-reader so I wouldn't claim to begin to know why Chris Cook chose to ignore almost all of the shocking detail in the leaked report, or why he is persisting with his established line that it's just about a small group of friends wanting a more socially conservative ethos in schools, or why he focused his Newsnight report mainly on Michael Gove's education policies, or why he ignored the caveats and qualifications in Mr Clarke's views of converter academies, but those are indeed the things he chose to do here.

Catching up, falling behind

As you may have noticed, this hasn't been a particularly busy week of blogging here at Is the BBC biased?. It's not that there's been nothing to write about, rather the reverse: There's been far too much to write about. 

For starters, there's the news from Iraq, where a small band of medieval-minded Muslim fanatics have attempted to seize control of the Iraqi Midlands, and there's the news from England, where a small band of medieval-minded Muslim fanatics have attempted to seize control of the country's second city. 

On the Iraq story, I'm not going to be disingenuous here. I think the range and quality of the BBC's coverage has been impressive. So many interesting experts have been invited into the BBC's studios this week that I actually feel properly informed for once  - though, of course, I'm not expert enough to tell whether they really are right  or merely if they sounded right). 

Also, having listened to and watched a lot of BBC coverage this week, I know what I've heard and I really have heard a dazzling variety of voices - defenders and critics of the al-Maliki government, defenders and critics of President Obama, defenders and critics of George W. Bush, defenders and critics of Tony Blair, pro-and-anti-Saudi voices, pro-and-anti-Iranian voices, etc. 

As for 'angles', well, yes, some programmes have 'pushed' one particular angle at me (such as this morning's Broadcasting House which concentrated its criticism on President Bush and Mr al-Maliki), but those have been balanced by other programmes which either (a) 'pushed' a contrasting angle at me (such as today's The World This Weekend where President Obama's policy came under fire) or (b) 'pushed' a variety of contrasting angles at me (as on last week's editions of Newsnight, where various experts, two U.S. Republicans, two U.S. Democrats, a former UK ambassador to Iraq, a former head of the U.N., a Conservative MP, a Blair advisor, an ex-Labour left-winger, an Iraqi government supporter, an Iraqi government critic (and former PM), and an FT journalist were all brought in to give their widely differing views). 

In all honesty, I really cannot fault it. Can you? (Please say if you disagree).

On the 'Trojan Horse' story though, I believe that Monday's BBC News at Six coverage was deeply biased (especially Reeta Chakrabarti's report) - and argued so in an earlier post.

Then, blow me down with a feather, on the following night's News at Six the BBC didn't just not bury the story, no, they actually took it forward, reporting that the claims of an Islamic plot (confirmed by Ofsted), were supported by evidence that something similar has been happening in schools in Bradford. [Alan at Biased BBC spotted this too, joking that it showed that the BBC "has started its own Islamophobic witch hunt".] 

Newsnight's coverage was, I believe, rather too mired in BBC (PC?) caution on the one hand [with Chris Cook's reports continuing to resolutely downplay the story] and sensationalism on the other [with Emily Maitlis getting carried away with the programme's 'scoop' in getting Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted to criticise Michael Gove then refusing to be straightforward when reporting Sir Michael's retraction of those criticisms - despite her BBC colleague, Jon Manel, unearthing for The World at One what seemed to me conclusive prove that Michael rather than Sir Michael was remembering events correctly] - both trajectories tending toward taking the story away from its main focus and onto 'Westminster Bubble' matters instead. 

As we've written here before, the BBC's 'Trojan Horse' coverage has been a real curate's egg. They've done some decent investigations of their own on this, and they've done some serious downplaying and deflection too. You might take that as a sign of their impartiality, or  that they are beginning to see the light. I suspect it's also a sign of their utter confusion. 

Most unusually for me, I even watched part of this morning's The Big Questions, which asked "Should the British stop tolerating intolerance?" 

The guest list was largely familiar, predictable even, but it can't be faulted for variety. It included Ajmal Mansoor, Adnan Rashid and Myriam Francois-Cerrah [see-no-evil-hear-no-evil Muslims], Maajid Nawaz [a see-some-evil-hear-see-evil Muslim], Kevin Friery [an atheist], Peter Hitchens [a right-wing contrarian who takes an indulgent line on Islamic extremism], Douglas Murray [a right-wing contrarian who doesn't take an indulgent line on Islamic extremism], Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner [a liberal Jew] and Daniel Hannan [a liberty-loving Tory MEP], among others. 

