Forskjellsbehandling og diskriminering

Øyenbryn og statsstøtte

Hva er koblingen i tittelen? At skattebetalerne sponser skoler der barna utvises dersom de napper hårene mellom øyenbrynene. Velkommen til Europa 2013 som bevitner at verdimessig går det den veien høna sparker.

Se på dette bildet:

 britisk_hijabskole

Nei, det er ikke Saudi-Arabia, det er hos våre naboer i vest, der vi flyktet over da en viss annen ideologi prøvde å ta makten i landet vårt. Vi er altså på de britiske øyene. På skoler kontrollert av islamister. Som disse tre, som avspeiler islamismen i skolens reglement, skriver Gatestone institute:

rights_banner_praktutgave-ny_778x150

Three schools — Jamea Al Kauthar in Lancaster, the Abrar Academy in Preston, and the Rabia school in Luton — all state that, «Black Jubbah [a smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah [veil] when leaving and returning to school. Scarves are strictly not permitted. … Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention [sic].»

Som kjent er de blåblå mer glad i private skoler enn de rødgrønne. Men som Carl I Hagen alltid har sagt det: integreringshensyn går foran private (islamske) skoler. Så ikke i Storbritannia. Der er ikke minst statsråder, kommentatorer, tabloide medier og menneskerettighetsgrupper, opptatt av å diskutere etikk rundt et forbud mot burka og kusina niqaben, enn de er av at jenter helt ned i 11-årsalderen tvinges til å bruke søskenbarnplaggene. Man klarer ikke å gå bak sløret og gripe fatt i ideologien.

While ministers, political commentators, civil rights groups and tabloid papers hotly contest the ethics and practical details of a theoretical ban, little attention is being paid, aside from the occasional newspaper article, to a far more alarming problem: schools where girls as young as 11 are forced to wear the burqa or niqab.

As with the wider burqa debate, the occasional newspaper article on mandatory veils in schools has failed to examine the ideological forces behind this agenda: Islamism and its apologists. While non-Muslims argue among themselves over the permissibility of the veil in public spaces, British schools controlled by extreme Islamist groups, in which young girls are forced to cover their faces, have largely escaped the spotlight. The notion that the taxpayer should subsidize, and thus legitimize, those institutions where pupils are compelled to wear the veil, among other diminishing restrictions, seems a far more pressing concern.

Det er eksempler på skoler helt ned på fireårsstadiet der barn nå tvinges inn i sløret.

The Jameah Girls’ Academy in Leicester demands that, «Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, comprises of headscarf and habaya [cloak] for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years [11 and above].»

A number of Islamic primary schools require girls from the age of four to wear headscarves, including al‐Noor Independent School in Ilford; Madani Secondary Girls’ School in East London; Iqra School in Oxford; and the al‐Islah School in Blackburn.

Islamismens fortropp går også til angrep på lærere, som Shifa Patel. Hun ble tvunget til å slutte grunnet et foto: på sosiale medier hadde hun lagt ut et bilde av seg selv fra privatlivet, som ikke skjulte håret (hun brukte slør på skolen), og der hun var iført bukser og en skjorte. Sinte foreldre og elever var bestyrtet over at en kvinne kunne kle seg slik. Ja, de nektet for at hun var kvinne. I et forsøk på å bevise at hun var kvinne, gjennomgikk Patel en medisinsk undersøkelse (sic!). Med det hjalp altså ikke.

Noen skoler pålegger også elevene å bruke niqab og burka utenfor skoletiden. Og de som ikke følger instruksen vil bli straffet.

Ved den overnevnte skolen ser det også ut til å foregå økonomisk snusk. Lokale myndigheter skal ha solgt tomt til skolen 320 000 £ under markedsverdi.

Ved Tauheedul Islam Girls’ High School i Blackburn, instrueres barna også i å bruke hijab i hjemmet.  Skolen er flaggskipet til Tauheedul Charitable Trust, en organisasjon som arbeider for å åpne et nettverk bestående av 12 skattebetalte friskoler i landet. Ifølge Sunday Times, har statsråder allerede godkjent tre skoler, en som åpner nå i oktober.

Islamistene har også posisjonert seg i det offentlige systemet, som i Ofsted (regjeringens kontrollorgan av skoler).

In 2010, the Daily Telegraph revealed that an official from Ofsted [the British Government’s body for the inspection of schools] responsible for many of the reports into British Islamic schools, Michele Messaoudi, was linked to radical Islamist organizations. Messaoudi penned the official report that absolved two schools run by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group accused by the National Union of Students of «supporting terrorism and publishing material that incites racial hatred.»

