Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Muslims finance school's fight to ban niqab

A Muslim group has stepped in to assist Wycombe High School in its legal battle to prevent a student wearing the niqab. According to The Daily Telegraph, the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford has confirmed in writing to the head teacher that it is prepared to contribute to a fighting fund. In addition, the group has offered to organise a national campaign to oppose ‘this largely Saudi-driven campaign to make the niqab a compulsory requirement for Muslim women’.

The family who wish their 12-year-old daughter to wear a niqab has been granted legal aid to fight a human rights case, so tax-payers are footing their bill. But Buckinghamshire County Council, the local authority for the school, has been unwilling to underwrite the school’s legal costs, which could be as high as £500,000. One of Cranmer’s communicants speculated that their reluctance may have more to do with the faith of their Cabinet spokesperson for secondary schools, and the reality that he is facing local elections in a few months. Cllr Zahir Mohammed has indeed been curiously silent on the whole issue.

Buckinghamshire County Council has behaved appallingly in this case. It claims to support the right of its schools to set their own uniform policies, yet refuses to assist one of them when that policy is challenged. If the school is forced to admit a student wearing a niqab, it could potentially render any policy on uniform unenforceable, and any school may consequently be threatened with legal action.

The Director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, Dr Hargey, tells the school that the father's insistence on his daughter wearing the niqab was a ‘non-Islamic imposition upon your institution'. He continues: ‘We are strongly committed to offering you our full and unequivocal support in banning face-masks at school. We trust that you will continue to resist any move to implement this kind of minority ethnic obsession, which has no foundation whatsoever in the transcendent sources of Islamic law.’

Cranmer is full of admiration for such a clear refutation of what is manifestly a divisive political ideology.

The Government’s latest plan to combat religious segregation is ‘multi-faith schools’. Cranmer can’t wait to hear further details, but according to The Independent, ‘If the academies become popular and oversubscribed, selection will be by lottery to avoid one faith getting a stranglehold.’

Fools. Do they not realise that God uses lotteries to achieve his ends (Prov 18:18; Jnh 1:7; Acts 1:26)?


Anonymous weary said...

"Cranmer is full of admiration for such a clear refutation of what is manifestly a divisive political ideology. "

It serves to remind us that not all Muslims are against integration with the host nation, although some of Your Grace's communicants may find that hard to swallow.

6 February 2007 at 11:58  
Anonymous John Michaels said...

Indeed I do. Whether the action may be borne out of the desire for integration remains to be seen. A cynic may wonder at the fact that Muslims are praiseworthy for actually agreeing to what is the norm in this country. One may also question where the money offered originates?

6 February 2007 at 12:17  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I'd never thought that 'casting lots' was the same as a 'lottery'. Interesting. So God approves of human gambling, 'games of chance', so he can work through them.

Someone should tell the Methodists.

6 February 2007 at 13:50  
Blogger tim said...

Ulster Man--
You rang?

No, no--we oppose gambling, which requires putting your money at risk in a game of chance. A "lottery" as His Grace uses it here isn't the same.

6 February 2007 at 16:41  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

But filling a school with drawing lots is basically the same as gambling with money (our money too), and if God used lots to replace Judas, it basically means that God acts through 'chance'. So, please God, let me win the lottery, and I'll finance all those nice Catholic adoption agencies. I promise.

6 February 2007 at 17:03  
Anonymous dexey said...

Ulster Man said...
if God used lots to replace Judas, it basically means that God acts through 'chance'. So, please God, let me win the lottery, and I'll finance all those nice Catholic adoption agencies. I promise.
5:03 PM

No need to make a promise to God; he knows what is in your heart.
As to replacing Judas - didn't the 11 remaining disciples draw lots because there was more than one suitable candidate? Obviously there was no chance involved. God saw to it that the right candidate got the short straw, or the long one.

6 February 2007 at 19:29  
Blogger tim said...

And, hey--Ulster Man, don't worry, I knew you were suggesting it tongue-in-cheek.

Interesting that the idea for "multi-faith schools" includes the idea to avoid letting any one religion get a strong majority. I wonder--what about the majority religion for the population?

6 February 2007 at 21:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The spokesman from MECO was excellent on Radio 4 yesterday pointing out there was nothing in The Koran to justify this fancy dress, and that there ought to be a school uniform policy with NO exceptions for Muslims.

That the only context was Muhammed's wives speaking to strangers from behind a screen - and that there was no evidence women ever wore fancy dress back in those times - it was a Saudi Wahhabi imposition and should be resisted as it was misogynistic" and "oppressive" designed to cause "separation"

7 February 2007 at 06:46  
Blogger Man in a shed said...

At least Dr Hargey understands the importance of the use of language in all this. The Islamacist insistence on using foreign words to describe objects gives them a status they should not have.

