A reply to an isolationist British Muslim

I received the following e-mail the other week:

Established 1981

London School of Islamics

An Educational Trust

63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD

Email: info@londonschoolofislamic

s.org.uk
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667

Broken Britain

Britain has a broken society. This is a dark portrait but it is very true. Children are left to rot and they grew into animals. Binge drinking, drug addiction, a culture of disrespect and antisocial behavior, teenage pregnancies and abortions, knife and gun culture are part and parcel of every day life in all big city centers. The teenage pregnancies and the sheer madness of sex education teach nothing about morality. British society is suffering from unprecedented social decay and societal breakdown, according to the Children’s Society shocking evidence. Britain has more broken families than other countries. British children are rougher with each other, and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancies. Britain 's rate of teenage pregnancy is the highest in Western Europe . According to official figures, nearly half of all babies are now born out of wedlock. They are more likely to suffer social, mental and emotional problems. Research has revealed that migrants in Britain are more likely to have children within marriage. The teaching of sex education could not curb teenage pregnancies. Infact, it has simply increased. This is a clear indication of broken society. It is an eye opening for the Muslim community who sends their children to state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

In broken Britain , the break downs of family are ripping apart communities. According to a report, Scottish schools like English schools have become home for rapes, gun and knife culture, drug dealing, gang culture and racism. It is a horrendous portrayal of the collapse of civilized life and of human despair. Carrying weapons is becoming the norms, violence is “routine” and families are terrorized by gangs. Every parent is worried about his child being indoctrinated into the idea that gay and sexual promiscuity is “normal” modes of behavior. Homosexuality was regarded as mental illness but now blue eyed western educated elites are its defenders and promoters. The spectre of hidden epidemic of sex crimes inside Britain ’s classrooms has emerged after Scotland Yard revealed there have been nearly 900 rapes or sex attacks in schools. The vast majority of victims were school children under the age of 16. As many as one in three were under 11. According to official figures, hundreds of children under the age of 12 were treated for addiction to drink and drugs.

Children are being taught that sexually transmitted diseases could be easily treated and there is no acknowledgement of the emotional harm of premature sexual activity. The truth is that more sex education and contraception are provided to children and teenagers, the more they fall pregnant. Studies have shown that access to contraception and sex education, sexual activity and conception and pregnancy rates go up. The sexual health of young Londoners is a “major public health issue” and still among the worst in the country, despite innovative projects and improvements in services.

The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a
safe environment with an Islamic ethos. Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. The significance and value of Muslim schools is that the Islamic religion imposed obligations of good citizenship, keeping the peace and paying taxes. While ambition of state school is to get children humping each other before they are out of primary school and giving them parenting classes when they are fourteen to help the girls cope with the babies they will have conceived at thirteen.

Iftikhar Ahmad

. * * * .


Dear Iftikhar,

The picture you paint of British schools has some truth but by no means complete. Most major cities have sink schools in which generations are wasted but to use these as representative of the entire state of Britain and our education system is selecting facts to suit your own agenda. To be frank, many of your statements are just gratuitous and insulting, as well as being wrong. In fact, in one sentence you manage to be both racist and homophobic. If there were awards for bigotry, that would be a contender.

I'm more worried though about your proposed solution. If a school has problems, surely the best way to progress is through gaining the support of the community of which the school is part. This is done through many paths: school governors, parents' councils, direct involvement in day-to-day school life. On top of this is local political supervision as well as governmental inspection. You propose a different route: segregation. You imagine islands of civilisation among jungles of savages.

I don't think you understand Britain. If faced with a problem, a local community does its best to face that problem together. There maybe alternative paths to a solution, but common ground is sought out and used as a basis for progress. So your answer, for Muslim families to flee to educational fortresses, of which you would doubtless be the gatekeeper, does disservice to them and to the greater community. Your letter is a crude attempt to scaremonger, to isolate and ultimately to control Muslim communities within Britain. You must know that the more communities isolate themselves, the less they will be understood and the more bigotry they will face. But I suspect that would suit you just fine.

Your e-mail saddens me. I hope, as a representative of an educational trust, you can broaden your viewpoint in future.

Regards

Martin Veart.