I also watched The Andrew Marr Show all the way though. A Middle East expert critical of Tony Blair and the editor of The Sun reviewed the papers. [I was shocked to learn that I didn't know who the editor of The Sun is. Victoria Newton was a new name to me]. Then came John Reid (Blairite ex-minister), actress Kathleen Turner, Tony Blair (Blairite ex-prime minister) and Sajid Javid (Conservative). 

The world of Twitter exploded in rage at the mere presence of Tony Blair. Some also moaned about the BBC inviting a Murdoch Empire editor on. Accusations of bias inevitably poured in: Andrew Marr was too soft on Tony Blair. Andrew Marr was too soft on John Reid. Andrew Marr was too soft on Sajid Javid. Well, frankly, the Andrew Marr of today is not the Andrew Marr of five years ago. He's a kinder and gentler interviewer these days. He's soft on everyone...

....which at least gives us a chance to hear the views being expressed. I much prefer this way of interviewing, generally-speaking - unless the interviewee is being blatantly evasive [or if I really dislike the interviewee!]. It's much preferable to the relentless attack-attack-attack style of interviewing that too often topples over into being too unthinking and inflexible. [Mishal Husain's interviews on Today this past week have occasionally fallen into that trap].

What's next? Well there's also been Desert Island Discs with "Palestinian author and human rights activist" Raja Shehadeh and Kirsty Young making sympathetic noises as he told his passive-aggressive, embittered account of his personal experiences [h/t Sue] followed by Edward Stourton on The World This Weekend being oh-so-impartial in giving half of his report to the Israelis and half to the Palestinians but giving the 'woes' of the Palestinians a noticeably more sympathetic hearing, and the final word. If I may quote my friend Sue here:

So, even as the Trojan Horse rumbles on and the Islamist uprising rapidly spreads throughout the entire planet, the reality of the Palestinians' rejectionist attitude to peace with Israel remains a mystery to the pundits at the BBC.  

In other news tonight, the Islamists of ISIS in Iraq have posted photos of what they say are huge numbers of massacred soldiers, the Islamists of Hamas are in the frame for kidnapping three teenage boys, at least nine people have been killed in an Islamist suicide bombing in Baghdad, Islamist suicide bombers have attacked checkpoints in Benghazi in Libya, the Islamist regime in Sudan has been accused by America of bombing schools and hospitals in two of its states, Islamists have attacked a coastal town in Kenya, Somali Islamists have rounded up 100 women and ordered them to comply with Islamic dress code or risk being whipped, a Christian teacher in Egypt has been jailed for six months for insulting Islam, al-Qaeda has released a video calling for jihad against India, etc, etc.

Well, that's me caught up then. Good night.

'Sunday' - Forced Marriage

Longstanding readers of Is the BBC biased? may recall an old regular feature - the citing of an unchanging 'set menu' for the Radio 4 Sunday programme, suggesting that the programme usually consisted of the following standard fare:

"the usual diet of breaking news from the Arab world, Christian-related abuse stories, bad news about the Catholic Church, something about human rights, the usual airing of Muslim grievances, a call for something or other by a left-wing campaign group, an Anglican row over something, that sort of thing"

Well, here's today's running order, It quotes the Sunday website [complete with its usual spelling mistakes], except for item 2 - a late addition. How many can you tick off from that menu?:

1. Fawaz Gerges from London School of Economics analyses the recent events, who are ISIS and what role is religion playing in the latest crisis. 
2. Justin Welby is in Rome to talk about the modern slavery campaign with the Pope.
3. There is concern in the Church of England that Bats are turning historic church bulidings into "bat barns" Anne Sloman, Chair of of the Church of England church building council and Stephen Rudd from Natural England debate the issues. 
4. Our correspondent in Santiago Gideon Long reports on the story of adopted children sold by the Catholic church. 
5. Ahead of a new law coming into force criminalising forced marriage in England and Wales, Jasvinder Sanghera, speaks to William Crawley about how the new law will affect faith communities in the UK and whether it is likely to encourage victims to come forward.
6. With the World Cup under way, Mark Dowd Catholic writer and broadcaster speaks about the relationship between faith and football. 
7. Bob Walker meets up with a cross-section of young British Muslims gathering opinions on the government's approach to Islam in the shadow of the Trojan Horse enquiry. This is followed by a debate between Oliver McTernan from 'Forward Thinking' and Haras Rafiq from Quilliam foundation.

On the Iraq item, Prof. Gerges described ISIS being "on the far-right of al-Qaeda" and described Tony Blair's statement about the present situation having nothing to do with the 2003 US/British-led invasion as "rubbish", saying that the invasion "opened the gates of Hell".

