I have worked in Muslim/Islamic schools training around child protection and safeguarding. Whilst I found it insightful and interesting, we weren't allowed to discuss FGM, CSE and numerous other subjects. Women were not allowed to be part of the training and we were informed to base it around male pupils. This was a commission that I delivered on behalf of another organisation. I was not truly happy and when I attempted to discuss this with staff it was made v clear what the boundaries were. The training was about ofsted compliance (funding issues). Therefore if these beliefs are being reinforced from nursery age through to 18, and segregation of the sexes is an intrinsic part of their ideal society, as the Muslim population increases are we going to see an increase in intolerance towards non Muslims ? Do we know what proportion of Muslims attend purely Islamic schools? The biggest question as still unanswered for me though, is what the majority of Muslims want? There has been lots of reference to TV and the press, and the inclusion of radicalised fundamentalists. This is obvious due to nature of the beast, TV and the press need to sell the programme/paper etc; if you have british Muslims agreeing with the greater population it isn't going to sell said programme, paper etc. therefore use the minority of hate filled bigots to scare us. This then leads to even greater antipathy between us and them and reinforces the problem. Or I'm really stupid, naive and missing a trick. I understand that to some intents I have answered my own question but that primarily relates to Islamic schools.
Yes you have answered your own question and reinforced the belief that non-violent extremism is at least half of the problem. Shut all faith based schools, or failing that, shut all Islamic schools.
Thanks for the post, but from your description it is not easy to understand what was going on. Child protection and safeguarding is desperately needed and lacking in muslim schools, with some of the most serious issues being around gender discrimination and genital mutilation. So how could those topics be excluded? Sounds as if the whole exercise was a sham - unless you can shed more light. No wonder you were not happy!
Ask a Catholic if the would like everyone to be catholic and apply their standards as laws. I cang imagine a Muslims answer would be any different. The difference is Muslims are pushing to get their law enforced. The catholics did that several hundred years ago.
And were prevented from continuing to do so by the advent of Protestantism and the Reformation. Perhaps secular society should take on that role with Islam. As I said their evolution is 600 years behind Christendom's.
The key word was Ofsted. The verdict on Ofsted: ‘requires improvement’? | Education | The Guardian Another "independent" government body with it's own PC agenda.
Unfortunately, FGM is not part of a requirement for Designated Senior Person training, nor is gender discrimination. The commission was passed to me, when I made contact with the school they were very specific about what they required, initially it was stated that it was a male only school. However that was not the case, only that the boys appeared to receive the majority of the education, and that the girls education was very definitely second place to them. What frustrated me the most was the minimisation around the risk of harm to girls, as they appeared to be very much second class citizens. One of the problems is placing cultural sensitivity over and above the requirements to protect children, hence my disappointment, this is not only something that I have come up against but is sadly a very constant theme in many many Serious Case Reviews.(Serious Case Reviews happen post the death or serious injury to a child) This can be evidenced in any number of them whereby Childrens Social services/Police etc have been so frightened of being perceived to be racist that they loose sight of the child.
Bradders, it was specifically requested that a man was the senior trainer. Yes it is possible that I would have been, or at the very least been accused of cultural insensitivity.
Did you consider refusing, out of interest? Does turning a blind eye encourage it to bloom? Should it be incumbant on us all to apply our rules and principles on others in these circumstances? In which case, is that any different to the moderates doing nothing about the fundamentalists.
So will it be a good thing if a few papers print an image of the Charlie Hebdo front page tomorrow? I think yes, the more the better! It looks like the Independent and The Guardian are going to show solidarity. Let's see. I heard people talking about "duty of care" for employees and similar be careful not to upset and bring out retribution. I think that's throwing the towel in.
Well they're going to print 3 million of that issue, so whether the big papers print it or not, it's going to be seen an awful lot of times. Idiot twat on the news still complaining about the new cover - the prophet has just been insulted - again! I'm a bit sick of the prophet, frankly. The more people get unreasonably upset about it, the more I feel like taking the piss out of the guy.
I didn't at the time of the commission only because none of this was initially apparent, it became apparent on the day. Turning a blind eye is a definite no no, and cultural norms do not over ride the fundamentals of child protection. If its illegal its illegal, and no 'norms' can over ride that principal. If you keep the child at the centre of your decision making process you are making a defensible decision, this can never be over ridden by cultural practices. Otherwise you end up with another Victoria Climbie etc;
When people say "cultural norms" it makes me laff a little. ie, non-British cultural norms. Multicultural norms. No attempt to assimilate and impose the views of democratic liberalism. It's all wrong.
