PCC must act over Express' 'Muslim Plot to Kill Pope' front page

The Metropolitan Police have said:

Six men who were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 on Friday, 17 September, were all released without charge late on Saturday night and early this morning.

Hearing the six men have been released without charge may come as something of a shock to readers of the Express who had been told on Saturday that the men were almost certainly guilty, having hatched a 'Muslim Plot to Kill Pope':

Every media outlet was reporting the arrests on Friday, but there was a very clear note of wariness in the coverage. The indication was that the police acted out of caution rather than any serious threat.

But the Express doesn't do subtlety - especially when there's a chance of accusing Muslims of something awful. Look at the first sentence:

Islamic terrorists disguised as street cleaners allegedly hatched an audacious plot to blow up the Pope.

As Sim-O points out, the Express is declaring these six men were definitely 'Islamic terrorists' but were only 'allegedly' plotting to kill the Pope.

But then the Express makes it sound as if there was definitely a plot as well:

The threatened attack was foiled at the 11th hour after police raided a cleaning depot in London as the suspects prepared to start their shift yesterday.

It was strange to see the Express' front page sub-head calling the men 'bogus street cleaners'. The paper was more convinced they were 'Islamic terrorists' than actual street cleaners.

Most of the rest of the quotes and information about the arrests that appears in the Express' article was repeated elsewhere. But one Express-only sentence stood out:

It is feared plotters with links to Al Qaeda planned “a double blow to the infidel” by assassinating the head of the Roman Catholic church and slaughtering hundreds of pilgrims and well-wishers.

As there was no plot, and no one else seemed to be reporting this claim, the suspicion is the Express used dramatic licence here. By putting 'double blow to the infidel' in quote marks, it makes it seem as if someone has actually said this. But they don't say who. Because no one did.

Sim-O points out another line that also only seemed to appear in the Express:

An investigation is also under way to determine if the foreign nationals had entered Britain legally and were entitled to work here.

The Express seems to be saying: even in the unlikely event they aren't found to be 'Islamic terrorists', there's sure to be something dodgy about their immigration status.

This was a quite disgraceful, scaremongering, hate-inciting front page from the Express. Will they give so much prominence to the fact they've all been released without charge? Of course not.

The question is what will the PCC do? As there are six men directly involved they will only consider a complaint from one of them. Although it would be understandable if they didn't want to remain in the public spotlight, let's hope they do complain.

But if they don't, the PCC should consider acting anyway.

The Express used its front page to smear six men as Islamic terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda. A front page correction, retraction and apology must follow.

What will Star readers say?

On the day the Daily Star published its misleading story about halal meals for schoolchildren, they also ran this phone poll:


If anyone has the result of this poll, please do post it in the comments.

News that doesn't fit the agenda

Yesterday, the BBC reported:

A Muslim group has opened what it calls the UK's first summer camp against terrorism.

The three-day event in Coventry is expected to see more than 1,000 young Muslims at sessions teaching religious arguments to use against extremists.

The event has been organised by the Minhaj ul-Quran to promote a fatwa, or religious ruling, against terrorism by its leader Dr Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri.

Dr Qadri launched the fatwa in London in March.

Opening the summer camp, Dr Qadri told the audience - predominantly made up of British Muslims - to reject al-Qaeda and its "cancer" that was spreading through their faith.

He told them to embrace being British and do all that they could to build a safe and secure society by using sound theological arguments to confront any extremists that they meet.

The populist Pakistani cleric's 600-page theological study is billed by his followers as the most comprehensive and clear denunciation of the arguments deployed by jihadists to justify violence including suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians.

At time of writing, the Mail, Express, Sun and Star have failed to produce a single article about the event.

When 'forcing' means 'optional'

While today's Express front page leads on Romanian immigrants taking British jobs, Richard Desmond other paper concentrates on Islam:


The wording of the headline strongly suggests that, according to the Star, 'Brit kids' are not Muslims', and that Muslims aren't really British. The Star have often made this point about 'us and them', with 'them' being Muslims:


or immigrants:

Anyway, back to the - ahem - meat of today's story:

Brit kids forced to eat halal school dinners

Furious parents last night hit out at plans to serve halal-only school dinners.

Pupils will have no option but to eat meat slaughtered following Islamic teachings specifically for Muslims.

Use of words such as 'forced' and 'have no option' feed into the tabloid narrative about 'Britain' changing only because of them Muslims.

But the BBC version of the same story has a rather different take on how much this is going to be 'forced' on people:

A north London council is offering its primary schools the chance to serve only halal meat on its menus.

Nine Harrow secondary schools already provide pupils with meat prepared according to Islamic law in a scheme that has been running for two years.

Harrow Council said it had received "no complaints" about serving halal-only meat, with vegetarian and fish options.

Now 52 primary schools in the area will have the option of taking part in the same programme.

Harrow councillor Brian Gate said it would be the choice of individual schools as to whether or not they chose to use catering firm Harrison Catering Services, which serves halal-only meat.