On the new law outlawing forced marriage in England and Wales, Jasvinder Sanghera, the leading campaigner for the law, described her personal experiences of forced marriage. She comes from a Sikh background. Checking around afterwards, the government's own statistics on forced marriage in the UK (from January to December 2013) make striking reading: 

• The FMU [Forced Marriage Unit] gave advice or support related to a possible forced marriage in  in 1302 cases. 
• Where the age was known, 15% of cases involved victims below 16 years, 25% involved victims aged 16-17, 33% involved victims aged 18-21, 15% involved victims aged 22-25, 7% involved victims aged 26-30, 3% involved victims aged 31+. 
• 82% of cases involved female victims and 18% involved male victims. 
• The FMU handled cases involving 74 different countries, including Pakistan (42.7%), India (10.9%), Bangladesh (9.8%), Afghanistan (2.8%), Somalia (2.5%), Iraq (1.5%), Nigeria (1.1%), Saudi Arabia (1.1%), Yemen (1%), Iran (0.8%), Tunisia (0.8%), The Gambia (0.7%), Egypt (0.6%) and Morocco (0.4%). The origin was unknown in 5.4% of cases. 
• Within the UK the regional distribution was: London 24.9%, West Midlands 13.6%, South East 9.9%, North West 9.3%, Yorkshire and Humberside 6.8%, East Midlands 4.2%, East Anglia 3.5%, Scotland 2.9%, North East 2%, South West 1.6%, Wales 1.6%, Northern Ireland 0.3%. The region was unknown in 19.4% of cases. 

The government stats don't break the figures down by religion, but we can all do the sums and work out roughly where the balance between Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism really lies from the above figures.  

Bob Walker's report with that "cross-section of young British Muslims" didn't so much gather opinions "on the government's approach to Islam in the shadow of the Trojan Horse enquiry {sic}" but rather on the media's portrayal of Muslims. The "cross-section" all felt aggrieved by that. They don't think there's that much of a problem at all. The discussion between Oliver McTernan from 'Forward Thinking' and Haras Rafiq from Quilliam followed a predictable path with Mr Rafiq saying that Islam itself isn't the problem but that Islamism - a "perverted" version of Islam - is, and with Mr McTernan complaining that even that was going too far and is unfair to Muslims. 

Typical Sunday.

h/t David McAndrews

"The BBC will try to dampen it down"

As it's a blogpost [and, thus, not Paywall-bound], I think Damian Thompson's latest post can [just for once] be highlighted in full:

Radical Islam in secular schools: now the shocking truth emerges

"Students' understanding of the arts, different cultures and other beliefs are limited." That's one of the complaints about Birmingham schools made by Ofsted in their leaked report. It sounds like a relatively mild criticism.

Not so. What the Trojan Horse scandal has revealed is that leaders of the Muslim community in Birmingham have been creating a Wahhabi-inspired counterculture in secular, not faith, schools.

Put simply, the interpretation of Islam that's sweeping through the Muslim world, thanks to Saudi money, seeks to deprive children of any exposure to the arts, which it condemns as idolatrous. Even listening to music is haram, forbidden. The underlying teaching is that the arts, by seeking to create beauty, blaspheme by detracting attention from the only source of true beauty, Allah, which can be appreciated only in the natural world he created.

The imposition of this ideology on Muslim cultures is a tragedy – for them. But secular state schools in Birmingham are not part of Muslim culture, and their ghettoisation under the years of Labour government is a scandal.

To be clear about this: primary school children in certain non-faith schools are not taught music because Islamic fundamentalists have been able to manipulate the system.

Finally, Ofsted has begun to discover what's going on. I very much doubt whether it would have done so if anyone other than Michael Gove – who is not an Islamophobe but is definitely a veteran opponent of creeping Islamism – were Secretary of State for Education.

I expect plenty of controversy in the days to come, as the Ofsted report is published and its implications sink in. The BBC will try to dampen it down. We mustn't let that happen.

"The BBC will try to dampen it down." 

That's a serious charge, but it's one many of us might take more as a 'dead cert prediction' than as a mere charge. 

We'll see. If the report says what Damian says it says, and if the BBC tries to dampen it down, it would be unforgivable. So, eyes wide open then!

Trojan Horse; hobbled

While I agree with Craig that Mishal Husain did a fairly robust job of interviewing Tahir Alam recently on the Today programme, (nice illustration by the way) I’d argue that we’re allowing ourselves to be distracted by relatively superficial, even peripheral issues. By spending too much time on these, the fundamental problems are suffocated and never confronted head-on.

