To think that the mother/daughter duo who took Michaela to court should face some natural consequences?

This morning I browsed DM (as well as other sites) and came across some articles relating to the actual case itself... so the right for this student to be allowed to pray.

To be honest, and if any Muslims (or other religion) wish to comment, without getting into a bunfight, I still don't see the need for them to pray during school hours. Someone else here mentioned Muslims praying during working hours and taking longer time than was needed to pray.

The thing for me is and it almost comes down to but isn't the same thing at all, we had smokers at an office in the distant past, when there were more smokers, and you were allowed outside to smoke. No one ever said anything but the amount of time they were outside smoking and chatting, it soon added up.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to do what you want within your break times (legally of course) and I do think, having read Michaela's rules on what they do in breaktimes, may be a bit hard-line. But, it works for Michaela. I am not saying all schools should be like Michaela, nor should all heads be like their headteacher but in deprived areas, which Brent is, you have to have rules and discipline, more so than in more affluent areas, so they say.

As an ex-legal PA/sec and at one point tempted to study law, I'll read through the docs relating to the case at some point.

Interesting and fairly balanced Spectator article here:

[[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/frances-schools-are-succumbing-to-the-islamist-threat/

I also made friends with a NDN who's Iranian last year, who told me she was appalled the way women were being treated for not wearing headscarves properly in Iran, and this was one of the reasons she'd moved to the West, for freedom, and the freedom to not wear a hijab. She was an advocate of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe although she had moved to the West before she'd been imprisoned. She also told me, that after the way Nazanin had been treated, she did return sometimes to Iran to see family, especially older relatives, but she was more and more wary of doing so.

@Emotionalsupportviper

I couldn't agree more.

the problem at least locally is that some Muslims do not want their children to integrate as there is a danger of those children dispensing with some aspects of the faith. I think a few pps have alluded to this.

There are some Muslim children (not all certainly) that get very mixed messages from home at school that they have to have an element of cognitive dissonance to get
through. There will be teachers drumming into children equality between men and women and there may be a very much different message at home. LBG rights will be maintained in a school but a child may get the message from home that is profoundly wrong. Muslim children will be surrounded by girls who dress immodeslty, and kids who drink and smoke.

if you have two value sets clashing like this it is a challenge for a school but I absolutely agree with integration and non segregation. It is up to schools though to not be rail roaded by those that want a religious ethos within a school.

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain

thank you for your considered and interesting posts.

we have an increasingly secular society from a historical perspective with numbers of practising Christians dropping sharply and being reflected in church attendance etc. It is quite apparent how authoritarian and patriarchal religions can be and I think a lot of people in 2024 are glad to see the back of those aspects.

It is apparent though that conservative Islam has the potential to bring back aspects of religion that many have fought for liberty from including feminists. I think you can call this out without fear of being Islamaphobic as we have the liberty to criticise religion here and that is an important liberty. I think it is wrong to feel that you can be shielded from criticism by using tenuous arguments of religious freedom.

I think in a westernized society like ours the trend is for people to become less religious and start to dispense with the performative elements of religion as well as restrictions. I think from a female perspective a religion which restricts so many aspects of life such as dress, freedom of partner choice, ability to do sports and perform in the arts has to be under scrutiny. If we allow 'freedom' of religion in schools we start a process where some of the more questionable aspects of religion are allowed to take root under the guise of freedom to practise a religion.

It is a British value to tolerate religions but there is also a value of liberty and we all have to be concerned if our liberties are curtailed by religion.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2021/04/women-leaving-islam-the-rights-of-those-who-leave-religion-must-be-protected

There is piece here about women leaving Islam and surely we have to allow people free choice of religion or none going forward. One of the reasons Christinatiy is in decline is because children in the whole are given freedom to choose to follow Christ or not in modern society. We have to put the question whether that choice truly exists in other religions particularly Islam. If we look at Muslim majority states then you can really see there is no choice.

I am all for freedom to practise religion personally but we should have the freedom as well to not have our own lives impacted by religion if we do wish. We also should have the liberty of not being religious or dropping elements of faith without fear of bullying or coercion.

Disagreeing is not any kind of religious 'phobia'.

I would hope that most can see how inappropriate it is to bully, intimidate and racially abuse, as this child did, with what appears to be the encouragement and support from the adults in her life. Amongst other things it would be morally wrong to allow any kind of change to happen in their favour under these circumstances.

Another aspect to consider is that while this case (and thread) has been very Muslim focussed, it would also set a precedent for other schools and other religions.

A pillar of Islam is prayer five times a day and it is seen as an obligation. Christians are not obliged in the same way but are strongly encouraged to pray the liturgy of the hours (including at 9am, 12pm and 3pm which could fall during school hours). Arguably, it would be more disruptive because of set times and the length of prayer (15-20mins as opposed to my estimate of around 15mins for Dhuhur and Asr (although others have claimed less than 5mins))

Could you allow Muslims to pray but tell the Christians they can’t?

I have not been racist nor Islamophobic anywhere here. If I have been, please point this out.

