Friday, March 28, 2008

Michael Gove MP: ‘We must monitor Muslim schools’

The Shadow Education Secretary (or, more accurately, the Shadow Children, Schools and Families Secretary [what an absurd mouthful] -) has called for ‘a much tougher approach’ to confronting what he sees as ‘real problems’ with Muslim faith schools that promote extremism.

It is reported in the Jewish Chronicle that he has challenged the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (who thought of this department?) to ‘tackle the real challenges to community cohesion in schools and campuses where extremism remains an issue’. And he questions an issue which Cranmer raised some weeks ago – that of giving the Association of Muslim Schools the right to establish its own inspection arrangements, even though its deputy chairman, Ibrahim Hewitt, is under investigation by the Charity Commission in his capacity as chairman of ‘Interpal’ – a pro-Palestinian organisation. Mr Hewitt is head of the Al Aqsa school in Leicester, and is on record as saying that 'the word integration doesn't even belong in a true democracy'. He has also called 'political zionism a threat to world peace', and has talked of the 'zionist control of the media'.

Mr Gove expresses concern that Muslim faith schools are not being adequately inspected, noting that the King Fahad academy in West London has used textbooks that describe Christians and Jews as ‘pigs’ and ‘monkeys’, yet Ofsted inspectors appeared to have failed to investigate such texts.

Is it really credible that a group of Muslim inspectors would have picked up on this, and criticised it, and published its report for the world to see?

But it is brave of Mr Gove to single out Islamic schools. It leaves him open to all manner of accusations of ‘racism’, ‘bigotry’, ‘ignorance’ or ‘Islamophobia’, but he obviously does not mind. He is an eminently sensible chap who understands the threat of ‘Islamism’, and is determined that it shall not infect the nation’s education system.

It may have simply been Mr Gove’s desire to play to his audience, but Cranmer is puzzled by his singling out of Jewish schools as role models for faith schools. He said: ‘One of the many gifts the Jewish community has given Britain is a brilliant working model of how to combine respect for religious tradition with commitment to shared British values.’

While this may be true, there are also equally brilliant working models among the Christian schools. While the Church of England may have had a few centuries head start, it did not take long for Roman Catholic schools to combine their religious tradition with respect for British values, and this task was far more challenging after enduring centuries of discrimination. Cranmer is pleased to hear that such centres of excellence will be preserved under a Conservative government. Mr Gove said that he and David Cameron ‘are committed to doing everything we can to support and nurture Jewish faith schools. We want to celebrate their success and ensure they’re there for generations to come.’ If this is so for Jewish schools, then a fortiori must it be the case for Roman Catholic schools.

And Mr Gove pours scorn upon some of the battier ideas to emanate from New Labour, such as the absurd idea of forcing faith schools to admit a quota of pupils who did not share their school’s faith. He supports the right of parents to educate their children according to their religious beliefs, and states unequivocally that parents ‘shouldn’t lose that right because of a clumsy mechanism to deal with community cohesion’.

Cranmer looks forward to Mr Gove being Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, but hopes that his first act will be to revert to being the straightforward Education Secretary - just so we all know what he’s supposed to be about.


Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

" He is an eminently sensible chap who understands the threat of ‘Islamism’ "

Not so eminently sensible then. The "threat of Islamism" is nonsense. It is 'The threat of Islam'.

Just as there are no such things as moderate Islam, radical Islam, or extremist Islam: there is only Islam. We have that on no less an authority than the President of Turkey. He ought to know, wouldn't you think?

Repatriate them all to their countries of family origin; every last one of them. Native converts can go and live on St Kilda until they find an Islamic country that will take them.

There, the threat from Islam removed.

Yes, perfectly serious.

28 March 2008 at 10:45  
Blogger The Black Fingernail said...

Morgan you are an ignorant racist. There are thousands and millions of Muslims who share British values and who have a right to live here. In fact, with a name like that, you should be exiled to Wales. The president of Turkey speaks for himself like every supposed Muslim leader - there's no central pope figure. Islam as riddled with division, so its as relevant to talk about sunni or shia as it is about Islam and Islamism.