We’re continually diverted by the media’s preoccupation with the symptoms rather than the illness.  So with regard to the Trojan Horse fandango the problems Mishal Husain was trying to tackle, such as gender segregation in class, dress code and attitudes to arts subjects like music and dance, are easily dispatched by Tahir Alam and his fellow 'horses' with airy, somewhat disingenuous assurances like “that’s not school policy” often with a caveat such as  “but, but if the pupils choose...”

Sarah AB has readjusted her position on the Harry’s Place fence today, by setting out certain pieces of the puzzle. As well as the above, allegations were made that a Park View teacher taught in class that:

In Islam women were required to obey their husbands and could not refuse to have sex with them. This was brushed aside as ‘a misunderstanding.’  

Whereas schools are encouraged to celebrate the interests and festivals of Muslims, they are advised to avoid events which may make Muslim children feel excluded. 

a pretty conservative interpretation of the religion is presented as the minimum and the default.

 Strong stuff from Sarah AB, who goes on to say, of Ibrahim Hewitt’s “appalling views”  

“It seems perfectly reasonable that Gove should have been worried.” 

A good article, I thought.

The media’s examination of the Trojan Horse issue is hobbled by political correctness across the board. Some of the more obvious symptoms are noted with increasing frankness, but fear of appearing racist means that the underlying cause is ignored.

The question is whether it’s okay for a state school attended by children, 99% of whom are from Muslim families, to insist on autonomy, which in this case means bowing to the wishes of the majority view.  If the ‘interested parties’ - parents, pupils and governors wish it, why should it not be so?

We are allowed to venture, cautiously, that it’s Britain we’re talking about, not Pakistan, although talking about a ‘clash of cultures’ is taboo in the current climate. (That’s the kind of man-made climate change that can’t come too soon.) 

Why do Muslim families wish to come to  libertarian country in the first place? Why choose to live in a democracy, which is largely secular, and that mainly because it's secure in the knowledge that the majority of the inhabitants respects its underlying Judeo-Christian structure? 

What is it about the UK that they wish to share? Are they like crowds who flock to enjoy some serenity, and in the process destroy the very serenity they seek? Or is it all part of a broader Trojan Horse style enterprise, in which a world-wide Islamic caliphate is achieved, bit by bit, as many people claim. 

I feel like Mrs Merton “Tell me, Ibrahim Hewitt  what attracted you to tolerant, complacent, yet very vulnerable Britain?”

In his helpful guide “What Does Islam Say” Mr Hewitt is not shy. He’s more open and honest than any of the mealy-mouthed apologists who tie themselves in knots beating around the bush, not unlike Emma Knights, spokesperson for the governor’s campaign group ‘Inspire Governors” with Justin Webb this morning. Today. 12 mins past 7 am.

What is the job of school governors? The question is very much in play. Following the allegation that some schools in Birmingham have been hijacked by Islamic extremists there is a separate campaign to improve school governance. The chief of the campaign Emma Knights is here.  And your campaign is going to do what? 

We want to encourage people up and down the country who have never thought about volunteering as a school governor to do exactly that. So, for example one of the qualities that is incredibly important for school governors is the ability to ask questions and to understand what is happening in the school and to check with the head, that things are going as they should” [...] 
“Your discussion, and your appeal to people is taking place in the wake of the allegations of what is happening in Birmingham, and it sort of raises questions about the role of governors. Should they be enforcing the attitudes of..... local communities, .....local people (eggshells crunching) should they be representing the views of local communities and making sure schools conform to those views, or are they..... a step back if you like, people who are there to enforce, to represent the view of wider liberal secular, society? What’s the job of a governor? 

We have the same job as boards of any other sector... 

But are they there though to enforce the view of how a school should behave, of local people...or of wider society? 

No, we are not representative, so although we pull people, we hope, with a range of experience, we want a diverse set of people so we don’t have ‘groupthink’, that’s not good for governance, but once we come round the table, whether we are a parent, wether we are from the local community or whether we are for example from employers, we are encouraging [....] we don’t represent our particular backgrounds we are there governing in the interests of the pupils in that school. That is our job! 

In the interests of the pupils doesn’t really answer it, does it? In the interests of the pupils as seen by particular communities? Or in the interests of the pupils as seen generally in the way society is run in Britain?  

As seen by those fifteen individuals round the table. 

Ah 

So we are bringing our combined experience, skills and wisdom to hold the schools to account. 

So if you think, for instance, that Muslim girls shouldn’t go swimming during Ramadan because they might ingest water and that would be breaking their fast, and you have that view as a governor, that is perfectly acceptable, then, for that view to percolate from the governors through the school. In other words the governors aren’t there to protect some idealised, liberal secular view of education, they are there to represent the views of local people. 

