Parents say no to halal school dinners

A primary school which opted to serve only halal meat at lunch time has been accused of concealing the decision to provide Islamic compliant food from parents.

The Oxford primary school introduced halal meat to the school dinner menu in September last year as part of their inclusion policy, but failed to inform parents of the move until December. Parents at the school are now petitioning for an end to halal only meals.

In a letter to parents at the end of term Sue Mortimer, headmistress of Rose Hill Primary, said halal meat had been chosen because it was not forbidden by any religion or culture. But parents who are angered by the decision to serve just meat killed in a particular way to make it permissible for Muslims, have started a petition calling for an end to halal only meals and the introduction of a choice of meat on the menu.

Maria O’Callaghan, a parent at the school told the Oxford Mail: “I don’t agree with the way the animals are killed for halal meat.” Other parents said children should be offered a choice.

For meat to be classified halal, a Muslim must have slaughtered the animal from which it came. A prayer, including the words “Allah is great”, is said during the slaughter and all the blood is drained from the animal.

Raghib Ali, one of the founders of the Oxford Islam and Muslim Awareness project said: “The meat looks the same and tastes the same. It is just a different way the animals are reared and killed. It’s not cruel, it is better for the animal”.

Dr Taj Hargey chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, said he believed the school was at fault for not telling parents about the change.

Other schools in the area have applied to serve halal meat but Rose Hill Primary was the first in Oxfordshire to introduce the halal only policy.

Gay BMW salesman forced to quit

A gay salesman was forced out of his job at a luxury car dealership after colleagues waged a campaign of homophobic abuse towards him, a tribunal heard today.

Ben Hamilton, 26, claims he was branded “the nice poof”, “faggot” and “bender Ben” by workmates at a BMW showroom.

He told the hearing he was banned from wearing pink clothing and was made to change.

And when he grew a beard he claimed colleagues walking past him would jeer the phrase “Deal or No Deal?” at him after gameshow host Noel Edmonds up to 30 times a day.

Mr Hamilton said a manager told him: “It must be great to be gay. Does it mean you and your fella can go out, have a few beers, have a curry, beat each other up and still get laid?”

He said a colleague also mocked him for going to see an Elton John concert.

When he said the show was “crap”, the colleague allegedly replied: “But surely you boys are used to that, being in the same club. Come on, Ben, crap is an occupational hazard for you boys.

Mr Hamilton, who has been openly gay since he was 15, is claiming unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

He also claims he was constructively dismissed.

The tribunal heard that Mr Hamilton was initially employed at Scotthall BMW in Chandler’s Ford, Hants, from December 2004 as a salesman.

Today he told the hearing: “Work became dramatically more unpleasant and less successful for me from that point on.

“It was soon painfully clear gay men were regarded as fair game for abuse, bullying and harassment because of their sexuality.

“I had always been open about my sexuality, yet never expected to be treated differently because of it.

“Despite taking great pride in my appearance I was regularly criticised, belittled and humiliated about it.

“I believe that was due to my sexuality. For example, I was singled out to ensure my appearance did not conform in any way to the sexual stereotyping of a gay man.

“I was strongly discouraged from wearing anything pink because when I did I attracted comments such as ’sweetheart, what on earth are you wearing’ and ‘hello sweety’.

“Mark Hannon (a manager) said ‘yahoo sweety, oh you look smashing’, tongue-in-cheek in a camp voice and with a silly wave.

“Others wore pink clothing without attracting such comments or jibes. I believe that was because they were not gay.

“I was even told in a sales meeting to go home and change my clothes. I was wearing a pink shirt and pink tie with a black suit.

“At least 10 other people were there. I had no choice and did what I was told. I went home and changed into a white shirt and a blue tie. I felt humiliated.”

Mr Hamilton, of Eastleigh, Hants, said he grew a ‘discreet’ beard but was told to ‘go home and shave’ by bosses.

“My hair is light brown, not ginger. Since then, I was regularly greeted by Mark Hannon and another colleague with ‘all right Noel – Deal or No Deal?’

“This could be up to 30 times a day in front of work colleagues and mostly on the sales floor.”

Mr Hamilton added: “When you’re the victim you just cannot help feeling degraded.

“It was veiled hostility and homophobia aimed at belittling and humiliating me about my sexuality – something I cannot change.

“I couldn’t really win. When I objected I was instantly made out to be bolshy and a bad sport.”

He claimed colleagues who went on anti-discrimination training did not take the sessions seriously.

The tribunal heard that in the summer of 2006 Mr Hamilton visited his GP. He was diagnosed as suffering from severe stress symptoms and was signed off sick.

In October that year he resigned from his job.

The employment tribunal in Southampton, Hants, continues.