28 March 2008 at 11:39  
Anonymous oiznop said...

@Sir Henry Morgan - Islam is a religion, not a race. What do you propose to do with Muslims of white Anglo-Saxon origin? Where should they be sent?

28 March 2008 at 12:08  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Oiznop: St Kilda, Morgan said.

28 March 2008 at 12:18  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...


I told you what I'd do with them.

Black fingernail

What race is Islam then?

Is it white European Bosnian? Perhaps brown South Asian Pakistani?
Or black negro Somali?
How about yellow oriental Indonesian?

What race, exactly? Please, educate me. While you're at it, perhaps you'd like to tell us what race Christianity is?

Islam is an inherently violent ideology that makes no secret of the fact that it wants to rule the entire world. It is dangerous to every non-Islamic, including us.

Racist? My wife of nearly a quarter-century was South Asian. My one and only child is mixed race? Is that what you mean by racist?

The indiscriminate use of the term 'racist', and the made-up nonsense word 'Islamophobic' over recent years, have rendered both useless as a term of abuse.

Please BF, name me one country worldwide that has large numbers of Muslims that is not also riven with strife? Indeed, name me even one country worldwide that became Muslim voluntarily. I include the state of Mecca itself (as it then was) in that challenge. I suppose Malysia may be a candidate, but that is still an ongoing story.

Racist? Sticks and stones may break my bones ... oh dear yes, Islam is highly knowledgable about the effects of stones.

28 March 2008 at 12:30  
Blogger The Black Fingernail said...

Morgan, I never said Islam was a race. Show me where I said it was. You make straw man arguments for your own agenda, and it's abhorrent. Islam isn't violent, any more than Judaism is. Sure there are violent Muslims, but there are also violent Jews. There is violence and ethnic cleansing in the Koran and violence and ethnic cleansing in the Bible. Its a question of interpretation. And many Mulsims don't share your interpretation of their religion. So stick to something you know about.

28 March 2008 at 12:36  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

And for everyone here: this is the British future if we don't sort Islam out

It's quite a long read, but well written, and very informative. Erudite, as His Grace might say.

Islam is at the political end of the religio-political scale. And the sooner we deal with it the less strife there will be.


Aaaaah, Wales. The part of Wales where I was born and raised, overlooking the Menai Straits and the Snowdonia mountains is where I go to renew myself. I stay with my sister who owns a house even His Grace might sell his soul to possess. To be exiled there would be no great ordeal. After all - she too has a broadband connection ...

28 March 2008 at 12:43  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

But only the Koran claims to be the word of God, instruction for life valid for all time.

Only Islam claims a psychopath as it's ideal example to be emulated wherever and whenever possible.

In this particular forum I don't need to go on. The readers here have shown themselves knowledgable on this topic.

PS I'm an atheist. That means I don't even get the choice of convert, submit as dhimmi, or die. All I get is die. Does anyone seriously think I will peacefully accept that? In those circumstances I will not die alone.

We all but eliminated Communism. We all but eliminated Nazism. We will do the same with Islam ... of course, Islam could always avoid this by itself eliminating the Medina parts of the Koran from its ideology. The earlier Mecca parts are quite acceptable.

And you would have to get realistic about the psychopathic personality of Mohammed. He is NOT to be emulated in anything - particularly his sexual proclivities.

Alcohol use? I never indulge. I don't mind others doing so though. In respect of alcohol use that is where Islam and I differ. Charity? I am as poor as it's possible to be in this country, but I regularly give to charity - the RNLI as it happens.

28 March 2008 at 12:56  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

I wonder is those violent parts of the Koran, the parts that instruct you to be violent without need for interpretation, may inform the behavior of Muslims?

Can the moderate muslims reasonably repudiate this? Or only make an unprincipled exception under duress?