One of our three key responsibilities is to set the vision and the ethos of the school, so between them those people will do that. We’re also responsible for ensuring that the head-teacher and the teachers were doing their jobs properly, and we’re also responsible for the finance of the school, so between us school governors are responsible for about £b 46 of public expenditure. 

I just wondered who’s responsible for looking after children though, when there’s a conflict if you like, between  the way some local people want those children to be treated and the wider way in which children generally are treated, Who looks after their interests? Not, according to you, the governors. 

Yes, exactly, the governing body are there in the interests of pupils. So what we should be doing is talking to the various constituencies, whether that be the local communities, the parents, staff, and indeed pupils themselves, but it’ll be that group of about 15 individuals which will take the decision. But in a way what your questions are doing are actually highlighting how incredibly important this role is and the fact that it’s been largely overlooked, hidden from view,[..] illustrates why the ‘inspiring governors’ campaign is so badly needed. 

So poor Justin was outmanoeuvred by Emma Knights who successfully avoided answering all those awkward ‘are you with us or against us?’ questions. She might have been too busy concentrating on being  un-Islamophobic, or perhaps she was simply too dim to realise what Justin was getting at.

Brownie points to Justing for trying.

Over on Al Jazeera’s website Ibrahim Hewitt has published an article titled “Crusade against British Muslims in education, a counter-assault on the neocons.

“The real Trojan Horse plot is the planting of neo-conservative apparatchiks in key positions within government departments and quasi-governmental bodies. The Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, is himself an avowed neoconservative.” 

Some of the BTL comments give him a kicking, but it’s his point of view, and it’s helpful in that it sets out the difference between “them and us” straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. It clarifies the problem in a way perhaps more revealing than he intended.

He associates ‘achievement’ or attainment with religiosity, Islam-style, and claims that if schools do not cater for the ‘needs’ of Muslim pupils they will not be happy learners.

I would take exactly the opposite view, but I do see where he’s coming from. 

He contends that the Muslims have been disadvantaged by not having their religious needs catered for and believes that granting Muslim children the unnatural conservative Islamic practices we neo-cons are determined to deny them would instantly bestow greater attainment upon them. What sort of attainment we do not know. Not the arts, probably not history, and definitely no joy.

Then there’s the problematic interpretation of the word ‘extremist’. The government and the politically correct brigade are currently allowed only to openly condemn ‘extremism’ as undesirable and dangerous, but so far we can’t point out that it’s not only the extreme version of Islam that  is a threat. It’s the whole bang shoot.

All that is permissible is to protest that ‘extremism’ is a perversion of the real Islam, despite everything that Ibrahim Hewitt and Tahir Alam say in their publications and recommendations. It’s crazy.

Mishal of Troy

Mishal Husain, reporting from Birmingham

At the other end of yesterday, I was driving to work whilst listening to Today, and happened to catch Mishal Husain just after 7 o'clock talking to Muslim parents and schoolchildren in Birmingham. Her report, in anticipation of the imminent findings of an investigation into the alleged Islamification of certain schools in the city, contained nothing but praise for the schools in the eye of the storm and expressions of disbelief, distress and outrage at the claims of Islamification being made against them.

I was left wondering whether this was going to be Mishal's take on the issue throughout the programme, as that would have smelled of clear bias - and it was clear that there would be more from her on the subject as she was broadcasting from Birmingham that morning specifically in order to focus on 'Operation Trojan Horse'.

Catching up last night with the rest of yesterday's Today revealed that this caught-on-the-wing segment just after 7 o'clock was, indeed, just a part of Mishal Husain's reporting from Birmingham that day. She played another clip from supportive Muslim parents and schoolchildren at 6.10am and then talked to the BBC's Phil Mackie about it at 6.30am.

The main segment though came in the primetime 8.10am spot.

After a short interview with Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, who does believe that Wahhabi types are trying to take over schools in his city, Mishal interviewed Tahir Alam, governor of Park View School and the man accused of being the ring-leader of this 'Islamist plot' - and I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse Mishal Husain of pulling her punches much. She gave him a thorough grilling, including challenging him forcefully over his own past record - including that infamous publication from the mid-Noughties where he laid out a prescription for Islamising schools that reads (or so I'm told) like a blueprint for the plot outlined in the original Trojan Horse document - and which chimes with specific complaints being made by other parents and former teachers.

I think she did a good job, and if I hadn't listened back last night and caught up with what I'd missed that morning I might still have been left with the impression that the BBC was reporting from Birmingham merely in order to propagandise on behalf of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil side of the argument there.