Recycling and the UK. Then and Now

A long time ago, when fish and chips were really wrapped in newspaper, my mother could take back that empty bottle that once contained dandelion and burdoch, get the deposit back on the bottle and use it pay towards a poke of chips or on a new bottle of the thick, fizzy, dark brown liquid. In those days we walked as a family to the nearest chip shop, which was over a mile away.
Now I don’t take my daughter to a chippy. Too many calories in the deep-fried food, cod has joined the panda on the WWF endangered species list, the food is served in polystyrene boxes, sugar surges and eight-year olds are not a good mix; I would doubtless be told where to go if one were to ask for money for an empty bottle.
Why am I rambling like this? Look back on what we used to do in small businesses and a lot of the packaging was recycled material. But now shops are under no real obligations: if you’re lucky there will be recycling bins available at the end of the car park. Is it any wonder that Britain has terrible record of recycling when compared with are continental neighbours? I would suggest that the reason is that UK governments has not put the burden of responsibility across society evenly: leaving it just up to the individual instead of those that supply the packaging in the first place: the businesses that sell the stuff to begin with.

On the continent it is different and I was reminded of this on a recent trip to visit relatives in Germany. My sister-in-law works for one of Germany’s largest supermarket chains and she filled me in. Shops have to provide recycling facilities for all the packaging materials they sell. This means that some chain stores even refuse to carry certain lines if they decide that it doesn’t make economic sense to deal with the returned packaging. Instead, they leave it to their competitors. The in-store systems have a degree of automation but there is also labour required. I’m sure the businesses don’t like it but that is the law: they have no choice. And yes, there is a deposit system on bottles: both glass and plastic are covered (such a machine is shown in the photographs).
It has been like this for years. The same automated bottle-handling systems were in Norway when I was living there ten years ago. What do we have in the United Kingdom? Some poor individual at the till offering to sell you a “bag for life” but with the usual plastic ones still available for those who ask..

It is just not good enough. Although the government’s Defra website shows that we are recycling more in the UK, about two and a half times more than we were ten years ago, about eighty percent is still going into landfill, (it varies with materials: about fifty percent of paper is reused or recycled). In 2007, Austria was recycling sixty percent of it’s used materials with our northern-European neighbours not far behind.
If Britain wants to lose the dirty man of Europe image, one which we have held for years for various reasons (remember acid rain for example), we need to be doing far more. The individual household is starting to get on board the recycling train: time for business, especially the supermarkets to be made to get on board too. That is not going to happen by voluntary measures: legislation is the only way.

Strange Bedfellows: the SNP, Tories and the West Lothian Question.

07:34 Today Programme. BBC Radio 4 6th October 2009.

"Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, repeated this week the Conservative pledge to stop Scottish MPs voting on purely English or Welsh issues. The Conservatives would complete the devolution settlement by allowing English MPs a veto on legislation the affects only England, and English and Welsh MPs a veto when it affects England and Wales. Shadow Scottish secretary David Mundell, and the SNP chief whip in the Commons, Stuart Hosie, discuss the Conservative's constitutional change proposals."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8294000/8294126.stm

It wasn’t my imagination that Scottish Nationalist MP, Stuart Hosie, seemed intensely relaxed about the Conservative proposals over the baring of Scottish-based MPs on issues that are judged purely to be matters for England and Wales.
On the face of it, the proposals seem fair. The English should have their own representation, just as the Scottish, Welsh and (hopefully soon) the Northern Irish have. Although is this the right way to go about it?
The problem with banning of Scottish members from voting is that it is unconstitutional. The Westminster Parliament is the parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. To make it an English Parliament would mean a massive change in direction to our constitution, effectively paving the way to the break up of the United Kingdom. Hence the Tories having the support of the SNP over this issue.

There is a political problem that the Conservatives face and it is one that I do sympathise with. The Tories are not popular in Scotland, just having one parliamentary seat out of fifty nine. The banning of Scottish MPs effectively mean that a lot of Conservative policy will have a much easier ride through the next parliament after the election (assuming a Tory win of course). It would be to the detriment of the people of England if MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom were excluded though. Devolution has allowed certain things to be done differently and why shouldn’t the people of England benefit from the insights on offer from other parts of the UK? Instead of enforcing party discipline, an alternative could be to lift the whip on Scottish MPs voting on English matters. This would allow the individual to abstain or otherwise, allowing MPs to share their experience of their own part of the United Kingdom and allowing them to pass a disinterested verdict on English policies that is beyond party politics. Before devolution, this possible answer to the West Lothian Question would not have been feasible.  Now however it would allow all the people of the Union to enjoy the benefits of devolution while Westminster remains unchallenged as the seat of parliament of the United Kingdom
As the Conservatives stand, their suggested policy would play directly into the hands of the nationalists. For a party that used to known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, this is surely not a tenable position. It also gives the people of Scotland a very strange choice among the parties at the next Westminster elections. Of the four main parties north of the border, a vote for either the SNP and now the Conservatives is a vote in favour of the dissolution of the Union. Labour is a spent force at Westminster, bracing themselves for the oncoming decimation. The only Westminster party that a reasonable supporter of the Union can therefore vote for are the Liberal Democrats, who support home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Lockerbie: business as usual