Black fingernail, you are old news. Go away.

28 March 2008 at 13:27  
Blogger David-Barfield said...

I am worried, Your Grace, about your assumption that faith schools from non-British cultures will deal sympathetically with our national traditions.

As an illustration of how history is taught in Catholic schools, I refer to Daniel Johnson’s review of the book “The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village” written by Eamon Duffy. (Daily Telegraph 2001)

Daniel Johnson , following the thesis of Dr. Duffy tells us:

The desanctification of England began, with the Reformation…. Henry VIII initiated the process by severing the realm he was the first to call an empire from Catholic Christendom. Henry's pragmatic rapprochement with the Lutheran German princes paved the way for a Protestant putsch. Under his son, Edward VI, Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer was imposed, the manifesto of a revolutionary German ideology. The reformers set about extinguishing the distinctively English Christianity of the people. After Mary had briefly restored the old religion, the revival of the Protestant cause under Elizabeth finally drove underground what was still the faith of the great majority of her subjects.

Johnson goes on to assert the incontestability of the Duffy thesis:

Only quite recently have historians got to grips with the catastrophic impact of the Protestant Reformation, none more so than Eamon Duffy, President of Magdalene College, Cambridge. In The Stripping of the Altars (1994), he challenged the assumption that pre-Reformation English Christianity was in decline, showing that since 1400 it had undergone a renaissance. Although it provoked furious opposition, Duffy established his thesis so persuasively that it is no longer controversial.

If this is now established historical fact a lot of us will have to rewrite our historical knowledge and revise our traditional loyalties. Yet the majority outside the Catholic sector will be difficult to persuade.

In his review of a book by Roy Strong a follower of Dr Duffy, in the Times Newspapers of 9th September 2007, Simon Jenkins gives the opposite case with equal confidence:

The assumption that Protestantism and its iconoclasm had no domestic roots and was deeply unpopular is not true….….. Hardly a page does not have Strong joining Duffy in asserting that the people of Britain were miserable and angry at being deprived of their images and ritual. …… This does not explain why the Reformation took such a firm hold of the English imagination and why constant attempts to revive Roman Catholicism conspicuously failed. I could more plausibly argue that most Britons had, by the late-15th century, come to regard the Roman church as an alien, corrupt and reactionary agent of intellectual oppression, awash in magic and superstition. They could not wait to see the back of it…..…. British monarchs lurched back towards Rome three times after the Reformation, under Mary I, Charles I and James II, and each time it was rejected.

Simon Jenkins makes reference to an event involving Archbishop Cranmer:

The dynamic of the Reformation was that Catholicism claimed a power over the British state that Britons would not accept. Mary’s burnings were not a quaint popular ritual. They were religious terrorism.

I am aware that you yourself, Your Grace, were the centre of some such quaint popular ritual in 1556 It is not proper for me to presume your personal feelings, but I hope that you will be more sympathetic to those of us who wish education to be lifted free from the self-serving dialectics of organised religion.

28 March 2008 at 20:54  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Ah... and that's just it. It isn't about Education anymore. 'Every Child Matters' 'Every Parent Matters' To hell with education.

BOTH the Right and the Left have got it the wrong way round. If we put education first, the parents and children would benefit far more. But not only do WE not know what the Education Secretary is meant to be about, neither do the politicians...

28 March 2008 at 23:18  
Anonymous I AM A MUSLIM AND THIS I KNOW... said...

Dude I just read couple of your post and I say we should make you the president of this world, no make it the galaxy. Or better yet, you head in your ass.

I would like you know how you plan on budgetting exodus of all muslims from 'your' country which 'you' presumably 'built' from 'scratch'. If you're even a slightest intelligent you would know what I'm talking about. If you're not then don't ask me to explain because I will NOT! Do some leg work on your own.

15 September 2008 at 14:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sir Henry Morgan - you should be ashamed of yourself.

6 January 2011 at 21:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older