We've posted quite a bit about the 'Operation Trojan Horse' affair here at Is the BBC biased? (as is our way), and Andrew Gilligan's verdict on the BBC's efforts rings true: 

...the Beeb's record on the story has been mixed. It has done some real reporting on it – that is, making the effort, like us, to gather actual evidence of its own. But on other occasions it’s been too ready to take at face value the obviously self-serving denials of obviously interested parties – such as governors of the schools concerned, or in this case Birmingham City Council. 

At least Mishal Husain didn't just take Tahir Alam's denials at face value.

NB. There's an interesting take on this interview from Sarah AB at Harry's Place.

I did note, in passing, that her two examples of bias in the way headlines have been spun on the story - Council expects ‘firestorm’ over Trojan Horse schools plot’ and ‘No Trojan Horse extremism links’ Birmingham teachers hear - relate to the Daily Telegraph and the BBC.

Can you guess which headline comes from which news source? (I bet you can).

Three wishes

Bradford United.

“It’s not extremism, it’s meeting their needs”, pleaded Councillor Faisal Khan on the Today programme as he and lovable antisemite David Ward MP (Lib Dem) were being gently probed by John Humphrys this morning. 

The two Islamophiles appeared to be in broad agreement, throwing cold water over the producer’s evident wish that they cross swords over the Trojan Horse issue. After all, David Ward had been deposed as a governor of one school, while Faisal Khan was responsible for disposing of head-teachers at others.  

“Staff at both schools said Mr Khan had led both sets of governors in “constant attacks” on their headteachers to drive them out and had succeeded at Carlton Bolling, where two successful non-Muslim headteachers have quit.”

You’d have expected feathers to fly. But nothing. Bradford mustn’t be tarred with the same brush as Birmingham, they opined in unison. We’re uncomfortable with the term ‘Muslim extremists’’. 

“Do you have any concerns about the extent to which some people want to make schools more faith based?” ventured Humph.

“These are secular schools” said David Ward.

“Schools are not secular, there’s no such thing as a secular school” argued cllr Khan. 

Ah! A disagreement. But not really. They met half way; they’re kind of neither secular nor faith-based. 

“Muslim children have ‘needs’ that’s all, and in a predominantly Muslim area, these needs must be met” the pair agreed.  They may not be faith schools as such, and by introducing Muslim values the Muslims parents are only trying to improve standards and raise attainment.

Faisal Khan believes that rigid adherence to Islamic practices and all the trappings equals attainment. These things bring about the kind of transformation to which he and the Muslim parents aspire.    

Oh dear. The bulk of the iceberg is still below the surface, and I bet the BBC hopes it stays right there.

***

Pantomime.

I said we’d be hearing more about the play called “My name is” - going forward - though I wished it weren’t so. 

Unfortunately I was right the first time. The trio cropped up on Women’s Hour the other day. Jane Garvey gave the play a good plug, emphasising the initial ‘romance‘ that led to predictable disappointment and tediousness. (The plug, the play and the real-life pantomime) 

The tale is not at all feminist-friendly, I’d have thought. Obviously, Islam trumps feminism (and homosexuality) so none of the awkward questions the whole situation cries out for, materialised.

***

"Rich Jews voted for Mrs Thatcher"

How Jews vote. 

Ken Livingstone has drawn attention to himself again. The BBC invited him onto Newsnight for some unknown reason. Well, it wasn’t entirely unknown. I don’t know if he momentarily forgot all the fuss that his crass utterances about Jews are apt to generate, but he let one slip out, which generated the appropriate fuss as well as some inappropriate fuss. 

The reason the BBC did invite him onto the programme might have been devilishness on the part of the producer, or it might have been because the producer thought he was still a contender, or something. But his very appearance jarred. It turned me into one of those people that object to someone’s very appearance, even before they’ve opened their trap.   That’s not the sort of person I like to be, so I wish they wouldn’t do it again.   

Trojan Elephant.

There are several pieces on the web about Robert Fisk’s disgraceful report in the Independent, a newspaper that has acquired a reputation for being even more antisemitic than the Guardian. Fisk himself couldn’t have Fisked it any more Fiskishly than Cif Watch has here.

Hamas…handed Israel a gift by bombarding Sderot from Gaza with thousands of inaccurate rockets, most of them home-made. It allowed Israel to kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians as it sought revenge, and deprived the Israeli left (that which still existed) of their support for the original Israeli withdrawal from Gaza;

Amongst a sack of disingenuous chaff in that paragraph there is one grain of truth. 

