Church of England's role

Interesting that the Church of England keep popping up the current "debate" on multiculturalism, integration and the veil.

Aishah Azmi's was suspended from a CoE school for wearing the veil. More substantially, it was them that first flew the kite about the 25% attendance of non-CoE members at their schools. The government are now making this compulsory for all new faith schools.

In reality, this is directed at new Islamic schools. Faith schools of other denominations are not on the same rise, and if it was intended to be fair, why apply it only to new schools? Surely existing CoE schools could from now on make sure their first year intake had 25% set aside?

Dr Daud Abdullah picks up on the CoE angle in today's Guardian:

In such charged circumstances, people might hope to hear words of tolerance from others of faith. But alas, the Church of England has added to the confusion. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, demanded that Muslims do more to integrate; then a "leaked" document criticised the government's multi-faith policy for allegedly pandering to Muslims at the expense of Christians.

Maybe the CoE have joined the Catholic Church in thinking that the cosy interfaith happiness dead.

Comments

[Martin]

That died in a bus on Tavistock Square.

[Andrew Bartlett]

What an odd thing to say, Martin.

Mind, I took a look at your blog and noted that you reject the idea that Muslims in Oxford are integrating by citing two cases. Two cases, not of Muslims not integrating, but of Muslims committing crimal acts. One a murderer - as if there have never been murders in Oxford committed by non-Muslims. The other a fraudster and bigamist - as if...

Oh, you get the point.

My sense is that your faculty of reason has broken, Martin. If it has not, why would you cite two examples of Muslims committing crimes, the like of which are committed by non-Muslims, as refutation of a claim that they are integrated/integrating?

[Andrew Bartlett]

Oh, never mind, I have now noticed that you run a blog devoted to the purpose of listing foreign criminals.

Well, actually the purpose is to whip up xenophobia, but you get the idea. What an odious man you are, Martin.

[joe90]

Just to say,
this announcement can be found on the main page of the
http://www.gphrc.org/main.html>Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign
(read the Reports from the West Bank, if you can) -

Award winning journalist Yvonne Ridley, who is a convert to Islam and was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, will address the rally on Saturday.

United Against Islamophobia

Demo Called by Glasgow Stop the War Coalition and Muslim Association of Britain

Saturday 21st October, 12 noon George Square, Glasgow

[Martin]

Andrew,

Does being such a self-righteous prig come naturally to you?

Odd, like good, is a point of view.

The murder in question was a so-called 'honour killing' committed by the Bangladeshi Ali clan. Now, that kufr in Oxford commit murders is not in dispute - therefore, your critique of that part of my post is a non sequitur. However, if you can direct to me to a report of the last 'honour killing' in Oxford to have been perpetrated by a Methodist I'd be more than happy to add it to my sources. Their names and the fact they are ethnic Bangladeshis indicate that they are Muslims - but who knows, they might all have converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they came knocking on the door.

Stranger things have happened.

But have you ever heard of a Jehovah's Witness honour killer?

In respect of the other case, that of the fraudster Mohammed Faruq, he was specifically designed as a polygamist, not a bigamist. Polygamy is acceptable in Islam while bigamy is a crime under English law. These are two entirely different things, and you do me, the author of this blog and your fellow commentors a great dis-service by deliberately misrepresenting a post of mine on my blog.

Xenophobia is not a crime, and frankly those who dish out the term so liberally are guilty of either xenophobophobia or xenophilia - both quite disgusting prejudices, in my opinion.

And Andrew, son, don't think I quail at your patrician application of the word 'odious'. I've been called far worse than that.

[Andrew Bartlett]

I am sure that you have.

As for 'honour killings' - women in Britain are murdered every day by their partners, former partners and rejected prospective partners. Murderous violence against women is nothing special to Muslim communities, and it seems strange that, at a time when Muslim communities are singled out for popular revulsion, rather than, say, defending all women, you join in the chorus of prejudicial disgust. A chorus that does nothing to help Muslim women, but makes them further victims of prejudice, and nothing to help non-Muslim women, the violence against whom is hidden by a concentration on a tiny minority of murders which are suitably 'exotic'.

[ainelivia]

What is unacceptable, is that so called "honour killings", are believed to be "honourable", and sanctioned by other members of the women's families.

"women in Britain are murdered every day by their partners, former partners and rejected prospective partners". This is indeed true.

The element in honour killings that is unacceptable, is that entire families conspire to bring about the restitution of "honour", by the taking of life. And then claim the righteous moral high-ground.

That is unacceptable, in any community.

[Martin]

Andrew, you can keep the mini-lecture on domestic violence; I was a divorce lawyer for many years, so have probably met very many more battered women than you have. The scale of domestic violence is well known to me, thanks.