Aged 76 and in handcuffs: The council tax rebel jailed for refusing to pay

Prisoner of principle: Richard Fitzmaurice is taken to the cells

Handcuffed and clearly distressed, a 76-year-old exserviceman is led away to begin a prison sentence.His crime? Non-payment of council tax.

Richard Fitzmaurice appeared shocked when a pair of handcuffs was slapped around his wrists as soon as his 34-day sentence was passed at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court, Norfolk, yesterday.

Mr Fitzmaurice, who spent 22 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, had declared in court: “I am here on a matter of principle. The way old age pensioners are being treated is shameful.”

He said that rising fuel and food costs, along with council tax rises, were making life unbearable for many elderly people.

Mr Fitzmaurice, who has high blood pressure, added: “I can afford to pay it but there are very many people on fixed incomes who cannot.

“This morning there will be pensioners making cups of tea while they are standing in their overcoats. There will be many sitting in front of one-bar electric fires. Is that fair?

“Pensioners in this country are the worst treated in Europe. It is not fair and it is not right. I have no other way of protesting.”

Catherine Saunders, representing King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, said the authority had no option but to seek a prison sentence.

Chairman of the bench Sandy Chandler told the old soldier: “You are clearly a man of principle, but we have to enforce the law.”

As the handcuffs were put on him, the former warrant officer asked: “Is that really necessary? You don’t need those for me.”

But the court ruled “procedures had to be followed”.

Tax rebel: Richard Fitzmaurice was a soldier for 22-years

While violent offenders may be released on licence halfway through their sentence, Mr Fitzmaurice must serve his full term unless the debt is paid because there is no remission for non-payment of council tax.

Yesterday he began his sentence in a police cell in Peterborough as there was not enough space at the local jail. When he is transferred, he will be held alongside muggers and burglars.

It is the second time he has been over his stance which began after he became increasingly angry that he and his wife were having to limit what they spent on food in order to pay their council tax.

In 2006, he served three days of a 32-day sentence before his family, concerned about his health, paid his council tax.

Mr Fitzmaurice, who lives with his wife Rita, 77, in Heacham, Norfolk, owes £1,359 on his 2007-2008 Band D council tax plus £209 bailiff’s and court costs. The couple receive £200 a week in pensions.

He went to court yesterday, clutching a washbag, accompanied by his son Christopher, daughter Sally and other supporters.

After the hearing, his daughter said: “Non-payment of council tax only carries a custodial sentence. It is part of an unfair system.”

The family had not made any decision about paying off the debt, she added. “We will have to wait and see whether it will be necessary to get him out.”

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said he applauded Mr Fitzmaurice’s “brave stand”.

Newspapers reprint controversial Mohamed cartoon

Denmark’s leading newspapers today reprinted a cartoon that depicts the Prophet Mohamed wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

The papers said they wanted to show their firm commitment to freedom of speech after Tuesday’s arrest in western Denmark of three people accused of plotting to kill the man who drew the cartoon.

The drawing by Kurt Westergaard and 11 other cartoons depicting Mohamed enraged Muslims two years ago when they appeared in a range of Western newspapers.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

The Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which first published the 12 drawings on 30 September 2005, reprinted Westergaard’s cartoon in its paper edition today. Several other major dailies, including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende, also reprinted the drawing, which shows Mohamed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.

“We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend,” said the Copenhagen-based Berlingske Tidende.

Tabloid Ekstra Bladet reprinted all 12 drawings.

The police intelligence agency, PET, said two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin were arrested yesterday in pre-dawn raids in Aarhus, western Denmark.

PET chief Jakob Scharf said the purpose of the operation was “to prevent a terror-related assassination of one of the cartoonists behind the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed.”

Jyllands-Posten said the plot focused on Westergaard, 73, who works for the paper.

Scharf said the Danish suspect would likely be released after questioning, but could still face charges of violating a Danish terror law. The two Tunisians would be expelled from Denmark because they were considered threats to national security, he said.

Massive protests swept the Muslim world in early 2006 following the publishing of the cartoons. Danes watched in disbelief as angry mobs burned the Danish flag and attacked the country’s embassies in Muslim countries including Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Danish products were boycotted in several Muslim countries.

Iranian Sisters face being stoned to death

Two Iranian sisters convicted of adultery face being stoned to death after the Supreme Court upheld death sentences against them, Iranian media have reported.

The two sisters were found guilty of adultery — a capital crime in Iran — after the husband of one of the pair presented a video showing them in the company of other men while he was away. The penal court of Teheran province had already sentenced the sisters, identified only as Zohreh, 27, and Azar, to stoning, the newspaper said.

The Etemad newspaper quoted Jabbar Solati, their lawyer, as saying that the sisters had initially been tried for “illegal relations” and had received 99 lashes. However, they were convicted of “adultery” in a second trial for the same incident. The pair admitted they were in the video but argued there was no adultery as no scene on the video showed them engaged in a sexual act.

Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man

Story from Times Online

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia’s religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom’s “Mutaween” police.

Her story offers a rare first-hand glimpse of the discrimination faced by women living in Saudi Arabia. In her first interview with the foreign press, Yara told The Times that she would remain in Saudi Arabia to challenge its harsh enforcement of conservative Islam rather than return to America.

“If I want to make a difference I have to stick around. If I leave they win. I can’t just surrender to the terrorist acts of these people,” said Yara, who moved to Jeddah eight years ago with her husband, a prominent businessman.

Her ordeal began with a routine visit to the new Riyadh offices of her finance company, where she is a managing partner.

The electricity temporarily cut out, so Yara and her colleagues — who are all men — went to a nearby Starbucks to use its wireless internet.

She sat in a curtained booth with her business partner in the café’s “family” area, the only seats where men and women are allowed to mix.

For Yara, it was a matter of convenience. But in Saudi Arabia, public contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited.

“Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked ‘Why are you here together?’. I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin,” recalled Yara, who wears an abaya and headscarf, like most Saudi women.

The men were from Saudi Arabia’s Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.

Yara, whose parents are Jordanian and grew up in Salt Lake City, once believed that life in Saudi Arabia was becoming more liberal. But on Monday the religious police took her mobile phone, pushed her into a cab and drove her to Malaz prison in Riyadh. She was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime”.

“They took me into a filthy bathroom, full of water and dirt. They made me take off my clothes and squat and they threw my clothes in this slush and made me put them back on,” she said. Eventually she was taken before a judge.

“He said ‘You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell’. I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless,” she said.

Yara’s husband, Hatim, used his political contacts in Jeddah to track her whereabouts. He was able to secure her release.

“I was lucky. I met other women in that prison who don’t have the connections I did,” she said. Her story has received rare coverage in Saudi Arabia, where the press has been sharply critical of the police.

Yara was visited yesterday by officials from the American Embassy, who promised they would file a report.

An embassy official told The Times that it was being treated as “an internal Saudi matter” and refused to comment on her case.

Tough justice

— Saudi Arabia’s Mutaween has 10,000 members in almost 500 offices

— Ahmad al-Bluwi, 50, died in custody in 2007 in the city of Tabuk after he invited a woman outside his immediate family into his car

— In 2007 the victim of a gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six years in jail for having been in an unrelated man’s car at the time. She was pardoned by King Abdullah, although he maintained the sentence had been fair

Despite lying and conniving, churches fail to thwart scientific progress

Politicised religious groups have been piling their resources and campaigning efforts into trying to undermine the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as it makes its way through parliament. So far they have failed completely in their efforts.

But they aren’t finished yet. Despite all their many would-be amendments being thrown out in the House of Lords, there is now a push by Catholic Labour MPs to be given a free vote when the Bill returns to the House of Commons, probably after Easter.

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and the new Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy, who are both Catholics, are leading the calls. It follows Catholic objections to several elements of the Bill, for instance, the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos to allow scientists to look for ways of combating terminal illnesses, and the provision for children to be born by IVF without a father’s involvement.

Ms Kelly recently met Geoff Hoon, Labour’s chief whip, to ask for voting restrictions to be removed from much, if not all, of the Bill. At the moment MPs will only be allowed a free vote on any amendments that are tabled on abortion. Defence Secretary Des Browne is also understood to have concerns. All three ministers are prominent Catholics. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, leader of Britain’s four million Catholics, has condemned the bill as “profoundly wrong” because it “radically undermines the place of the father in a child’s life”. The Cardinal recently organised a meeting for Catholic MPs to encourage them to defy the party whip on the Bill and support Church doctrine.

Paul Goggins, a Northern Ireland Office minister, is another to have raised the matter with Hoon. Labour sources say three whips — Tommy McAvoy, Frank Roy and Tony Cunningham — also have serious ethical problems with at least some of the bill. All four are Catholics.

Votes in the Lords on the Bill were whipped to secure its safe passage. Any MPs voting against it in the Commons, or abstaining, could face the ire of the whips. A delegation of Labour MPs linked to the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group are due to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown soon to express their concerns.

But the Catholic campaign against the Bill has come under fire from scientists, who accused priests of spreading lies from the pulpit in an attempt to stoke up opposition to animal-human hybrid experiments. The Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales issued a statement attacking the Bill which was read out to congregations across the country last week. It warned that the Bill would allow the creation of “half human, half animals” by combining eggs of women with the sperm of animals. It added: “To do this would be a radical violation of human dignity.” But scientists involved in animal-human embryo experiments accused the church of “blatant inaccuracy”.