Of course anything that harms your enemy hands them a potential propaganda gift at the same time.  It’s when only the gift is seized upon and any injury or harm is all but forgotten that things become more complex. For example, when the Fogel family were butchered by Palestinian youths, some of us used that  (and still do) to illustrate the sadistic nature of individual acts of Palestinian “resistance”. But there would be something deeply wrong if we relished its impact as a weapon more than we anguished over the stark brutality of the act and its impact on the survivors. Not to mention the very idea that this deed had handed anyone a gift.

Similarly, when the Israeli army (arguably legitimately) rashly used white phosphorus near civilians, they too could be said to have handed a ghastly gift to their enemies. The fact that this has been interpreted as a deliberate attack on civilians and is now embedded into the narrative as such was so predictable that the mind boggles as to why its use was ever authorised. As we would all know, if the BBC hadn’t systematically avoided reporting it, the Israelis take great pains to avoid harming civilians even when responding to deliberate and outrageous provocation, often to the detriment of their own safety. No wonder it’s so easy to seize upon such things when there is little or no interest from the BBC in countering them.

The BBC’s habit of allowing a litany of embellished falsehoods to be repeated on air, unchallenged, was demonstrated in Sunday’s The Big Questions. “Is Islamism the biggest threat to the modern world?”

This was supposed to be a debate about Tony Blair’s infamous warning about the threat from Islamism. 

Anne Marie Waters (Sharia Watch) and Sam Westrop (Gatestone institute) were pitted against a gaggle of the BBC’s favourite Muslims, ranging from Usama Hasan (Quilliam)  through Bangladeshi-born British Imam Ajmal Masroor to Abdel Bari Atwan (from multiple BBC appearances as ‘expert on the Middle East’, the most inappropriate description that there ever in this world could be, as well as a regular on the panel of the BBC’s Dateline.)

 “It’s an exaggerated threat” opines Atwan, and “Tony Blair is responsible”  before launching into an  illogical diatribe of exquisite stupidity, ending “we-in-the-West *created* Islamism.”  Predictable Blair-bashing ensued.

“Mr Atwan, you famously said ‘Were nuclear missiles ever to strike Israel I would dance in Trafalgar Square’  so I don’t think...”
“This is misquotation. This is not true..”
“It’s not true? You never said that?”
“no no no no. It was out of context”
“What does that mean?”
“I was talking an hour programme, they took few seconds and anyway who is bomb-bing? Who is bomb-bing the Arabs now? The Israelis. Who is committing massacres against Arabs? The Israelis!”

You cannot call this a debate. The Muslims seem incapable of listening to anything but their own voices. Once they start, they cannot be stopped.

Sam Westrop promises to post, on the Stand for Peace website, conclusive proof that Ajmal Masroor did claim that American security forces orchestrated the Mumbai attacks, and also that the Westgate shopping mall attack by Boko Haram was  the work of shadowy forces. Which he denies.

“Hamas leader is honest and great man as opposed to Benjamin Netanyahu anytime” announces Masroor, to loud applause.

Nasr Emam (Muslim Chaplain in Scarborough) is wearing an distinctly unIslamic tie. He splutters:

“I don’t support Hamas. Hamas isn’t even an Islamic ideology.”

“What is it then?”

“Waffle waffle. They want their country back. Waffle waffle inanity splutter. Who is funding you (Anne Marie) to pay for Sharia Watch?”

UnIslamic tie

Uh oh. Palestinian Musher el-Farra of Sheffield PSC is on the programme. On the front row.

Why? Obviously to tell us that Hamas is the outcome of Israeli Zionist aggression and repeat the lies that have embedded themselves into the narrative. “Phosphoric bombs” “Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” “Massacres” Lies that are accepted as the truth; so embedded that they can be uttered unchallenged.

“... ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which started in 1948 when they destroyed five hundred thirty two villages.” 

Musher el-Farra wants Tony Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes against the Iraqi people. Thunderous applause.

 “The killin’ of fishermen... just for fishin’ in the waters. The killin' of farmers, the pollutin’ of Palestinian waters..” ”Killin’ of people wavin’ white flags, all this.. don’t talk to me about threat radicalism and threat to global... Islamism........Zionism is....... Israel is big power....” 

No more Mrs. nice-guy; I use dialect in a denigrating manner because I’m fed up with half-wits being afforded credibility by the BBC in their relentless unprincipled pursuit of ratings. 

This man cannot be stopped. He’s in full flow, eyes blazing. Nicky Campbell  has to put a hand on his arm to get him to stop.