It was sometime in 1992 when the tape arrived on my desk. Before the days of plug-in hard disks and easy-use PCs, data would be recorded onto magnetic tapes which was loaded on massive reel-to-reel machines. The tape in question was on blue plastic, seven inches in diameter. The rim was heavily broken with the pieces being held in a plastic bag. The label was from a UK gas well and its original destination was head office in Houston. It never reached Texas because it was freight onboard Pan Am 103, flying on the night of the 21st of December, 1988.

It is odd how one can be just on the edge of large events such as Lockerbie. Seventeen years later, that feeling has returned to me. A couple of months ago I was in the Scottish Parliament when the First Minister, Alex Salmond, was being quizzed about the possible release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan who was found guilty of the bombing. Despite assurances from Salmond that the decision would be left to the sole discretion of the Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, the First Minister’s word was widely disbelieved in the chamber. It is understood that Salmond rules the SNP with a rod of iron, with MacAskill been as likely to be able to act in a independent manner as the Westminster Cabinet would have been free to act under the leadership of Tony Blair. In other words, not very free at all.

Anyway, Al Megrahi is free now and at home. Both Salmond and Prime Minister Gordon Brown are swearing until blue in the face that it has nothing to do with oil contracts. Both must be confident that there is no “smoking gun” – nothing that can link the release to oil contracts. Of course, it is entirely coincidental that the UK is the major oil producer in Northern Europe, with most of the industry and jobs being based in Scotland. So my ears didn’t prick up at all when I was in a casual conversation this week, in a furniture store of all places, with a lady whose husband is also working in the oil industry. He is currently in Libya, planning a major new gas pipeline between North Africa and Europe.

This would make sense how? The obvious answer is Russia. Over recent winters, Putin and Medvedev have not been shy about using gas as a political and economic club to wield over the neighbours’ heads. Europe urgently needs another supplier.

America has been understandably outraged about all this. I would have more sympathy with their view if American companies had not continued to trade with Libya during the 1990s. It was widely known within the industry that a lot of business done under the Tunisian accounts was really work which originated in Libya. If managers were needed for a meeting in Tripoli, the road distance is about 500km; not a distance for a regular commute but close enough for an overnight stay. And yes, the authorities in the USA would have been aware of such activity. There seemed to be a fair amount of CIA activity when I was there.

Everybody will give lip-service to the victims and their families. But it looks like their needs are very much second-place to the real-politick of the situation. It may be that justice itself is completely absent. Not only is this a case of a convicted mass-murderer receiving mercy, there has always been doubts hanging over the conviction itself. It was claimed recently by a guest on the Today Programme that the sole eyewitness against Al Megrahi, the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, had subsequently been resettled in Australia under a new identity and had received payments from the US government to the value of seven million dollars. That is some witness protection scheme.

Seen in the rather ghastly light above, it is little wonder that Gordon Brown has been unwilling to speak on the matter. If it had been only this topic where he has attempted to keep silent, one would have been perhaps been more understanding. But recently Brown has been quiet on all subjects. This is a sign of a leadership dying on its feet. Brown has no new initiatives and can only react to events over which the Labour government is too tired to even attempt to manage.

Media commentators have been advising people to put on their cynical hats when dealing with the entire business. Sadly I cannot advise you any different.

Television Licensing

WARNING: THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENSED

To the Legal Occupier,

We're writing to inform you that we have authorised Enforcement Officers to visit your home. If they find evidence that you are watching TV illegally, they can take your statement under caution with the relevant criminal law.

We are taking this step because:

• According to our records, there is no TV License for this address.
• You must have a TV License to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.
• We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply.

An enforcement visit is the first step in our action to seek prosecution. Please be aware that should your case go to court, your statement can be used as evidence. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000. We take this offence extremely seriously, and catch around 1,000 evaders every day.

We strongly advise that you act to stop our investigation by buying a TV Licence. You can do this in minutes by visiting www.tvlicensing.co.uk or by calling 0844 800 6720. A licence costs £142.50 for colour and £48 for black and white.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Armstrong

Regional manager

Scotland East Enforcement Team

If you have recently moved home, please transfer your old TV Licence to your new address. You can do this at www.tvlicensing.co.uk/moving or by calling 0844 800 6720. Please have your TV Licence number to hand.