"The decision about whether to use an individual provider is for schools to make, as the funding is delegated to them," Councillor Gate said.

So the schools can use a catering company that provides halal meat if they want or they can choose another firm altogether. (And presumably, kids still have the option of taking packed lunches.)

Yet the Star maintains:

all high schools in the London borough of Harrow have been told to provide only halal meat on menus.

Even the Mail, after covering all the usual 'fury' and 'outrage', admits:

The contract for providing meals to Harrow primaries is up for renewal and the council is planning to bring in Harrison's.

The council says primaries do not have to use its preferred caterer and governors are free to negotiate their own deals if they wish. Only two primaries have so far signed up.

And the local Harrow Observer, which originally broke the story, said:

Harrow Council has employed a catering company to only prepare Halal meat – to serve youngsters in Harrow.

Primary schools are free to opt in to the programme or look elsewhere for their meals

Star hack Gary Nicks fails to mention that it is optional anywhere in the article, thus leaving the completely false impression that it is being 'forced' on pupils.

It doesn't take much to work out why, especially coming so soon after false stories about 'Muslim-only toilets' and the swimming pool 'blacked out' for Muslims.

UPDATE: Harrow Council have issued a statement, in order to counter the false stories. They say:

It is simply not correct that Harrow Council is insisting that its schools serve only Halal meat.

The schools are in full control of decisions relating to school meals and are free to choose who provides this service.

Recommended reading - 5CC on Muslim bus drivers 'banning' guide dogs

Yesterday, the Mail ran the headline 'Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board'.

The article that followed was notable for providing no hard evidence at all that that headline was accurate.

Five Chinese Crackers has taken apart the Mail's article and followed it up with a look at the Star's coverage of the same story.

Recommended reading - 'Muslim-only' toilets

This Daily Star front page headline from last week was inspired by the Daily Mail story that was inspired by a Manchester Evening News story from the previous day.

So it is with modern-day tabloid 'journalism'.

New blog exclarotive has looked into the Star's coverage and found the front page splash falls down in two key respects: they aren't 'Muslim-only' toilets and the council didn't spend any money on them.

He has fired off a letter to the PCC about the Star's misleading headline and he's promised to keep us updated as to what happens next.

Express contradicts itself on burkha bans

Yesterday, it was slightly surprising to see the Express reporting this:


After all, on 24 June they claimed:


It's almost as if that totally misleading headline was designed to create a new 'EU bans...' myth irrespective of the facts.

Who would have thought the Express would do that?

'I'm not racist, but...'

From the letters page of Monday's Daily Mail, in response to the 'swimming pool cover-up' story:

What is this country coming to when the windows of a public swimming pool in Walsall are blacked out to protect the modesty of Muslim women?

We seem to be letting Muslims take over this country. We appear to be afraid to upset them.

If they don't like the way we lead our lives, let them go and live in a country that panders to their religion.

We are a Christian country, our laws and way of life are built on our religion.

I'm not racist, but I'm getting fed up with opening the newspaper every day to read that we're bowing and scraping to the Muslim community.

Would they get so much freedom of speech in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

Edd Butler, Shoeburyness, Essex

Richard Desmond attacks 'ethnics' and 'asylum scroungers'

Today's Daily Star:

Today's Daily Express:


Do you think Richard Desmond, the owner of these two rags, is trying to telling us something?

Anton at Enemies of Reason has blogged about the Express' front page. He says:

Leave aside that we're all 'ethnics' of one mongrel sort or another; this makes it quite clear what's going on. There are whites and there are 'ethnics'. How much more explicit does it have to be before we start calling it what it is?

As Anton points out, the Express illustrate this 'vile story' with this image of Muslim women:


Yet the article, based on population forecasts from the University of Leeds about what might happen in 2051, clearly says:

The White British and Irish ethnic groupings are expected to grow very slowly, while the Other White category is projected to grow the fastest, driven by immigration from Europe, the US and Australasia.

Funny how the don't use pictures of French, American or Australian women, isn't it?

In the last week we've had 'Muslims force pool cover-up', 'Now asylum if you're gay' and now this.

Maybe they should change their claim to the World's Nastiest Newspaper.

As for the Star, the story of Abdi and Sayrug Nur, who are unemployed and have seven children, has been doing the rounds for a few days, since the family moved into a house Kensington which the papers claim is worth £2m. The Sun, Mail and Mirror have all written about it.

Yet the Star is claiming sole responsibility for having the family 'booted out':

Ministers last night vowed to kick out a family on benefits from a £2million home after a hard-hitting Daily Star campaign.

Your favourite newspaper intervened to stop Somali spongers Abdi and Sayrug Nur continuing to milk the system.

Alas, a few sentences later:

We demanded answers from the Department for Work and Pensions and they have agreed to evict the family.

Officials said they would remove the Nurs when the new rules come into force next April.

So the Nurs will apparently be moved when the rules change next April. Funny the Star did say that it would be in nine months time when it probably would have happened without the Star's 'hard-hitting campaign' anyway.