And as I said earlier, there are quite a few cases including by this mother/daughter where racism is race on race, so from a brown person (them) to a black person (the female teacher at the school). I've also been subjected to racism by black and brown people (not much and I can sort of understand why) but I'm not allowed to speak about this.

However, following a verbal/written episode of events on myself in the workplace after BLM and coinciding with historic bullying there (a central gov dept), I spoke to a man this Spring, who I didn't realise at the time, but subsequently found out, is the Co Chair of the Civil Service Race Network. He completely sympathised with me, saw my side and was disgusted at the ways in which I'd been treated. As a black man of a similar age to me or maybe older, he's been through far more racial injustice and abuse/racism in his entire life, than a lot of my younger colleagues (in their 20s) who were now attacking me and others in my dept but this was not only racist but also historic bullying and also sexism.

The CPS should at the very least bring cases of inciting racial hatred/violence and also assault/criminal damage again the black teacher and other teachers.

I really hope the school and others affected by these people's appalling actions aren't cowed down into accepting their criminal actions because they're scared of the mum/daughter and their little crowd of followers and the consequences and retribution because they're Muslims. I do not hate Muslims, or any other religion. I have friends and colleagues from all races, cultures and religions and I don't differentiate between them.

I am technically Atheist, brought up C of E (Anglican) and churchgoing as a child and went to a Catholic Convent for part of my secondary education. I currently do not practise or believe in any religion, though this may change in years to come. I've seen the damage religion can cause in the world, growing up being scared by the bombs in London by the IRA and then later, scared by the terrorist attacks on London, 7/7 happened just around the corner from my then workplace and the girlfriend of a childhood schoolfriend of mine was killed in this attack (Italian woman), he is a Sikh man. My family friend, with his wife, was in New York visiting from London, at the time of 9/11 and on their way to a meeting at WTC or in that area. It was only unusually for him, that he went back to his hotel to collect something (jumper I believe), and he missed the attacks by pure chance. The only religion I have sort of followed, through my yoga practice, is Buddhism, but this has been by chance, and I don't practice Buddhism in everyday life, just at yoga classes.

And before anyone starts, people who are speaking against this mother and daughter are NOT doing it because they're Muslim.

I don't give a flying fuck if you're any religion, same goes for Catholic/Protestant/Christian which I technically am but don't practise (not quite an Atheist), you should not be allowed to force your religious beliefs onto others, and certainly not attack people in a racial manner like this poor black woman teacher was.

@Custardcream84

I disagree - the racism and Islamophobia on this thread is not "veiled"

She suspended when she broke a rule.

I haven't read the whole document posted here yet, and I've got no idea what cases the CPS decided to bring against the parents involved, let alone against the children

As far as I know the CPS haven't issued any cases against the mum and pupil, though whether they should is a whole other issue

This particular case was brought by the pupil - very probably with the help/encouragement of adults - rather than it being brought against her

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain - great post. This nasty little gambit was not the work of a child but adults. And that needs looking into

Yes, using a mother and female child to "convert" the secular school is really worrying. The bullying was horrendous. I am glad the Iman lost his case.

I wanted to say as much but you did it more eloquence and did it more justice than I could have. I feel there are controlling factors in the background here and it 'looks' better coming from a female child and woman parent. Someone else is rolling the balls and they're firing them. Manipulation at its finest.

But if your parents´ "didn´t believe education and religion should be together" why did they send you to a CofE school and were ok with you singing hymns and participating in nativities? You sort of confused me there. Church of England christianity IS religion, it isn´t a secular movement

Where we lived there were two state primaries. My DBs went to one and because my parents weren’t happy with the standard of maths, English etc, sent me to the other which was CofE. My parents had zero issue with any of us singing hymns or having a part in the nativity etc. To them they were just songs and stories that didn’t affect them in any way. We had presents from Santa at Christmas as it was a nice thing for little kids. They had no animosity to any Christian beliefs or values. They were totally ambivalent.

Agree. It's all very well hand wringing about how it came to pass that a child can take herself off to Syria to become impregnated several times by some random murderer she's been married off to and then have to spend the rest of her life in a prison camp, but this child is being radicalised openly by Imams ( funded in many cases by fundamentalists in Iran and Saudi Arabia) and her parents. That's how it comes to pass.

Hopefully this will allow other schools to start banning religion in their premises. No divisive symbols at all, no crosses, no hijabs, no kippahs. We wouldn't allow gang colours in schools so it's time to ban all outward displays of religion.

I'm no fan of Birbalsingh, but in this case, i think she was right. The rule was brought in after a number of students started praying in the playground, using their blazers as prayer mats. The 'no religious services, no prayer room' rule was already established. There was also pressure being put on other Muslim kids to join in the prayer sessions. So the school simply clarified their rule.

What is very interesting to me here about this child (and let's not forget that she is still technically a child) is that this child's behaviour was encouraged by adults in her life and started by them.

So, this behaviour was suggested to her by the iman who encouraged her to start praying with her fellow pupils in the carpark as an act of defiance towards the school and the headteacher and against it's rules and then her mother and presumably other pupil's parents' who encouraged them all to victimise other pupils and teachers.