Face mask and head scarf are the correct descriptions - niqab is propaganda designed to avoid conscious thought.

Your grace may sympathise as Latin used to be used to much the same effect by the church of Rome.

7 February 2007 at 11:52  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace,

Islamic organisations in France have taken the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to court under anti-racism laws for printing last year the Danish cartoons and adding cartoons of their own. Today, the trial started.

Interestingly, the media in different countries show remarkable differences in reporting about the event which might be indicative for the objectivity and independence of the media. I checked several newspapers in the UK, Germany, and France. Here are the results:


The Times: nothing.

The Independent: nothing.

The Telegraph: nothing

Guardian: a report.


Der Spiegel: nothing.

FAZ: nothing.

Focus: report and a cartoon by Charlie Hebdo.

Die Welt: report and another cartoon by Charlie Hebdo.


Le Figaro: report.

Libération: report and a new cartoon showing two judges and an imam with bombes saying that it is time to interrupt the judicial proceeding because it is time to pray.

More French cartoons here

Summing up, in Germany only the conservative media report, in France conservative and left media report. Especially, the left media in France seem to be fighting for the freedom of the press. In the UK, the story is hardly mentioned.

His Grace ought to be congratulated for doing what the British media seem to be unable or unwilling to do, i.e. to fight for free speech!

7 February 2007 at 12:10  
Anonymous Colin said...


pointed out that " not all Muslims are against integration with the host nation"

That's absolutely correct.

However, it is hardly a reason for consolation. In every population, the majority is moderate and wants to mind their own life and business. In czarist Russia, the majority neither wanted communism nor gulags. In Germany, the majority didn't want another war or the holocaust. And what happened? A small group of well-organized fanatics took over these countries and imposed their will on the majority.

7 February 2007 at 12:29  
Anonymous Raoul said...

Quite so, Mr Colin.
And what happens to those moderate muslims when the time for harder choices comes ? Who do they side with ? Furthermore it must be said that one of the plaintives in the French trial you mention is "le recteur de la Grande Mosquee de Paris" (Mr Dalil Boubakeur, who is said to be a moderate !). Quite obviously the cartoons were mocking muslim terrorists, so why would those who represent the whole Muslim community feel concerned ? Are they telling us that to criticize Muslim terrorists is to insult their faith ??

Your Grace,
my sincere gratitude and thanks for your work. I'm doing my best to spread your words of wisdom here in France.

A bientot.

8 February 2007 at 15:35  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for the link to an interesting article in "Le Figaro" entitled "For Islam in France, the cartoons are a racist action."

Obviously, race takes an entirely new meaning here unrelated to biology.

Your question is also most important: "And what happens to those moderate muslims when the time for harder choices comes ? Who do they side with ?"

History in all parts of the world has shown that in case of ethnic (e.g. Africa) or religious conflicts (e.g. Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Palestina, Indonesia, Iraq etc.) even the most liberal minded individuals are forced to stick to their own group because otherwise their life is not safe. The result is segregation, fighting and massacres leading to ethnic or religious cleansing and to power for the radicals who started the conflict. That's the reason why they start unnecessary conflicts. It's a well-known strategy for obtaining power.

8 February 2007 at 17:00  
Blogger blinbo said...

the legacy: a comedy of terrors
The breathtaking new novel that has the whole of the Conservative Party chattering!
The tale chronicles the progression of unbridled governance, its demise and inevitable descent into hubris.
The work’s title, subject matter and its reasonance with the public are obvious, but it is absolutely bulging with handy quotables and chic wisdom as well.
Freeview. Please use recycled paper.
Grab your handy quotables and chic wisdom now!

To download a copy of my novel in pdf format, go to:

8 February 2007 at 18:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps selection by lots to episcopal office is more reliable than appointment by the queen (or prime minister.) Is your grace reconsidering your decision of 21 March 1556.

8 February 2007 at 18:30  
Blogger Croydonian said...

If memory serves, Buckingham CC's decision not to lead the litigation owes much to fear of monstrous legal bills which it then have to pass on to the unfortunate council tax payers of that fine county. Perhaps not a stance to bear a parallel to 'Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders! Gott helfe mir, Amen' but also not necessarily indicative of a failure of will.

8 February 2007 at 21:48  
Anonymous Observer said...

Perhaps not a stance to bear a parallel to 'Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders! Gott helfe mir, Amen'

Martin Luther faced DEATH - which probably is a fate Council Taxpayers in Buckinghamshire would relish rather than part with cash. They may yet get both

10 February 2007 at 16:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older