And look again at the headline '£2m asylum scrounger'. £2m represents the value of the house they live in, so he hasn't 'scrounged' £2m. The papers are up-in-arms about the £2,000 a week the local council is paying for the house - but that goes straight to the owners, so he doesn't get that either. (The Mail claims the rent had been £1,050 per week, but this was raised to £2,000, the maximum available under housing benefit rules, but there's little anger directed at the owners of the house.)

Also 'asylum'. Nur sought asylum in the UK in 1999 after working for the Red Cross in Somalia. It was granted and so now he is a refugee. But the Star and its ilk want to associate 'asylum' with 'scrounging' and so continue to label him as that.

And clearly the Desmond papers want to continue to demonise Muslims, foreigners, immigrants, 'ethnics' for their own miserable ends.

(Jonathan has also written about the Express front page here)

Council doesn't 'force' schools to do anything about Ramadan

So soon after the 'Muslims force pool cover-up' story that wasn't quite true, a similar story surfaces in the Mail:


Telegraph:

Star:

Express:

and on the BBC:

The wording of some of these headlines, as in the swimming pool cover-up one, suggests this is something being 'forced' on people to 'appease' the whims of Muslims.

Here's how the Star reports it:

Headteachers have been told to stop sex education lessons during Ramadan to avoid offending Muslims.

Council bosses are also set to enforce strict rules to ban swimming lessons and even exams during the Muslim holy month.

Now it is worth skipping straight to the end of the Express' article to show how accurate all this is:

Labour councillor Ruth Rosenau, said: “It is just asking schools to be more aware. We are not trying to impose any rules.”

A council spokesman yesterday stressed it was up to individual headteachers whether or not to implement the guidance.

Ah. And this comes just a few paragraphs after the Express calls it a 'diktat'.

So Stoke-on-Trent Council issue some guidance which schools can implement or completely ignore, and this is turned into headlines about what schools are being 'forced' to do because of them Muslims.

(It is reminiscent of the 'England shirts banned from pubs' headlines which sprung up before the World Cup, a deliberate misreporting of some police guidance which landlords could listen to, or not.)

But once it's clear that schools do not have to abide by this guidance, the outrage inherent in these articles looks as hollow as usual.

The council document is actually made up of extracts from a 2007 Muslim Council of Britain report Towards Greater Understanding: Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools.

The elements of the guidance the media has picked up on - about exams, swimming and sex education - are all listed in the MCB's booklet as 'features of good practice'.

But neither they nor the council in Stoke-on-Trent are demanding they all be adopted. Phrases such as 'appropriate consideration' and 'try to avoid being scheduled' are evident; phrases such as 'we demand' are not.

For example, on swimming:

In general, participation in swimming is an acceptable activity whilst fasting.

However, for many pupils this activity may prove to be an issue, as the potential for swallowing water is very high. Some pupils or parents consider the risk too great and may wish to avoid swimming whilst fasting. Others may take the view that as swallowing water is unintentional it does not break the fast.

Schools with a significant number of Muslim pupils should try to avoid scheduling swimming lessons during Ramadan to remove unnecessary barriers to full participation.

And on exams:

It is inevitable that certain statutory and internal school examinations may fall during Ramadan. Schools should give appropriate consideration when scheduling internal examinations, since the combination of preparing for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils.

Several of the headlines refer to 'avoiding insulting/offending Muslims'. It is a nasty little phrase that's become all too popular with stories such as this.

But are these suggestions about 'avoiding offending Muslims', or about schools being sensitive to the religious beliefs and wellbeing of their pupils? As 5CC says, why is it the latter is so often reported as the former by the tabloids, and blown out of all proportion?

And they're blown out of proportion for a reason. The tabloids know this 'special treatment for minorities' narrative goes down very well with their readers - never mind that most of it is highly exaggerated if not outright lies.

Yet believe it or not, some of this reporting is actually a very slight improvement on media coverage three years ago when the MCB report first came out. The Express claimed the MCB wanted to:

Ban un-Islamic schools

and had drawn up proposals that were disgracefully labelled as:

calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions

If this blog had existed then, that article would almost certainly have been mentioned...

UPDATE: 5CC did exist in 2007 and did blog about the Express' article. He called it 'bullshit'.

(Hat-tips to 5CC, Liberal Conspiracy and readers Chris and Midge)

Non-story about local pool forces journalism black out

A classic 'look what those dastardly Muslims are up to now' front page from the Express today:


It's also one of those classic examples of churnalism. It's a story that starts life in the regional press and then gets picked up by the nationals because it covers one of their favourite issues - one they know will push the buttons of their readers.

On Saturday, the local Express and Star explained it had been contacted by a few users of Darlaston swimming pool in Walsall who were critical of a new film that had been placed on windows for privacy reasons.

That wouldn't be newsworthy, but for the fact that some - although, according to the Council, not all - of the requests for the change had come from the Muslim community.

And suddenly, the tabloids are full of headlines about Muslims 'forcing' their views on 'us'.