In my opinion the BBC introduced this person and Abdel Bari Atwan into the mix solely because the BBC knew they would automatically launch themselves off into anti-Israel tirades, thereby tidily diverting the topic away from facing the undeniable truth. That Islam is incompatible with the West and it is indeed the biggest threat to the modern world.

In my opinion, no Imam, no spokesperson for Islam, no community leader, no Islamic authority I've ever seen or heard is sure about what exactly Islam is. They cannot agree on what Islam is as a religion, they are evasive about what Islamism is as an ideology and no-one can agree upon the legitimacy of much of the weighty paraphernalia that surrounds the whole doom-ridden palaver. 

The one motivating, unifying element, the only thing that they’ll readily agree upon, the glue that holds them together, is their hatred of Israel and the Jews. That is what sets them on fire. Their eyes glow, their hands flail and their tongues lash. 

Why do I think the bulk of the audience is so ready to clap at any anti-Israel utterance, and boo and hiss at the slightest mention of the Israeli Prime Minister? 

Because of the BBC’s anti-Israel bias by omission, its susceptibility to pro-Palestinian emoting and its politically correct kow-towing to half-wits. 

Look at this document (H/T Biased BBC) download from here  setting out rules for Muslim education. What a load of restrictive, repressive, cruel orders.

My husband’s “Rules Concerning Toast” make more sense. And they were (half) tongue-in-cheek.

One minute The MCB issues a 72 page document detailing a list of intrusive demands that schools adapt to 72 pages-worth of Islamic superstitions, the next this statement:  'Education and Muslims: End this Witch-Hunt of British Muslims' denying that state schools are the target of a 'Muslim takeover', where supposedly conservative Muslim views and mores are imposed, and where non-compliant teachers are forced out.

Never mind the Trojan Elephant. It’s Islam itself that is ‘in the room’, and this room ain’t big enough for both of us.

Straight from the Trojan Horse's mouth?

When you've been following a story closely at, say, Andrew Gilligan's column in the (right-leaning) Telegraph or at (left-leaning) Harry's Place, and they've been somewhat of the same mind about it, then the BBC's coverage of the same story can appear to come from somewhere unique to the BBC. Somewhere strange.

The Trojan Horse story is a case in point.

Yes, all credit must be given to Newsnight for leading their Thursday edition with some freshly-discovered developments in the story, but the results were tame by the standards of what I've been reading elsewhere. 

It's as if they were holding back, and that ever-present sense of a BBC walking along a concrete path (when it comes to Muslim sensibilities) as if they were actually treading on a land-mine-festooned gossamer web decorated with humming bird egg-shells comes to mind again.

Still, contrary to what many of us might have expected, the BBC hasn't ignored the story. 

Indeed, programmes like Today and Newsnight have been actively involved in investigating it, and on this edition of the programme Newsnight went to Park View School in Birmingham and talked to two teachers there who said (anonymously) that (a) worksheets were handed to Year 11 boys saying that a woman must obey her husband and that sex education lessons contained the message that “wives are not allowed to say no”, and (b) that Creationism and intelligent design were taught by at least one science teacher. 

The school's response was that the former came about due to a misunderstanding and that a school assembly had been convened afterwards to make it clear that non-consensual sex within marriage is rape. Plus they said that Creationism isn't school policy.

Then (in Chris Cook's report) two young female Muslim parents were interviewed, stating how good the school has been at helping produce well-behaved pupils in a deprived area of Birmingham - which rather took the sting out of the report.

Kirsty Wark then interviewed Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain and Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association.

Kirsty stuck to challenging Mr Ahmad over those two charges, rather going round in circles in the process, and then started rubbishing the "overblown" claims being made about the affair with Andrew Copson. 

Andrew, being a nice humanist, wasn't the man to give a robust, non-pc answer to such questioning and, frankly, Newsnight really needs to get Andrew Gilligan onto the programme. He would have given Kirsty short shrift over such assertions.

Andrew C was there because the BHA has been investigating the story too - rather more robustly than the BBC in fact.

The BBC report completely missed some of the more serious charges being reported by the BHA, and it's a shame that Andrew Copson didn't mention some of them during his Newsnight appearance (for some reason).

The Birmingham Post is reporting the BHA's findings in much greater detail. 

The BHA is saying that "former workers" at the school claim that (a) pupils at Park View School were allowed to express “positive views” about the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks, (b) members of staff had been advised not to bring soldiers to the school for visits and (c) that one employee spoke of wanting an “Islamic state”.

This story looks set to run and run and the BBC is bound to keep pussy-footing around over the issue. Because that's what they do.

Update: ...and there's more from Andrew Gilligan in this morning's Sunday Times.