If you don't watch TV, please let us know by calling 0844 800 6720.

* * *

Dear Ms. Armstrong,

Normally at this point, I would take the opportunity to thank a correspondent for writing to me. In this case I am unable to do so. I am deeply offended by the tone of the letter that has been sent in your name.

When I bought the property in question on the 19th of June, there was already a letter from the Television Licensing agency on the doormat. This first letter already contained falsehoods: namely that there had been several previous attempts to contact the owners. How could this be when the house is a new-build dwelling, with no previous occupiers? Using the telephone number supplied however, I contacted a member of the television licensing staff to inform the organisation that nobody would be living in the house until mid-August, and that I would be in contact again when my television was moved from my current address.

That should have been the end of the matter. Instead, today I receive another and, to be blunt, a nasty, threatening letter which simultaneously manages to be inaccurate, self-justifying and bullying.

"We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply." This is a lie. I refuse to give you the benefit of the doubt because I contacted your organisation over a month ago. Just how long does it take for you to update your records? You have the temerity to threaten me with legal action because of your own incompetence? You advise me to purchase a television license in order to avoid a visit from Enforcement Officers? Send them round! Waste more taxpayers' money why don't you?

What I hate even more is that the letter assumes guilt and it is up to me to prove innocence. Just who do you think you are? You are a civil servant, working on behalf of the British people. You are not a member of the Stasi.

I have taken the liberty of posting your letter and my reply on my website and I am also bringing your tactics to the attention of the media.

I have no regards for you.

Martin Veart.

The Crisis of Politics in the United Kingdom

In his book, The Great Crash 1929, the economist J.K. Galbraith makes the observation that embezzlement is the one crime with a time lag. There is a period during which the victim is ignorant of the loss and the embezzler is profiting from his gain. Both are happy. It is only during economic hard times that the truth comes out. Galbraith has been yet again proved to be correct, both with our banking and political systems. At least one cannot make the criticism that successive governments have been hypocritical. Until this year, it has been a guiding principle of economic theory that self-regulation is good regulation. Members of the Westminster parliament applied this principle to themselves.

MPs’ pay has always been a problem in the public perception. In the 1980s, there were attempts to link the pay of MPs to that of civil servants. But automatic pay rises have never been popular, especially since it has been long-term government policy to hold down the level of pay for workers in general. I don’t need to remind you that on both sides of the Atlantic; the rich have become a whole lot richer while the main losers have been the middle classes. Of course, the majority of MPs come from the middle classes. As was vogue in the past decades, self-regulation provides opportunities to be creative with what earning potential is out there, with the obvious route being expenses.

It is for that reason that one sees a wide variation in the degree of abuse that members of parliament have inflicted upon the public purse. It ranges from no abuse whatsoever through to the potentially criminal. What is clear is that all members have had the opportunity, many have succumbed to temptation to some degree, sometimes with the result of looking ridiculous, but few have actually been venal.

If the degree of actual corruption has been low, why the massive public uproar? First of all, it is justified. Instead of getting to grips with the issue of pay and expenses, it is an issue that has consistently been avoided by the House of Commons, with reform often being blocked by vested interests. But that isn’t the main reason and let me illustrate the point with a little story.

As some of you may already be aware, I work offshore. My employer used to supply secure parking for the vehicles of those away. Some years ago, this was withdrawn with no alternative being supplied. When I went offshore, I therefore parked my car close to the main reception, in clear view of security. Nothing wrong with that except, as a protest, and against company policy, I did not reverse-park.
Upon my return, I was taken aside by Lachlan, one of the security staff, where I had to explain my vehicular positioning.
“Hmmm. I thought you were up to something Martin. Because you wouldn’t believe the amount of abuse that we have had to put up with. “Can’t you do something about that car?” “Get it towed away!” People were so angry! To them it looked like you were getting something they were not.”
This is the main factor. How often has one heard on recent phone-ins the charge “If I did that with my company I would get fired!” Our MPs have been found guilty of this, the gravest of charges: enjoying privileges, at our expense, which we as common people cannot hope to enjoy.
If true, this insight suggests that our MPs are “out of touch” with the rest of us in the United Kingdom. On one level, this cannot be correct. Our MPs meet with their constituents on a regular basis: listening to our problems and if possible, advising and helping us sort them out. So if many of them are remote, what makes them so?