The churnalism was obvious - the same people, saying the same things, appeared in every article. Some of them were locals, but inevitably the TaxPayers' Alliance popped up as well.

Matthew Elliott, the TPA's chief executive went so far as to say:

It is bizarre to spoil a swimming pool like this just because of the demands of a very small group...it makes a big difference to the experience of using the pool.

An attempt to find out if Elliott had been to the pool to see if it was actually 'spoiled' and what the 'big difference' was went unanswered, unsurprisingly. But they got their name in the paper again so they're happy.

By yesterday, the BBC, Mail and Sun had run the story and today the Mirror, Star and the Express followed.

None of them had gone to the centre, or done any actual journalism (copying and pasting quotes and phoning the TPA is not journalism, although you wouldn't know it from many papers today).

Every headline suggested that this happened solely because of Muslims. The Star and Mirror didn't bother to include the quote which pointed out:

"We received a request from the Muslim Community to protect the modesty of swimmers. There were also requests made by some non-Muslim users as well."

Most of the others left this until the end of their article. It's not convenient to their narrative to reveal that non-Muslims would be involved, so they try their best to ignore it, hoping their readers do the same.

The Express' online article carried a headline which talked of 'appeasing Muslims' - a word that seems to have been deliberately chosen.

The Mail and Sun both hugely over-exaggerated the extent of the changes. Swimmers plunged into dark after council covers swimming pool windows 'to protect Muslim women's modesty' claimed the Mail. Pool blacked out for Muslim swim ranted the Sun.

'Blacked out'? Really?

The Sun said:

the local council has covered all 250 windows at the centre in Darlaston...the move has plunged the pool into permanent darkness

The Mail:

council staff have covered 250 windows with dark-tinted film

The Mirror agreed that:

All 250 windows at the pool have been covered

This claim about the gloominess was boosted by one of the (apparently) furious leisure centre users who claimed the pool looked no different now as it did to her when she had cataracts.

But it wasn't true. The Mail (and the print edition of the Express) included pictures which clearly showed it wasn't 'all' the windows that were now covered:


So, this afternoon, Walsall Council issued a statement, attacking the:

inaccurate and misleading media coverage of work carried out at Darlaston Leisure Centre.

Have all 250 windows been blacked out? Not quite:

The council has come under fire for applying a translucent film to 58 window panels

Ah. But that still means it's pitch black inside, no?

No:

Anyone who will now use the pool will see that it's not in darkness at all. It’s like cling film, which allows in natural light; so this suggestion that its windows are blacked out are misleading and inaccurate.

What about the Express' claim that the Muslims 'forced' this to happen?

The funding for this work comes from Area Based Grant from the Government. We asked local people how public services could be more responsive to the needs of different cultural groups...

Adjustments are made to facilities from time to time in response to suggestions from people in the community.

We agreed it was a good idea and all users will benefit from these improvements.

So the Council responds to suggestions from local people and this is a reason to splash it on the front page and pour scorn on it.

As Councillor Anthony Harris says:

"The same measures were taken at Bloxwich Leisure Centre around 10 years ago, in response to requests from the community there. It's a shame that such minor adjustments, aimed at encouraging more people to enjoy a healthy pastime, have provoked such a negative response."

In essence, a leisure centre has added a few privacy measures to a swimming pool after suggestions from Muslims and non-Muslims.

The tabloids turn this into: Muslims force Council to black out all windows in a swimming pool so they can swim while ruining it for everyone else.

The backlash against Muslims on the newspaper comment pages has been as vicious, intolerant and ignorant as you might expect.

Express headline invents new 'Eurocrat' myth

Today's Express front page contains lots of their favourite subjects - English flagwaving, meddling Europeans, Muslims and banning the burkha:


It was inevitable that England's win in the World Cup would find a place on the front page, but this image seems to have been deliberately picked for this headline. It's not a picture of Fabio Capello, or goalscorer Jermain Defoe, but of English fans waving their flags and being patriotic. The headline is 'Land of Hope and Glory'.

Compare that to the main headline. It's as if the Express is saying - look at what 'Eurocrats' and Muslims are conspiring to do against you. Look at what they're doing to damage your proud country.

So what is this story about? The headline very clearly implies that 'Eurocrats' (whoever they actually are - in this case, they actually mean parliamentarians) have said 'you' (whoever 'you' is, but presumably members states) can't ban the burkha.

Yet in the very first sentence of Nick Fagge's article, the headline is called into question:

Europe backed the burkha yesterday by ruling that the controversial Muslim veils should not be banned.

So whereas the headline is you 'can't ban the burkha', the first line says you 'should not'. That is a significant difference.

And the third sentence of the article makes this clear:

The Council of Europe’s resolution is not binding on members of the group.

Therefore, this is unlikely to have any effect at all on the planned bans in France, the Netherlands and Spain.

What actually happened yesterday was the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted a resolution opposing a general ban:

on wearing the burqa and the niqab or other religious clothing...though it added that legal restrictions may be justified “for security purposes, or where the public or professional functions of individuals require their religious neutrality, or that their face can be seen”...