You are of course quite correct in stating that domestic violence is not Islamospecific - however, with the exception of a few recorded instances amongst Sikhs, honour killings do trend towards being Islamospecific. The critical factor in honour killings is motive. To kill a person for the preservation of nothing more subjective than honour, itself nothing more than a projection of your ego, is a practice that died out in the West with the banning of duelling.

The case of Chomir Ali and his sons, Oxford's Bangladeshi Muslim honour-killers, indicates that that bit of multiculturalism doesn't seem to have taken root in some quarters. That's a failure of policy, of course - but you'll excuse me for joining in the disgust, because coming from a culture which rejected killing for honour two centuries ago I find the idea of old men killing wee lassies because they feel their honour's been slighted disgusting.

And if you think that any clear headed person considers any murder to be 'exotic', you should attend a murder victim's post mortem - I have. Take it from me, there are more pleasant ways of spending a Friday afternoon.

[ainelivia]

"The case of Chomir Ali and his sons, Oxford's Bangladeshi Muslim honour-killers".

Lets call these people what they really are, Murderers. Pre-meditated, Murder One. No extenuating circumstances. No excuses. Murderers.

[joe90]

"honour killings do trend towards being Islamospecific"

- so what?

Do males, who murder women, get a blue peter badge if their motive isn't 'honour'?

[Martin]

Ainelivia,

I did call them what they are.

[Andrew Bartlett]

Martin, so you did.

But why choose to highlight these and not any of the other of the two murders per week of women by their partners, the overwhelming majority of which are committed by men who neither foreign nor Muslim?

Is it because you want to paint a minority that already suffers from prejudice in an especially wicked light? Or is it simply a case of incompetence, and you are incapble of presenting an accurate picture of the violence suffered by women.

And what is the aim - as I suggested above, it cannot be to improve the lot of women. Your rhetoric will not help Muslim women, and (inadvertantly?) hiding the fact that the majority of male-on-female violence is committed by members of our 'modern', 'secular', 'Enlightened' population will not help non-Muslim women either. So what is it?

[Andrew Bartlett]

"because coming from a culture which rejected killing for honour two centuries ago"

What on Earth are you talking about? Murders committed by non-Muslims happen in Britain. There are a range of motivations for these murders. Is your argument that no murders outside of the Muslim community, and your exceptional Sikh examples, that not one of these murders is committed to protect a persons 'honour' - that people don't kill other people for perceived slights, that men don't kill their wives as a result of the humilation of adultery, and so on. It might not be as explicitly articulated, or as widely reported, as in the examples described as 'honour' killings. But if it is not 'honour', how do you account for the majority of murders in Britain that are committed by non-Muslims?

We are all not cold-blooded rational hit-men, killing for material advantage. We do not have an 'Enlightenment' model of murder. To pretend that there is some clean break between the actions of some ore-Modern other and ourselves is just, well, nonsense.

[ainelivia]

Andrew, from a female perspective, what is unacceptable about this kind of murder, is the premise of it: honour. That it is mostly women, killed by their menfolk, and that the families appear to approve.

That these murders involve more than one person. That involves premeditation. That involves conspiracy.

The range of motivations you speak of usually appears to be that the honour of the family, for which read the honour of the males in the family has been sullied.

And worst of all, that these murders, which for many years in this country have not been spoken of are actually only now being treated as a crime. Murder is bad enough, but I think this is more than murder, it is female specific, and is a form of approved mysogny. And the message is one of control, specifically to women. If you don't do as men tell you, this is what will happen.

There are many aspects of other cultures that I welcome into my home and life, this is not one of them. Don't make excuses for the wholesale murder of women.

[Andrew Bartlett]

"these murders, which for many years in this country have not been spoken of are actually only now being treated as a crime."

I am sorry, but that is absolute bollocks. Presuming by this country you mean Britain, this is utter nonsense.

"Don't make excuses for the wholesale murder of women." And where do I do that? I point out that the sort of approach adopted by Martin will help not one single woman. Martin's selective approach to the murder of women presents the murder of women as something alien to 'our' culture and endemic to 'theirs'. That will not save a single woman but will advance the cause of racism.

[joe90]

Don't worry about the resident scatologist Andrew mate -
- there is plenty more irrational tosh where that came from -
- please keep up the great work Andrew - your prose style, ideas and arguments are a joy to read -

All the best !

ps
this is the sort of stuff that gets me though -
- they come up here, fraternise with the local Plod, and go on about cricket as if it was a real man's game -
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/72560.html>Complaints of anti-terror police harassing Muslim communities
by Damien Henderson
20 Oct 2006 The Herald

English Imperialists go home - the only time you're welcome in Scotland is when we want to beat you at football (which we invented by the way, just like golf!)!