The schools, according to the Telegraph, part of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, had received more than £113,000 of public funding. One of the Foundation’s trustees, Farah Ahmed, who is also a headmistress at one of the schools, authored a Hizb-ut-Tahrir pamphlet which denounced the National Curriculum for its «systematic indoctrination to build model British citizens;» condemned «attempts to integrate Muslim children» as an effort «to produce new generations that reject Islam;» and described the teaching of English as «one of the most damaging subjects.»

En annen Ofsted-inspektør er også tatt med buksa nede som sentral i en islamistisk utdannelsesstiftelse som på websiden sin beskriver islamske skoler som “en av de viktigste faktorene som beskytter muslimske barn mot angrep fra eurosentrisme, homoseksualitet, rasisme og sekulære tradisjoner”.

Man kunne forvente at ekstremistene i britiske utdannelsesinstitusjoner skjuler sitt virkelige jeg. Men nei. Eksempelvis den høye beskytteren av Jameah Girls’ Academy, har åpent promotert steining av utro kvinner, at tyver skal få kappet av hendene og at kvinner ikke kan nekte ektemannen sex.

Som Islam Net hentes ekstremister inn for å holde foredrag, som The Al Muntada Al Islami Trust, en salafistiftelse som driver en rekke skoler i London.

Al Muntada regularly hosts extremist preachers at their events and conferences, such as, and including, Muhammed al Arifi, who encourages jihad against «non-believers» and believes that «devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defence of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honour for the believer.» Nigerian newspapers have reported that Al Muntada is also funding Boko Haram, an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group.

One of the prospectuses for an Al Muntada secondary school includes bowdlerized pictures of school pupils in long outer garments, black veils and with their faces blotted out. Another picture shows pupils being taught by Abdur Raheem Green (han er veldig populær i Islam Nets rekker, min merknad), an Islamist hate preacher who has previously spoken of a «Jewish stench» and claimed it is permissible to beat women to «bring them to goodness.»

Groups such as Al Muntada are rarely heard involving themselves in the veil debate at all. Attempts to combat the threat of Islamist segregation of genders, then, do not require the question of whether banning the veil in schools or hospitals is acceptable (as currently debated by British politicians and media); instead, the government must tackle the Islamist groups themselves — as well as the segregated institutions they have carved out for themselves within the public sphere.

There are few senior politicians who understand this: Britain’s Minister for Education, Michael Gove, recently established a «counterextremism» unit within his department — whose staff includes two former intelligence officers with expertise in counterterrorism, two academic experts and senior civil servants. Gove, speaking to the Sunday Times, said, «We do worry. There was a case in Surrey . . . where there were concerns that a maintained primary school, a local authority primary school, was being taken over by a group of parents who were on the governing body who were potentially extremist.»

Også ytterliggående briter stiller seg skulder ved skulder med islamistene.

Further, the recent decision by Birmingham Metropolitan College to «un-ban» the veil came in response to a campaign instigated by Aaron Kiely, a (non-Muslim) Labour councillor and National Union of Students official, who condemned the deportation of terror preacher Abu Hamza as «disgraceful.» Kiely is a member of Socialist Action, a Marxist group described by the journalist Nick Cohen as a «Trotskyist cult.» The politician Ken Livingstone, while London Mayor, gave jobs with six-figure salaries at the public’s expense, to Socialist Action members in order, as the group’s members boasted, to turn London into a «socialist bastion».

Så skulle man kanskje tro at mediedebatten om sløret reflekterte sympati med skolebarnba. Men de “progressive” er absolutt mest opptatt av kvinners “rett” til å bruke sløret – uansett når og hvor. Og de samme progressive er rask med å stemple de som er motstandere av slør – også på barn – som rasister og islamofobe. Akkurat som i Norge.

The veil debate seems at least partly driven, as do many media-driven debates, by whipped-up hysteria. The public argument, deemed a question of fundamental liberty, is not driven by the issue at hand, but rather by particular ideological forces — mostly non-Muslim political agitators determined to create the illusion of bigotry even where there is none. Meanwhile, the real victims are those Muslim women, and schoolgirls, who are coerced into covering their face — partly because non-Muslim, self-described «progressives» are working so hard to enforce those Muslim women’s «rights.»

As with other conflicts between Islamist values and a free society, few questions are ever put to British Muslims themselves. Those political activists who claim a veil ban is the product of racism or «Islamophobia,» have instead turned to Islamist-controlled community groups to validate their claims.