...the veiling of women is often perceived as “a symbol of the subjugation of women to men” but a general ban would deny women “who genuinely and freely desire to do so” their right to cover their face.

What that is clearly not saying is: 'you can't ban the burkha' - indeed, it says there may be justifiable legal restrictions on it.

But as usual with an Express front page, why bother with the facts when a scaremongering, myth-making headline will do instead?

Mail clarifies anti-Muslim story

The Press Complaints Commission has published details of a complaint against the Mail and the Evening Standard by Ms Farah Ahmed, a trustee of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation.

It's not clear why the PCC has not published this sooner, given the Mail published the clarification back in March.

It sounds as if the articles carried much the same allegations as those in this groundless Express front page scare story, where money that they claimed was going to 'fanatics who want to kill us' was actually going on children's nursery places.

Here's the complaint:

Ms Farah Ahmed is a trustee of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation - a charity which runs Muslim faith schools - and the head teacher of the organisation's Slough-based school.

She complained to the Press Complaints Commission, on behalf of the ISF, that articles in the two newspapers - reporting that "members of Hizb ut-Tahrir", a "militant Islamic group" had received over £100,000 of public money to run schools - contained inaccuracies and misled readers.

She said that, in fact, parents of pupils at ISF schools had claimed education grants to which they were entitled, and that the ISF had no links to Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The resolution begins:

The newspapers said that the articles were based on a story published by the Sunday Telegraph.

Once again, the initial reaction is to blame someone else. It can't possibly be the Mail's fault that they didn't check the story out.

But they wrote this anyway:

An article of 26 October 2009 stated that Hizb ut-Tahrir was given £113,000 of public money to run schools.

In fact, the money was given in the form of the nursery education grant, to the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation; a registered charity which maintains that it is not an extremist group, is independent from any other organisation and has no links with Hizb ut-Tahrir.

We are happy to clarify the situation.

A clarification five months later, and no apology.

The Mail had also claimed a Hizb ut-Tahrir member groomed a suicide bomber, which it apologised for in April. Now it has corrected an incorrect claim about Hizb ut-Tahrir's links to schools.

It seems accurate reporting is less important to the Mail than creating scare stories around Islamic bogeymen.

About that ban on England shirts...

As anyone with a Facebook account already knows, a depressingly large number of people believe the 'PC brigade' is planning to ensure no one steps inside a pub while wearing an England shirt for the entire duration of the World Cup, if not for all time.

None of them seem to have been much thought as to whether this was either true, likely, or even possible.

It seems to have started in the Sun, with the headline: Bid to ban England tops in World Cup pubs.

Unfortunately, once you read the first line of that article, with the all important 'could be banned' by 'killjoy cops' you knew it wasn't actually happening.

The more you read, the more it unravelled:

The advice comes in a letter from the Metropolitan Police to pubs in Croydon, South London.

Among World Cup guidance, it suggests 'dress code restrictions - eg no football shirts'.

So it's 'advice', rather than some all-encompassing, this-must-be-obeyed diktat. A Met Police spokesman said (when it was issued several weeks ago):

“There’s no obligation to follow the advice. It’s a series of suggestions sent to pubs in Croydon.”

And it's a letter from one police force, to pubs in one part of the country (where there were riots when England lost to France in the Euro 2004 championship - the advice also included plastic containers and extra security on the door).

And the advice it asks landlords to consider is actually 'no football shirts', not 'no England shirts'.

But apart from all that...

Sunny Hundal and Anton at Enemies of Reason (here and here) have already posted on this story, and debunked it, but as if to make it absolutely clear, the Met Police finally denied the story yesterday:

A spokesman said: "This letter contains a series of suggestions to make pubs safer for everyone.

"However, licensees are not obliged to follow our advice and there is no policy to stop the wearing of England shirts."

And an Inspector from West Midlands Police also denied there was any ban on flags:

"It is nonsense. Police officers are football fans too and patriotism should be an important part of enjoying the tournament in a fun and friendly atmosphere as long as people are sensible."

What is frightening is not just that people still manage to get whipped up by believing an obviously bogus story in the Sun, but that it unleashes a streak of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment despite it being both untrue and nothing to do with either group.

'Shite like this'

When David Cameron appointed Baroness Warsi to the Cabinet - the first female Muslim to have that honour - the reaction of some people on the Sun's messageboards was loathsome:



'They should have nothing to do with running our country'. Having been born in Yorkshire, how is Britain not Warsi's country?

Newspaper website messageboards, like the interwebs in general, do attract extremist views - anyone who saw the gloating of some Mail readers over the death of an illegal immigrant would know that.

MySun also attracts such comments, but the moderators do little to remove them once the appear.

So we get this:

And this:


And this:


The last two comments were in reaction to the case of Bashir Aden, an asylum seeker from Somalia.

How has the immigration debate gone so awry that immigrants are referred to as 'shite' and 'excrement'?

