Letters: Uphold British values in Muslim schools

The following letters appear in the 3rd December 2015 edition of The Independent

(Getty)

Faith schools need British values

I agree with Janet Street-Porter (28 November) that we should not have faith schools, of any faith. We have a multi-faith society, one in which there are about 13 million atheists. We also have an increasing immigrant population, coming from a wide variety of countries, religions and cultures. Schools should reflect this society by avoiding association with one set of religious views.

The alternative will entrench “ghettoisation”, with some children continually immersed in their own restrictive culture. They will be less likely to support fundamental British values while becoming susceptible to extremist views.

A vitally important, connected issue is the potential for radicalising children who attend Islamic schools, just as Ofsted has discovered and warned about. If young children are taught that the Koran and hadith offer literal truth then we may be in deep trouble, with 180 Muslim faith schools and a rising trend in the number of Muslim children.

The Government should make it a statutory requirement that children at such schools are taught in a way that encourages them to accept that it’s OK for other people to hold different beliefs, including humanism and atheism. Moderate Muslims scholars could advise about this.

We want children from all cultures to fully integrate into British society and commit to fundamental British values of free speech, democracy and equality of race, gender and religion.

The teaching of these values, at every key stage, should be another statutory duty for schools. The existing Prevent Document offers only advice and guidance to schools about how to prevent pupils being drawn into terrorism. Comments from Ofsted inspectors have demonstrated that this is not working well enough.

Firmer action needs to be taken to encourage an inclusive society and prevent radicalisation. Education is the key to this, as part of a wider package of measures.

Nigel Blackmore

Cambridge

Perhaps Labour needs two leaders

Has Steve Richards listed fully the options that are open to the Labour Party wanting to win the next general election (“Only a split or a unifying leader will end Labour’s war”, 1 December)? Of course there is a good old-fashioned split or there could emerge a unifying leader. The latter prospect doesn’t look like a reality at present.

Another alternative is for the Labour Party to continue to evolve. It is quite clear that Jeremy Corbyn is the party leader in the country. Rather than splits, a much more favourable alternative might be for the Labour Party to have a leader elected by MPs and a leader in the country elected by the entire membership. Both would be key positions, but the electorate would be voting on the parliamentary team as an alternative government. How one gets there, of course, is another matter.

Frank Field MP

(Birkenhead, Labour)

House of Commons

Jeremy Corbyn is criticised for weak leadership in allowing a free vote regarding bombing Syria. Had he issued a three-line whip, he would have been criticised for dictatorial leadership and breaking up the Labour Party.

Does one get the feeling that much of the media, and many Labour MPs, are doing their best to ensure that this man cannot win, despite his careful reasoning, his humanity and the considerable support from the Labour membership?

Peter Cave

London W1

‘sympathisers with terrorists’ hit back

It is most worrying to hear the Prime Minister arguing that those opposing the bombing of Syria are “terrorist sympathisers”.

First, we had the alleged 70,000 moderate Syrians standing by to take on Isis. Now we have the designation “terrorist sympathiser” for anyone who does not support Mr Cameron’s war strategy. Churchill put it best when he said: “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Dr Faysal Mikdadi

Dorchester, Dorset

Am I to understand that David Cameron considers that those who are not convinced that the proposed military action in Syria will lead to increased security either in the Middle East or United Kingdom are “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”?

This doesn’t give me much confidence in his ability to contribute to incredibly difficult process of bringing about the conflict resolution that we so urgently need in so many parts of the world.

Jane Wernick

London NW3

David Cameron has labelled anyone against the bombing of Syria a “terrorist sympathiser”.

This is the same David Cameron who cheerfully accepted the Order of King Adbulaziz Medal of Excellence from the extremist state of Saudi Arabia for services rendered. Saudi Arabia has publicly beheaded 151 people this year, so far.

Sasha Simic

London N16

David Cameron thinks that those who oppose the bombing of Syria, including a substantial proportion of the electorate, are “terrorist sympathisers”. If this were true, the situation would be serious. What would he do about it? Bomb them?

Doraine Potts

Cheltenham

As my son tweeted today, between “terrorist” Corbyn and the Prime Minister, he knows which one is more likely to kill innocent men, women and children.

Vivienne Rendall

Melkridge, Northumberland

Cameron takes aim at the wrong target

Patrick Cockburn’s masterly explanation of the complexity of Syria (2 December) elucidates the error at the heart of the Prime Minister’s response to the violence of Isis.

Fundamentally, conflicts are not between Shia and Sunni, Israelis and Palestinians, or Isis and the West. They are between, on the one hand, people with weapons and those who have authority over them and, on the other hand, innocent bystanders who would just like to get on with their lives in peace.

Fighting the former on their terms will damage more of the latter and will ultimately increase the level of conflict in the world, while serving no purpose.

To reduce bloodshed three things are required: we should value considered doubt more highly than macho certainty; we should learn the lessons of history (consider recent excursions into Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya), while forgoing the luxury of brooding on ancient grievances; and we should work at reducing the human population of the world so that the controlling elements feel that they have enough space and are less threatened by their neighbours.

Susan Alexander

Frampton Cotterell, Gloucestershire

Gaelic programmes on the BBC

That adequate BBC funding, for programming generally, and for Scottish core programming in particular, is worth arguing for, I would not dispute, but not from the standpoint of Alex Orr (letter, 30 November).

BBC Alba does not “serve” 700,000 viewers, but rather the 57,000 Scots Gaelic speakers identified by the 2011 census, most of whom are bilingual. That is 1.1 per cent of the population of Scotland. Programmes are obviously entertaining enough to attract the larger number of viewers, who take advantage of subtitling.

The implication that Scots licence-payers are short-changed by a factor of 10 is simplistic and takes no account of the sums earned by BBC Scotland for National (UK) TV commissions, the notional value of national TV services to the vast majority of these licence-payers, or the shared benefit of technical research and development, such as Freeview and the iPlayer.

By all means provide quality Gaelic-language TV, but this should not be to the detriment of majority programming by BBC Scotland. Nor should lobbying on its behalf deflect attention from the central argument of how the BBC can be protected from underfunding and politically inspired meddling, from whatever quarter.

Colin Crampton

Elderslie, Renfrewshire

Nothing new in ‘designer pooches’

Since when did cross-breed dogs become so desirable and expensive (“Hounds of love”, 1 December)? Years ago we obtained a rescue dog of unknown parentage. Whenever we were asked what breed he was, we replied: “Cheshire-collie-hound-terrier.” However, a dog breeder acquaintance always called him the Mutt or the Mongrel. He never took offence and neither did we.

Sue Thomas

Bowness-on-Windermere, Cumbria

Back in the Sixties, we had a golden cocker spaniel. At one time she had a dalliance with the poodle next door, who had attempted to dally with her for several years. And so were born four beautiful pups which I christened Spoodles. Designer pooches? I think not; it was simply lurv!

Rowland Jones

Cheadle, Cheshire