[Martin]

"Is it because you want to paint a minority that already suffers from prejudice in an especially wicked light?"

7/7.

Enough said.

"Or is it simply a case of incompetence, and you are incapble of presenting an accurate picture of the violence suffered by women."

You are being priggish again, you snivelling little prig...

"Your rhetoric will not help Muslim women,"

How do you know that?

"Murders committed by non-Muslims happen in Britain."

Another non sequitur.

"Is your argument that no murders outside of the Muslim community, and your exceptional Sikh examples, that not one of these murders is committed to protect a persons 'honour' - that people don't kill other people for perceived slights, that men don't kill their wives as a result of the humilation of adultery, and so on. It might not be as explicitly articulated, or as widely reported, as in the examples described as 'honour' killings."

Of course they kill for honour - however the example I cited was of duelling. Look it up in a history book.

However, the scourge of Islamospecific honour killings seem to be wider affairs - games all the family can play, so to speak...

"But if it is not 'honour', how do you account for the majority of murders in Britain that are committed by non-Muslims?"

Greed and/or lust, heavily spiked with alcohol and/or drugs.

"We are all not cold-blooded rational hit-men, killing for material advantage."

You don't say?

"To pretend that there is some clean break between the actions of some ore-Modern other and ourselves is just, well, nonsense. "

Now, I've asked you before to give me an example of an honour murder perpetrated by either a Methodist or Jehovah's Witness - so cough up, where is it?

"I point out that the sort of approach adopted by Martin will help not one single woman. Martin's selective approach to the murder of women presents the murder of women as something alien to 'our' culture and endemic to 'theirs'."

As above.

"That will not save a single woman but will advance the cause of racism."

As someone who has spent a very great deal of time arguing against so called 'race realists', also known as 'scientific racists', I'm slightly puzzled by that comment.

'Racism' is not a word the existence of which I recognise, rooted as it is Marxism - however, are you saying that pointing out that the vast majority of so called honour killings are perpetrated by Muslim men upon Muslim women is in some way likely to lead to racial bigotry?

Or has your priggishness blinded you to the truth?

Do we still do truth in this country?

[joe90]

Seriously though Martin,
in a week that seen brilliant results for two of Glasgow's football clubs,
its only fair to post this example of Weeji nous -

http://www.counterpunch.com/bono10192006.html>A Plea to U2 from Africa's Children
Stop Bono Before He Kills Again!
By CounterPunch News Service
19 Oct 2006

[ainelivia]

"these murders, which for many years in this country have not been spoken of are actually only now being treated as a crime."

"I am sorry, but that is absolute bollocks. Presuming by this country you mean Britain, this is utter nonsense."

Can you clarify what you mean by "absolute bollocks" in relation to that which I've written? Perhaps you could also clarify what "absolute bollocks", actually means, your personal connotations, if there is not a general one? It's not a term that means a great deal to me and my english is reasonably good?

"Don't make excuses for the wholesale murder of women." "And where do I do that? I point out that the sort of approach adopted by Martin will help not one single woman. Martin's selective approach to the murder of women presents the murder of women as something alien to 'our' culture and endemic to 'theirs'. That will not save a single woman but will advance the cause of racism."

So you'd like to move from the issue of the killing of women to satisfy the "male honour" to the issue of racism. You see that's where I see you cop out. You are a man, so this issue wouldn't in real life affect you. You can afford to be glib. You can afford and indeed seem to relish the rather sexist language, "complete bollocks", you think it's ok. It is the kind of language that a particular type of man uses around women in order to intimidate. I think it demonstrates an aggression that you probably only use gender specifically for effect.

The effect is this, sometimes, as is evident just now, it is pointless attempting to discuss anything with men. Mostly because of their aggressive behaviour, which is the cause of much killing and death.

Now if you believe that what I've said is "complete bollocks" then explain what you mean, and why.

I see Stalin (Joe90) is at it again. Taunting and sneering and trying to provoke people. Of course he will compliment you to the high heavens if he thinks you are on-side. But I'm sure you can spot "complete bollocks" at 100 yards.

[Shavez]

Martin: "heavily spiked with alcohol and/or drugs"

Who commits these types of crimes, and what can be discerned from this?

I also saw recently that wife-beating went up 30% during England matches at the World Cup.

[Martin]

"Who commits these types of crimes, and what can be discerned from this?"

Drink and drug abusers.

[Shavez]

Not that it's white people then?

[Martin]

No, Shavez.

[joe90]

Not just 'white people' shavez, or are non-whites immune from committing murder in the way 'white people' do it?

[DrM]

Excellent posts Andrew. Poor Marty just cant bring himself to admit that domestic violence exists in all societies regardless of race, religions etc.