The Sun's own house rules state:

Prohibited content includes, but is not limited to content that, in the opinion of Provider:

14.1 is offensive;

14.2 promotes racism, terrorism, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual or links to websites that promote the same;

How do comments such as these not fall foul of that?

Respect

Hard as it is to believe, the Daily Star has actually had news about the election on its front page every day for the last week.

And no, it hasn't been 'Jordan votes for this' or 'Cheryl supports that'-type coverage:


Like most of the Star's reporting, it's probably written for three-year-olds, but hey, at least it's not Kerry Katona.

Today, the Star had David Cameron and Nick Clegg on the front (calling them Ant and Dec, the same comparison used by Jan Moir...), but it chose another story for its lead:


The headline doesn't make much sense, but then the article is rubbish anyway. As is the Star's 'Exclusive' tag, given that the story was in the Sun and on the Mail website the previous day.

Originally, the Mail gave their article this misleading headline:

Parents' outrage as children told 'dress as a Muslim for mosque trip - or you will be branded a truant'.

But this has now been changed - and softened - to Catholic school girl who refused headscarf for mosque trip labelled a truant.

Why? Because the school wasn't forcing anyone to 'dress as a Muslim'.

The story is this: Ellesmere Port Catholic High School has organised a trip to a local mosque for its Year 9 pupils. They were told, in a letter helpfully published by the Mail:

Pupils will be expected to wear full school uniform. As you can appreciate the Mosque has a strict dress code, all girls must have a skirt that is over the knee and must wear a headscarf (a simple scarf that covers the head will suffice).

Does a Catholic school's uniform, with a simple scarf over the head added, really sound like pupils were being forced to 'dress as a Muslim'?

Apparently it does to Nick Seaton from the rent-an-outrage-quote Campaign for Real Education:

'Everyone should respect the religion of others but to expect a pupil to dress up to this extent is extreme to say the least. It is ridiculous'.

'Dress up to this extent'? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about.

Anyway, when one mother - Michelle Davies - complained, she was told by the headteacher that this was a compulsory field trip and if her daughter did not go, it would be recorded as an unauthorised absence.

And because she didn't like that, it seems she went running to the papers to become a martyr to the cause.

Davies is quoted as saying:

'I wasn't having my daughter dressed in the Muslim way...

'I also fail to see how a three-hour trip to a mosque is of any educational value to a Catholic when she can learn about the Muslim faith in the classroom'.

And from the Star:

Another parent, Kirsty Ashworth, whose daughter Charlie Sheen was due to attend, said: 'I send my daughter to an English-speaking Catholic school, so I don’t see why she should be forced to dress as a Muslim.'

Which, of course, she wasn't. Frankly, both parents sound as if an educational trip such as this would do both of them some good. Who really sounds like the intolerant party here?

But the Star isn't content with its inflammatory and misleading story - its editorial goes much, much further:

The headmaster...tried to force Amy to wear a Muslim-style headscarf.

It's disgusting. Everyone involved should hang their head in shame.

Amy is a Catholic. Her beliefs should be respected.

Demanding she ditch her faith for Islam is the ultimate religious insult.

Errr, what? Where has the Star invented the line that she was being forced to 'ditch her faith'?

This was about schoolkids on a trip to a mosque covering their heads. How did it become 'demanding' someone convert to Islam?

That line really is an utter disgrace.

As several of the people leaving (surprisingly tolerant) comments on the Mail website point out, on their trips to synagogues, St Mark's Basilica in Venice and St Peter's in Rome and so on, coverings for shoulders, arms and/or heads were required attire for visitors. Most people remove hats without complaint when entering a Christian church. Yet there's no similar 'outrage' about that.

But because this involves Islam, there is.

The tabloids want to claim this is another example of political correctness gone mad, of Muslims dictating what the rest of 'us' can do, of Christians under attack.

What it's actually about is people being asked to show respect in a place of worship.

Why is that so problematic?

Sun pays out over false terror story

After apologising to Dr Mohammed Asha in early March, the Sun must now cough up 'substantial' libel damages because of its front page splash 'Terror case doc works in casualty'.

From MediaGuardian:

Leo Dawkins, the solicitor representing Dr Asha, told Mr Justice Eady in the high court in London today that the allegations were that 'there were very strong grounds to suspect that the claimant would be involved in the future in terrorist bomb plots and was, therefore, an ongoing threat to national security'.

He added: 'There is no truth in these allegations whatsoever. The article complained of was published to millions of people and has been devastating for the claimant, causing him immense damage both personally and professionally.'

News Group Newspapers, which publishes the Sun 'accepted that the allegations complained of were entirely false and without foundation' and:

Patrick Callaghan, solicitor for NGN, told the court: 'The defendant offers its sincerest apologies to Dr Asha for the damage it has caused and is pleased to set the record straight.'

Dr Asha added:

'The damage caused by The Sun has been incalculable, causing both myself and my family immense hurt and distress, not to mention worries over my own personal safety.

'I am glad this terrible ordeal is finally over and that The Sun has apologised and agreed to pay me compensation and my legal costs.'

