LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE UPDATE, 25 MAY 2013

Dear George

As a trusted partner we feel it is important to keep you updated this morning with regards to any local incidents which may be related to events in Woolwich.

It’s reassuring to report that, three days after the tragic events in London, the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland remain calm and there has been no significant incident or activity since our last update. 

Local officers will continue their work in their neighbourhoods across the bank holiday weekend, linking in with faith groups and partners, listening to concerns of our communities and to give reassurance.   

There is still no intelligence to suggest there will be a negative reaction locally to events in London but we will continue to monitor this and will update you of any developments. Similarly, if anyone in your community has any information and concerns they can help us in our efforts by calling 101. 

It was great to welcome the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, to Leicester yesterday and hear him and Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, calling for unity. It seems that the people of Leicester support that message too. 

Once again, thank you for your help and assistance over the past few days. The people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are very proud of the excellent community relations and the respect we have for different cultures, communities and religious beliefs and the vast majority clearly want this to continue.

Rob Nixon

Chief Superintendent

Leicester City BCU Commander

ARCHBISHOP & IMAM ISSUE APPEAL FOR UNITY

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Archbishop and Imam issue appeal for unity

by Dan Martin

The Archbishop of Canterbury today stressed the need for unity among Leicester’s religious communities in the aftermath of the brutal killing of a soldier in a suspected terrorist attack.

The Most Rev Justin Welby, the Church of England’s most senior clergyman, said the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich by two apparent Muslim extremists had “no place in Islam.”

The archbishop spoke about the young soldier’s murder outside the Masjid Umar mosque, in Evington, after rearranging his schedule in a visit to Leicester, planned before Wednesday’s horrific events.He met officials from the mosque, along with the bishops of Woolwich, Bradford and Pontefract as well as Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens.

he archbishop stood side-by-side with assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain Ibrahim Mogra to address reporters follwing events in the capital.

The archbishop said: “We have all been horrified by the brutal murder of drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and all of our prayers are with his family, colleagues and comrades, all those who witnessed this crime and members of the community who have been affected by it.

“I want to recognise the response of churches, mosques and other faith and civil society groups, as well as those brave individuals who have done so much to bring our communities together at this time.”

The archbishop, who later signed a book of condolence opened for the murdered 25-year-old at Leicester Cathedral, added: “The strong response from the Muslim Council of Britain and many other organisations have rightly emphasised that these acts have no place in Islam.”

He added: “I think Leicester is a shining example of how communities work together. I am confident because of the very good work Ibrahim (Mogra) has been doing, and we are all doing, that we are in a good position.”

Mr Mogra said: “Muslim communities in Britain are shocked and appalled by the horrific murder in Woolwich.

“The murderers chanted slogans during their heinous crime claiming to do it in God’s name.

“Far from it.

“This is a betrayal of Islam.

“This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn it utterly and unreservedly.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with Lee Rigby’s family and friends and especially his two-year-old son.

“Drummer Rigby was a serving member of the armed forces.

“Muslims have long served in this country’s armed forces proudly and with honour.

“This attack on a member of the armed forces is dishonourable and no cause can justify this murder.

“This crime has heightened tensions across the country. The MCB calls on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail.

“I am immensely grateful for the leadership of our archbishop during this most difficult time and thank leaders of all our faith communities for your support.

“Your local Muslim communities will welcome your support and I encourage you to knock at the doors of every mosque and offer you neighbourly love.

He added: “There is concern about safety in large sections of Muslim communities who live in mixed areas.

“We hope that the police will ensure law and order is maintained.

“We say to the Muslim community: “Let us continue with our lives as normal.

“If we begin to cower and hide ourselves away then we allow the terrorists win. Life must go on.”

Bishop Tim said: “I hope what is clear is that this terrible incident, from driving a wedge between us will bring us closer together.”

Hundreds of worshippers gathered at the mosque for Friday payers and heard Imam Muhammad Sindhi condemn Wednesday’s tragedy.

He said: “Don’t be extremists. In Islam there is no space for terror or terrorism.

“Islam doesn’t teach, in broad daylight, to go out into the streets of London wielding a butcher’s cleaver and hack someone to death.

“This Stone Age savagery is not the message of Islam.”

TOO MANY SCHOOLS IN CHURCH HANDS?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Too many schools in church hands?

In a recent letter I made some remarks about the Church of England which Archdeacon David Newman (Mailbox, February 13) says were misleading.

But, before replying to this, I would like to take up his statement that "there is no such thing as a 'neutral' school in terms of ethos".What does he mean by "ethos" and by "neutral"? Do community schools have an ethos? We are diverse in beliefs but one in humanity.

It seems to me that the appropriate ethos for our schools would be one that starts from people and our common humanity; one that, through respect for people, respects their religions and beliefs and welcomes the contributions that they can make – a school ethos that brings children together.

What is his position on this?

Now, back to those remarks about the Church of England. I accept that most Church of England schools do not select pupils by religion. But the Church insists on its schools having the power to do this, and its Dearing report recommends having a "substantial core" of Christian pupils and teachers.

I accept that most Church schools do not directly seek to convert children.