Dr Lyle Armstrong, of Newcastle University, said the Church’s statement was “a gross and irresponsible misrepresentation of our position and our intentions”. Hybrid embryos were designed to provide stem cells to treat human diseases – not to create half-human, half-animals, he said. He added: “We find their example of combining the egg of a woman with animal sperm even more distasteful and we wish to make it absolutely clear that our work does not involve this. The aim of our experiments is to discover ways to make stem cells [to treat] human diseases. It is not to give birth to some abnormal chimera. Even if this were possible it has no scientific or moral justification and is in any case strictly prohibited by the legislation. We find it surprising and saddening that the Catholic Church should resort to such blatant inaccuracy to support its message in these matters.”

The Bill would permit scientists to take an animal egg cell, remove the blob in the centre which contains most of the animal’s DNA and replace it with the nucleus from a human cell, taken from a donor. The resulting embryo is 99.9 per cent identical to the human donor – although it contains some animal DNA left over from the egg.

Chris Shaw, Professor of Neurology and Neurogenetics, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said: “The bishops’ statement on hybrids is not a radical violation of human dignity as they claim – it is a radical violation of the truth.”

This is not the first time the Catholic Church has lied about scientific matters in order to enforce its doctrines. A few years ago it claimed that the virus that can cause AIDS was capable of passing through the walls of a condom. This was condemned by the World Health Organisation and many leading scientists as a dangerous and irresponsible distortion that would discourage condom use among people in the developing world, where Catholic influence is greatest and AIDS is at its most devastating. The Church has not withdrawn the claim.

Pope condemns stem cell research

Faith-based welfare: the hand-over accelerates

A Bishop in the House of Lords has claimed that the Church should not face regulation when welfare and health care are handed over to it by central and local government. The Bishop of Carlisle, Graham Dow, also made a bid for a church levy from every British taxpayer.

Mr Dow said that when the Government commissioned the Church to provide welfare services, it should do so on trust and not subject it to regulation. He said: “Church projects of course would be audited, but not controlled. My opinion is that, recently, we have been building a society that is very low on trust and very high on inspection and control.”

The bishop indicated that the Church intends, where it deems it appropriate, to give priority to church doctrine ahead of open service provision – particularly where gay people are concerned.

The Bishop said: “A fundamental [area of concern], is the possibility of a clash of views in the spheres of justice and ethical values, and the implications that this would have if the church was the recipient of large sums of taxpayers’ money for the provision of welfare. The church sees part of its role as challenging existing assumptions and values, and being an advocate for those with little voice or power. We must be about advocacy as well as about delivery.”

He continued: “In spite of huge areas of agreement on the welfare of our citizens, it is increasingly possible that differences could lead us into significant difficulty over, for example, protection for the poor or policies which challenge the Christian understanding of marriage. If the church chose to challenge certain policies and the values undergirding them, it could have government funding denied. Then it could be trapped in the unenviable position of … having to go along with a policy which compromised the position required by its faith.”

Mr Dow revealed that: “The church is signing 25-year contracts for the new academies. Christian groups bidding to deliver dentistry are getting 20-year contracts.”

The bishop also put the case for Britain to have a mandatory church tax, as is operational in Germany and some Scandinavian countries. He said: “Both Government and church are well aware that in the Scandinavian countries and Germany the church provides extensive welfare services. These countries have a church tax, which is paid by most citizens. The money received through taxation is returned to the church in support of its ministers, its buildings and in making possible the extensive welfare work done in its name. I admit that I have sometimes wished that we had a church tax in the United Kingdom. Because welfare provision in these European countries is long-standing, the arrangements for financial provision offer financial security to the church and its welfare institutions. The church is treated as a partner, and its work is trusted, rather than controlled.”

Bishop Dow revealed that the Government had, for more than two years, “been in conversation with church leaders about the possibility of the church providing extensive welfare services, rather in the way that the church plays a major part in education.”

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “This is our worst nightmare come true. It is only by this sort of off-the-cuff remark that we know all this is going on behind closed doors. Does the British public know that dentistry is being handed over to religious groups? Our welfare services are being religionised by stealth.

Mr Sanderson said: “The Church of England is making clear that it wants to take over public services that have been traditionally open to all without question and that it wants the right to discriminate against service users if it deems them to be in conflict with their doctrines – particularly gay people or those cohabiting outside marriage. As the law stands, it can’t do that, but it is trying all the time to turn the clock back a hundred years. We need urgent reassurances from the Government that they will not allow the Bishop of Carlisle’s vision of social welfare ever to come into being. He sees the provision of welfare services as an instrument of control. We have seen how religious bodies are forcing unwilling parents into church with their ruthless control over schools. Let’s hope that we don’t have to produce a vicar’s letter, as we do for some Church schools, in order to have our teeth fixed or to deny our sexuality in order to gain access to an old folks home.”

Read the whole of the bishop’s speech here