(Image found at Sun Headlines)

'World's Greatest Newspaper' pays more libel damages

The Express has apologised and paid 'substantial' libel damages to:

four trustees of a UK charity after falsely claiming it had links to an al-Qaida commander.

The trustees of the Bolton-based Amanat Charity Trust, more commonly known as the Ummah Welfare Trust, sued for libel over a story published on the express.co.uk website in December 2009 headlined "Jet bomb ordered by 9/11 spirtual leader".

Here's how the Express reported the court defeat:

We apologised in the High Court today to the four Trustees of the the Ummah Welfare Trust, - Idris Atcha, Mohammed Idris, Zaker Patel and Muhammad Ahmad Seedat, a charity providing relief to developing countries.

The Court was told that an article appeared on this website from 27 December 2009 until 19 January 2010. The article wrongly alleged a link between the charity and Anwar al Awlaki, the Al Qaeda commander who is said to have been the spiritual leader of the 9/11 attacks and behind the Detroit aeroplane plot last year. The article also wrongly alleged that the charity accepted donations in order to advance terrorism and had connections to organisations with links to Hamas.

The Court heard that neither the charity nor its trustees have any connections with Anwar al Awlaki and do not support or condone his extremist views. All donations received by the charity are applied by the trustees entirely to charitable relief work and the charity nor its trustees have never funded nor had any links with Hamas or any other terrorist organisation.

We accepted that the allegations were false and apologised to the trustees.

Surely the (ahem) 'World's Greatest Newspaper' shouldn't be paying out libel damages quite so frequently?

Express papers clarify religious reporting

First up, a five-months-later apology to the Unification Church over an article that, according to the complainant:

made a number of inaccurate claims about the organisation.

In particular, he pointed out that a government investigation had concluded that allegations of brainwashing were unfounded, that Reverend Moon had not been banned from the UK for 27 years, and that none of the couples in any of the mass weddings conducted had met for the first time at the ceremony itself.

He was also concerned that the article's use of the term 'moonie' had represented a derogatory and discriminatory reference to unificationists.

So by way of resolution:

The complaint was resolved when the PCC helped to negotiate publication of the following clarification:

In our article on 15 October 2009 about a mass wedding conducted by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, we incorrectly said that many of the couples had met for the first time at the ceremony itself.

In the same article we also stated that Reverend Moon had been banned from the UK for 27 years whereas that is not the case. We are happy to clarify these points and apologise for any confusion caused.

In addition, the newspaper agreed to amend its records to reflect the points raised by the complainant, and also noted his request of meeting with one of its representatives.

Also, a clarification from the Sunday Express on 14 March 2010 to the East London Mosque:

Our article of December 27, 2009 'Jet bomb ordered by 9/11 spiritual leader' stated that Anwar al Awlaki, the Yemen based cleric said to have inspired the failed plot to blow up a plane bound for Detroit, had spoken at the 'radical' East London Mosque (ELM).

We would like to make clear that ELM works tirelessly to promote religious and social tolerance and to oppose violent extremism in all its forms. ELM tells us that it was not aware of any credible allegation of violent extremism against Anwar al Awlaki prior to the single occasion on which he spoke at the London Muslim Centre (LMC) at an event organised by an external organisation.

ELM does not promote or support Anwar al Awlaki. ELM would not now permit Anwar al Awlaki to speak at ELM or the LMC.

(Hat-tip Islamophobia Watch)

Muslim attitudes and attitudes towards Muslims

At the end of January, an academic research report from the European Muslim Research Centre at the University of Exeter said that media coverage of Muslims was a factor in Islamophobic attitudes and hate-crime.

Almost all the media ignored the report. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

One who did step in to fight her corner was Melanie Phillips. As the report had suggested the use of the term 'Londonistan' was unhelpful, and that is the title of Phillips' BNP-approved book, that was to be expected.

Two of her arguments deserve comment. One was this ridiculous straw man:

The attacks on British Jews, which mean that every single Jewish communal event has to be guarded and Jewish schools now shelter behind razor wire, are coming from both white racists and Muslims.

But there’s no mention of that in this study.

So Phillips was actually criticising a report entitled Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: a London Case Study for not covering attacks on Jews.

And then there's her view about whether the media influence anti-Muslim opinion:

This study claims effectively that such commentary incites violence against British Muslims. There is not one shred of evidence for this.

But she goes on to say:

Conversely, the authors make no acknowledgement of where 'truly' false and irresponsible reporting has indeed inflamed violence against a vulnerable British minority.

The way the British media reports the Middle East incites irrational hatred not just of Israel but also Jews in general.

She puts 'truly' in italics to make it clear that Muslims never suffer 'truly false' reporting (what about this or this?). But her argument is that while there is not a 'shred of evidence' that media coverage incites violence against Muslims, the British media is very responsible for inciting violence against Jews.

She says if Muslims are associated with terrorism that's because:

There is a significant terrorism problem among British Muslims.

But if people dislike Israel, it's nothing to do with the actions of the Israel and all because of false reporting.