I haven't read the whole document posted here yet, and I've got no idea what cases the CPS decided to bring against the parents involved, let alone against the children. But the adults should be charged with various crimes they committed, which is inciting racial hatred/violence etc. A child can be excused some of these crimes. This child could be undergoing radicalisation treatment which can be reversed with the correct treatment. I feel like Shamima Begum (I am not excusing her actions at all) and her friends may have gone down these routes or been tempted to do this, had they been in similar situations. We all know how we are tempted to behave as young, impressionable teenagers. This sort of behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud so it doesn't spill over into their university, college or working lives.

There needs to be talks within the Muslim community in Brent but also within the wider Muslim community to take about divisive behaviour generally. Yes, the more hardline Muslims will want to be divisive and will encourage this child and others like her, and their parents to cause waves and make trouble but this is not right and has unleashed a whole can of worms generally.

Well yes, but I'm not saying the state should provide an education in line with everyone's personal beliefs/preferences.

Just that the "why did you send your child to that school if you didn't agree with the ethos?" arguments are a bit pointless?

The answer will usually be because it was the only or at least the least worst option.

The requirements of the school are quite clear and open, and have now been reinforced by the outcome of this case. It is now irrelevant whether people agree with them or like them, if you don't like those rules then don't go to the school - it really is that simple. The school is oversubscribed and there are alternatives, no one is forced to go there and the 50% of the pupils who are Muslim appear to be quite happy with matters as they are.

This family have lost the case, that is the consequence of the risk they took. They are apparently considering suing the school again, but I would imagine the chance of them being granted legal aid for a case has been much reduced by this ruling. They would probably have to find their own funds which might reveal if there is a more orchestrated movement behind this action. They may also risk being declared vexatious litigants, time will tell if they are or not.

Perhaps you all need to evaluate why you find this so objectionable. If a school was in an area in which a large proportion of students were Jewish and many wanted to observe a very important part of their religion, eg the sabbath, why not allow it? Would we be having this conversation?

Perhaps you need to evaluate why this child's behaviour isn't objectionable to you. It should not be acceptable irregardless of the religion involved. She should have been expelled. Bullying and racial abuse (not to mention the intimidation outside of this that was carried out) to get what she wanted is hardly an advertisement for being devout and religious. She had no care for the rights or freedoms of the other children involved, nor the feelings of the teacher she abused. These are the actions of a despot.

The school Is secular, was advertised as such, and the parents have signed their children up to a secular school . The rule changes came in because the child decided to act/behave in the way that she did.

I'm wondering what the girl will do now she's back at that school. The way I see it she has a few choices:

• To defy her headteacher and other teachers and carry on practising her religion and forcing her beliefs onto other pupils and mocking/shunning/bully/intimidate pupils who aren't as devout as she is, or worse, racially abusing pupils/teachers and being violent towards them.

• To obey her headteacher and other teachers and practise her religion in private and not mock/shun/bully/intimidate pupils who aren't as devout as she is and to not racially abuse pupils and teacher and to not incite racial hatred.

• Re the first bullet point - she will have to decide whether she will appeal or not, funded by legal aid and encouraged to do so by imans/other more hardline Muslims.

I can appreciate that some Muslims (and other religions) aren't happy if more and more Muslims are getting less religious/devout and wish to practice their religion in a less devout way, they can see this could be dangerous in letting all sorts of practices happen within their community and with Muslims marrying out, having more freedom generally etc.

But, really, when you choose to live in a Westernised country whether it's here or another country, you are free to practice your religion, live within your culture and practices but there will always be temptations for members of your community. And, when you move to the West, presumably one of the reasons you are moving from a stricter religious/cultural country e.g. Iran or Saudi Arabia, is because you don't wish to live in a country with such harsh regimes, and you like the West for it's freedoms and education/work/living prospects. I know and worked with an Iranian solicitor who moved to England from Iran and married a French pharmacist, because he hated the strict regime in Iran. He said it was a beautiful country but rarely returned there. He liked the fact that he could drink a beer after work in our local pub and live a Western/Muslim life here and not face criticism for doing things such as drinking a beer.

You have the choice of sending your children to a school which is a faith school (of any religion) if you wish for their education to be religious and of the religion you follow, or you have the choice to send your child where their education is first and foremost and religion is secondary, and any practices you have, e.g. celebrating holidays or praying, is carried out outside the school.

But that is the test. Because the obligation is to provide education. There is no legal right to educational choice based on your religious preference. The individual has a choice, but because of their personal religious belief, that choice may be a limited one. That would be because of the belief of the individual, not the actions of the state.

I don't get the "why did you send your child to a religious/non-religious/school that teaches Martian?" arguments.

These schools are state-funded or assisted and tbh it's bad enough that certain groups get priority access to them when they're paid for by taxpayer money.

Where I live, almost all schools either have some religious denomination, are grammars or are single-sex. Some are all three. Anyone wanting their child to go to a mixed, secular comprehensive would have very little choice indeed.

And just because a school has a certain ethos (aggressively religious/secular, whatever) isn't a green light for it not to respect fundamental rights.

This is an interesting interview.
Peter's annoying, but KB is great.

The discussion around the legal challenge starts at 41:56.