It is certainly wrong to generalise but since the 1970s there has been the rise of a professional class of politician. Now, I wasn’t going to pick on individual MPs in this article but a great and an early example of this trend is Jack Straw, the current Minister for Justice. Unlike many other Labour MPs, he didn’t come through the union route to politics but became seriously involved in his university days, becoming President of the Students’ Union in 1969. Jack Straw practiced law in the early 1970s but most of his career has been political; working for Barbara Castle as a political adviser and effectively inheriting her seat when she decided to stand down in 1977. It is a pathway to the Commons that has been widely followed since.

For a House that is supposed to represent the whole spectrum of British life and population, a class of professional is not desirable. But wait a minute! Should not a politician be professional? Certainly yes, a person can act professionally on behalf of the people but that is not the same as being a professional politician. For instance, in the dreadful case of the murders of the two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, would have led an old-school politician such as William Whitelaw to offer his resignation. There has been no such offer from Jack Straw because, apart from being a back-bencher, what else can he really do? It’s been a very long time since he practiced any other trade. Another example is the current implosion of the Labour Party. MPs are railing against the late-night telephone calls coming from No.10 to constituencies of perceived rebels. As one of the targets, Barry Sheerman MP was on the Today Programme (Radio 4, 5th June), telling of an early morning telephone conversation with a local party member after that person had just been called from Downing Street, wishing for the local party to drag Sheerman in and, hopefully, start the de-selection process. It is hot-house politics: alien from most ordinary peoples’ experience.

And so we return to expenses. . Before that, an MP was allocated three thousand pounds (about £15,000 in today’s money) a year for London living and told to get on with it. The system of self-regulation has been going on since the 1980s so for the vast majority of parliamentarians, it is the only system they have known. And for some of those, it is the only real profession they have known too. Is it any wonder that a few sought to maximize their income and otherwise treat the public purse with negligence and even contempt?

There is a deeper reasoning however, which goes to the heart of how our society is ordered. Do we follow Plato’s vision, where we are all specialists, led by a specialist caste of politician? The alternative view is expressed by Aristotle who states that a man should not entertain the notion of entering politics until the age of thirty. In other words, to have worked a trade, become a parent, fought for the state and generally become a well-rounded citizen before standing for office.

With respect to the many young politicians currently active in all parties, some of which I know personally, in general I would suggest that Aristotle has it right.

Mumbai elections - the Excluded Vote

By Mumbaikar

Election Day is finally here. And no , I did not vote. Not because I didn’t want to, but because I was not allowed to. My name does not appear in the voter list despite several attempts to feature there.

"Did you vote?" I asked a few of my friends. Back came the reply - "No.. our names aren’t on the list." That made me realize I wasn’t the only one. Then as I switched on the News, the ticker read "Kashmiri Pundits lathi-charged on protesting their exclusion from voter list", whilst the screen flashed campaigns of eminent actors urging the youth to vote. Then it was all suddenly crystal clear to me- ‘secular’ politicians don’t want the Hindu vote to meddle in their filthy plans which is why they have figured out this clever way to ensure the ‘minority’ votes. Recently, Varun Gandhi (great-grandson of India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru) was arrested for allegedly making "speeches with an intention to create enmity among people on the basis of religion." In short, for voicing his concern about the future of Hindus in this country also known as Hindustan. But nobody ever objects to the ruling party making pro- ‘minority’ speeches all the time. Hypocrites.

Then comes the issue of buying votes. I remember asking my dad once “Why do the poor come out in large numbers to attend a party leader’s speech? Why do they roam around all the day as part of political rallies? Don’t they have bigger things to worry about?
“Things like, “How do I earn money for my next meal ?” I had answered my own question. Free food, even clothing is handed out as a reward for the support.

Mumbai (South ) is the richest constituency in the country. But the middle class doesn’t care enough to vote. A good portion of the youth demographic is qualified and well educated. But all they want to do is leave the country in search of better prospects abroad (It’s unfair to complain of brain-drain unless something is done to retain these brilliant minds here). It’s commonplace to hear an engineer say ‘Iss desh ka kuch nahi hoga…vote karo ya na karo.. ‘ (This country will never change…whether you vote or not). For young India, politics is synonymous to a feeling of cynicism and disgust ..to a sense of apathy and powerlessness.

With every election that comes my way I can only hope that I get to cast my vote and pray for a better tomorrow.

This blog is from a guest writer. It should not be presumed that I share all or any of the views expressed in this feature.

Mumbaiker is a pseudomyn.