But what should we make of those Dearing recommendations along the lines: tie the parish church, clergy and school as close together as possible; have a meaningful act of Christian worship every day; proclaim the school as CofE by external notice board, by displays of symbols inside and outside the school (the Samworth Academy includes a new parish church).

The Church of England is using state-funded schools to proclaim its own religion, not infrequently to children for whom its school is the only convenient one.

On expansion plans: last year the Bishop of Oxford, chair of the Church's National Board of Education, said that the past decade has seen "the most significant expansion of places" in the past 200 years; and the Archbishop of Canterbury remarked last September on the prospect of the Church becoming the largest "provider" of secondary education and with post offices, libraries, citizens advice centres in its schools.

David Newman himself tells us that the Church sees itself providing services to non-church schools. This expansion is from a base of one quarter of all state schools in 2001.

Is this not too great a concentration in the hands of one body?

Allan Hayes, Leicester

We need an ethos that we can all share

Here's the First Person column from today's Leicester Mercury

We need an ethos that we can all share 

Allan Hayes considers the social problems underlying the outbreak of street violence 

In the last week I have gone through a range of feelings: disbelief, shame; reassurance/relief; and pride in the way communities were asserting themselves. Government must carry out its overriding responsibility for law and order, but we need to ask if there are things about our society that need correcting. 

In his speech to the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed to the importance of the ethos of our educational institutions – he wants them to educate "citizens, not consumers, not cogs in an economic system"; to produce empathy with others and a "deepened sense of our involvement together in a social project". This is admirable and it is surely something that all our schools aim to do – we need to put more into helping them. 

But the ethos must be one that we can all share, whatever might be the motivation or basis that we may bring to it personally or from our own culture; and empathy and a sense of involvement are surely better nurtured when children from different backgrounds grow up together. 

Moreover, we need also to be concerned about the ethos of our society as a whole: is it fair, does it care for all its members? There is a perception, not restricted to rioters, that the poor and the young are bearing an unfair share of the consequences of amoral, detached financial mismanagement; that a game is being played that ignores most of us. 

Government must show that people count, that in deciding policy, the effect on people carries weight. Financial management is important, but we are getting the impression that the financial bottom line comes first and the effect on people is a side issue. 

We need to be aware of some deep problems in our society: gross income inequalities, and how low we rank internationally in care for our children. We need to work on building one community, one caring society; and we need to develop its capacity to act.Central to this will be more and better communication and ways of helping one another: getting to know one another – help from professionals and businesses in providing our youngsters with hope and vision.Should we not replace the present prescribed courses in religious education with an inclusive celebration of our humanity, including our religions? The recent television series on the life of Muhammed was a fine example (the account of his last sermon was particularly moving), and we should teach about the Muslim contribution to civilization – we must be able to be proud of one another. 

The Archbishop ended by referring to this time as a moment "which could be crucial for the long-term future of our country and our society" – I think he was right. 

Allan Hayes is director of Leicester Secular Society

WE NEED LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR THIS VITAL DEBATE

Allan Hayes's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

We need level playing field for this vital debate

Allan Hayes considers the merits of the Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the Government

The article by the Archbishop of Canterbury in last Friday's New Statesman raises important and fundamental issues for our society: it deserves to be considered carefully. The Archbishop's sometimes allusive style can make it difficult to see what he is getting at, but the implications of phrases like "managerial politics, attempting with shrinking success to negotiate life in the shadow of big finance", "an increasingly audible plea for some basic thinking about democracy itself", "things that cannot be left to chance" and "confusion about the means", are absolutely clear – we must join together in thinking deeply and seriously about where we are going.

His call for an open probing of the current reworking of our education system is particularly relevant to schooling in our city, and I join him in asking whether we are forgetting our duty to educate our children as carriers of our humanity and not just as contributors to our economy.

He lists things that we must take seriously at a national level and cannot be left to localism: child poverty, youth services, access to good education and sustainable infrastructure. The first of these has just been brought home to us recently in the television programme "Poor Kids", and the more general problem of unequal distribution of wealth is increasingly being recognised as maiming society, besides being morally unacceptable.

He is concerned about cultural fragmentation and Balkanisation. These too are important issues for our city. His idea of a "community of communities" should be looked at, but with proper emphasis on the overarching culture and community that we all belong to.

He takes "ironic satisfaction" from the way several politicians are "quarrying theological traditions". It would be surprising if several thousand years of religion had not produced something worthwhile. We have a common heritage of humanity that we can share and draw on independently of belief.

The Archbishop ends with a call for "a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity" and asks "Any takers?" The answer from all people of goodwill, and certainly from secularists and humanists, will surely be "Yes", but then we may ask "what terms and conditions apply?" 

Is he willing for his church to contribute without seeking to control? It may seem churlish, but what sort of "real argument", what encouragement to hopes and generosity is it when the Church is seeking more state schools than the quarter it has, when it has privileged access to government, and bishops in the House of Lords, when non-religious beliefs are all but excluded from religious education and a daily act of worship is imposed on schools?