If you believe the media has the power to incite hatred against one group, why can't it inform opinion and incite hatred against another? You can't really have it both ways.

(And as for the 'significant terrorism problem among British Muslims', it's worth remembering, as Seamus Milne reported in the Guardian, that Europol figures show 99% of the terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three years have been carried out by non-Muslims.)

Within two weeks of Phillips' piece, there was an attack on the Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Tennessee. Crusade-style crosses and the words 'Muslims go home' were scrawled on the building in red spray paint. And:

A profanity-laced hand written note was also left behind that disparaged the prophet Mohammed and even advocated the eradication of Muslims.

Yet a few days before the attack, the Channel 5 local television station ran a report entitled 'Inside Islamville: Is a Local Muslim Community Tied to TERRORISM?' Although Channel 5 admitted there was 'no evidence' of terrorist training activity, it ran the two-part report anyway.

It was, wrote Jeff Woods of the Nashville Scene:

a new low in broadcast journalism in this city...

We hope Channel 5 managed to goose its ratings a little bit with this garbage. Otherwise, Beres succeeded only in inflaming anti-Muslim sentiments.

The next day, Woods was writing about the attack on the Islamic Centre.

Now it may be that the two events are completely unconnected - clearly Phillips would say they are. But it's a big coincidence given the attack happened within days of the reports being aired and given the previously good relations in the community. A spokesman for the mosque said:

'It’s unexpected...The only thing I can think of is the sensationalized reporting [by Channel 5] over Sunday and Monday. That’s the only thing I can think of. Even after 9/11 we have never had any vandalism.'

Think Progress have an in-depth look at the incident and the Channel 5 report.

A few days after the Tennessee incident, Dr Chris Allen wrote the following in the Telegraph:

Islamophobia does not appear to be being taken seriously by the Government, the media or the general public and the situation is becoming increasingly dire - why this is remains unclear.

It could be because of a lack of understanding and recognition of the seriousness of Islamophobia; it could be because little ‘hard evidence’ exists; it could also be that anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic attitudes are becoming more socially acceptable.

Whatever the reason though, it is clear that neither Islamophobia – nor indeed anti-Semitism – are going to quickly or easily disappear.

He tied the Exeter report to a shocking report from the Community Security Trust (CST) which showed a disturbing rise in recorded anti-Semitic incidents in 2009 - up 69% on 2008.

Yet while the CST report was covered in, for example, the Mail and the Express, the Exeter report on Islamophobic hate crime wasn't. Why the difference?

The same fate befell the report Attitudes, values and perceptions - Muslims and the general population in 2007-08. It reported:

Muslims had very positive views about the level of cohesion in their local areas; the vast majority felt that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their local area and that their local area was a place where residents respected ethnic differences between people.

Muslims also expressed strong feelings of belonging, both to their neighbourhoods and to Britain as a whole, and more than nine in ten Muslims agreed that they personally felt a part of British society.

In 2007-08 Muslims also expressed high levels of trust in institutions. They were more likely than the general population to say that they trusted Parliament and their local council and, similarly to the general population, around eight in ten Muslims trusted the police.

All of which gives a very good impression of British Muslims and how they view British society and its institutions. No wonder it was ignored...

In terms of perceptions of religious prejudice, Muslims and the general population believed there was a lot or a fair amount, and that this was up from five years ago.

97% of Muslims and 90% of the general population said there was more prejudice against Muslims compared with five years ago.

Perhaps most telling of all was the responses to a question about 'personally feeling part of British society'. 93% of Muslims agreed and 93% of all people agreed - a noteworthy similarity.

When asked about the most important values for living in Britain, 61% of Muslims said 'respect for all faiths', whereas only 33% of the population as a whole said the same. As a minority faith, Muslims would be more likely to say that is important, but the difference between those figures seems stark.

And it's worth remembering the Gallup Coexist Poll from May 2009 which showed that when asked about whether Muslims were loyal to Britain, 82% of Muslims said yes and 6% no. When the general population was asked the same question about Muslims, 36% said yes and 49% said no.

Why does the general British population have such a negative view of Muslims? According to Melanie Phillips, the drip-drip of biased, exaggerated, unpleasant or untrue media stories about Muslims doesn't even begin to explain it. But given that many millions of people read or see this stuff every day, how can it not have an effect?

There's an agenda behind highlighting stories involving Muslims far more than with people from other religions. Why, for example, were terrorists Terrance Gavan, Neil Lewington and Ian Davison given far, far less coverage in the tabloid newspapers than the case of a Muslim woman who was cleared of 'failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism'?

According to two comprehensive surveys, British Muslims feel loyal to Britain, identify with Britain and feel like they belong. They believe people get on well and and there's strong community cohesion. They exhibit a high degree of trust in parliament and local councils (more than the British population as a whole) and in the police. They believe in respect for ethnic minorites and for people from all faiths to a greater degree than the population as a whole.

Yet how often do we see the tabloid newspapers reporting on any of that?