Allan Hayes is director of the Leicester Secular Society

NEW STATESMAN: OLD FRIEND

Well, there's an almighty stooshie in the media over this week's edition of New Statesman, guest edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams!

There's a great deal of objection being voiced over some of the things Dr Williams has said in his editorial, entitled "The government needs to know how afraid people are" that "With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted". Of course, it doesn't help keep things quiet when that's the quote on the front cover.

I used to subscribe to New Statesman and was a regular reader every week. It was nice to become reacquainted with an old friend - the upshot of my reading this issue and taking an interest in the media controversy surrounding it is that I renew my subscription! And I'll be posting on this blog a host of relevant links in the future, I'm sure.

Much of this issue is themed around religion. There's a particularly good essay by Philip Pullman about being a "C of E atheist"; an interview with Tom Hollander about his BAFTA-winning sitcom, Rev; and the Guest Column by the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, on the relationship between religion and Big Society.

UK RELIGIOUS LEADERS CALL FOR RELEASE OF BAHÁ’Í LEADERS IN IRAN

It's being widely reported in the religious media today that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi are amongst the British religious leaders who have called for the release of the seven Bahá'í leaders currently serving prison sentences in Iran.

In a recently issued statement, the religious leaders say they view the imprisonment of Iran’s Bahá'í leaders as a gross violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of religion. They urge governments to call on the Iranian authorities to review the decision to imprison the Baha’i leaders and to cease harassing the Bahá'í community.

“We are deeply touched by the sympathy and solidarity expressed by the UK’s significant religious leaders for our beleaguered brethren in Iran,” said Dr Kishan Manocha, the UK Bahá'í community’s Secretary of External Affairs. “Bahá'ís across the UK, especially those with family members in Iran, will be encouraged and empowered by this statement.” The text of the statement is as follows:

“We have been informed that following two years of arrest during which the international community has pressed the Iranian authorities to follow humanitarian and legal norms, seven leaders of the Bahá’í community in Iran have each been sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for reasons which in the view of all independent observers are solely based on their faith. These sentences form part of a wider picture over many years of severe harassment of the Bahá’í community

We view this act as a gross violation of the fundamental human right to freedom of religion and call on the Iranian government to fulfil their obligations under article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to review the case and to ensure that the treatment of these “prisoners” accords with justice and due process as defined in the Iranian constitution and law.

We call upon all governments and people of good will to call upon the the Iranian authorities to review this decision and to cease harassment of the Bahá’í community.

We extend our sympathies to the Bahá’í community at this difficult time and hope that the widespread and growing international concern over this matter will cause the Iranian authorities to correct this flagrant injustice.”

The statement is signed by the following religious luminaries:

• The Most Revd Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
• The Most Revd Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
• Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks
• Jay Lakhani, Hindu Academy
• Arjan Vekaria JP, President, Hindu Forum of Britain
• Dr Indarjit Singh CBE, Network of Sikh Organisations
• Dr Natubhai Shah MBBS PhD, Network of Jain Organisations, Council of Dharmic Faiths
• Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Chair, Religions for Peace UK.

BAN ON RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD

The Bishop of Leicester's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Ban on religious symbols is not the way forward

The Bishop of Leicester sees France's move to ban the niqab as a disturbing development

Earlier this year a nurse was banned from wearing a crucifix by her employers. In his Easter sermon the Archbishop of Canterbury subsequently spoke out about "wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" that stopped Christians wearing religious symbols at work.

He went on to say that there is currently a strange mixture of contempt and fear towards Christianity.

Last Tuesday the French took the banning of religious symbols one step further. Their parliament passed a law which will affect fewer than 2,000 people out of a population of 64 million. The people whom the law targets are the small number of Muslim women who wear a full-face veil or niqab.

The French parliament voted 335 to one in favour of a bill that would make it an offence punishable by a fine to appear in public in the full veil. Any man convicted of insisting that his wife or daughter wear it can be imprisoned for up to a year. During the debate the niqab was described as a "walking coffin" by one MP, and "a threat to French values" by another.

In secular societies religious symbols are increasingly seen as dangerous and problematic. Last month I listened to a distressed woman speak about being attacked by a youth in Leicester while she was wearing a niqab. The youth tore down her veil and shouted abuse at her. This was not the first experience of abuse she has suffered but it was the most serious.

The woman went on to speak of how the incident had knocked her confidence, but she knew that she must stand up and go ahead with the complaint to the police. The offender was found through CCTV evidence.

Subsequently, other Muslim women have come forward to her to say they have suffered the same kind of abuse, including the woman's own daughter.

The Lord Mayor of Leicester recently expressed the view that "religion has no role to play in the conduct of Council business". In secular societies there is always a tendency to get anxious about expressions of religion. The niqab can be unsettling for many people but why do the state and employers feel the need to ban it?

Many of the great cities of the world are made up of people from different cultures and faiths. In plural societies people live plural lives. One of the main strengths of Leicester is that its diverse citizens and communities respect each other's cultural and religious differences and value them rather than be threatened by them.

If we follow the example of the French and try to impose a single culture it leads us to question what would be banned next? Banning religious symbols is not the way forward.