FIRST PERSON: A FEAST WHICH FOLLOWS A FAST IS NOT IN SPIRIT

Manzoor Moghal has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

A feast which follows a fast is not in spirit

The month of Ramadan is once again upon us and Muslims everywhere are fasting. It is obligatory for Muslims to fast during this month, as laid down in the Qu'ran, and they refrain from food, drink and tobacco from dawn to sunset, which at this time of year would be an average of 19 hours a day in Britain.

Before the advent of Islam, fasting was also prescribed for other religions but, with the passage of time, their fasting practices became truncated, distorted and were tailored to the convenience of their followers, with the result that the whole concept of fasting in these religions became totally corrupted.

In one of these religions, a whole month designated for fasting allows its people to eat and drink everything except cooked food and a few other items during the fasting period from morning to evening.In another religion where fasting stretches beyond 30 days, its adherents have to give up one item of their daily favourite food, while allowing them to eat and drink everything else at any time.

In yet another religion, two separate fasting days are extended to 24 hours of total refrain from any eating or drinking, and it has four other days which are somewhat similar to the Islamic way of fasting.

Other minor faiths have some variations, but none of these are anywhere near the Muslim way, which has remained in its pristine purity since its inception some 1,400 years ago.

However, there is a worrying trend which has recently crept into the Islamic way of fasting and it has begun to undermine both the spirit and the letter of fasting.

The time of breaking the Muslim fast at sunset is called iftar, and Muslims do this generally by eating a couple of dates and drinking tea or a glass of milk or water, followed by the fourth obligatory prayer of the day called maghrib.

After this, they disburse to their homes where they eat a modest meal before they go into the long night prayers at their mosques.

Unfortunately, the breaking of the fast time iftar is being turned into feasting by well-heeled Muslims – and it is becoming fashionable practice among many Muslims in some countries, including Britain.

Arab Muslims in the Middle East gorge themselves routinely with large quantities of food every evening after breaking their fast, and Muslims in places such as Pakistan have big iftar parties in restaurants, hotels and community centres.

Of late, a national Muslim organisation is encouraging Muslims in Britain to organise such iftar parties, inviting non-Muslims to participate in order to socialise and promote better understanding between different faiths.

The month of Ramadan is for fasting and not feasting!

Manzoor Moghal is an author and social commentator

FIRST PERSON: BREAK DOWN BARRIERS FACING OUR COMMUNITY

Habib Akram (on right in photo below) has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Break down barriers facing our community

Habib Akram says Ahmadi Muslims are committed to peace and the UK but face prejudice from many people

Today is an historic milestone for my community - marking 100 years since our establishment in the UK. We have much to celebrate. We are committed to Britain and its prosperity. Our ethos Love for All, Hatred for None underpins our belief and is manifest in a nationwide peace campaign. In addition:

We have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for UK charities.

• We support the annual Poppy Appeal and organise drives to join the Armed Forces as well as blood donation drives throughout Britain.

• We have engaged in widespread interfaith events and celebrated the Queen's Diamond Jubilee at each of our mosques across the country.

• We constructed the first purpose-built mosque in London, which opened in 1924, and was used as a bomb shelter during the war.

• We run western Europe's biggest mosque, in Surrey, with capacity for 10,000 worshippers.

• We have translated the Holy Koran into more than 70 languages, including braille. 

Britain has provided a home for thousands of Ahmadi Muslims over the past century. Our duty as Muslims is to be grateful to God and to give thanks to Queen and country for allowing us to practice [sic] our faith freely.

Islam teaches us to be loyal citizens and we believe it is our duty to serve the country, contribute to society and promote peace for all. When we say Islam means peace, we practice [sic] that.

Today will be a day of thanksgiving for us - the day falls during the blessed month of Ramadan.

However, the occasion also serves as a reminder of the acts of terror committed by extremists on my community.

Hundreds of Ahmadi Muslims have been murdered in Pakistan, where we are not allowed to practice [sic] Islam, and we continue to be persecuted in Indonesia and other countries where an extremist clergy is able to wield influence.

Even in Britain, there have been attempts to foment hatred against us through satellite Asian news channels or by firebrand clerics.

The result of this is that my community remains isolated from other Muslim communities, even in Leicester, and despite speeches and opinion pieces in this paper about the need for community cohesion, no attempt is made to reach out to us.

Invitations for other Muslims to join us at our interfaith events are ignored by all but a few.

So the need to build bridges and remove the barriers of prejudice is greater than ever. If the words that appear in this paper about building communities are not to be mere platitudes, real action needs to be taken now to break down the barriers of ignorance and prejudice.

As loyal citizens, we enter our second century here in the UK with much optimism. We hope to build on our achievements and, God willing, be of even greater benefit to this country.

Dr Habib Akram is president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Leicester

FIRST PERSON: DIVERSITY HAS ENRICHED CITY AND I'M PROUD TO LIVE HERE

Allan Hayes has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Diversity has enriched city and I'm proud to live here

Allan Hayes on the different religions in Leicester and why education is so important

It's time to tell people that we in Leicester, religious and non-religious, are one in humanity and that we are enriched by our diversity. We are fortunate in being able to say this from experience, from living together, from walking around, from travelling on the bus – we know what we are talking about.

I vividly remember arriving back from the United States to be greeted at Leicester station by a tall turbaned Sikh taxi driver with a "hello my friend, how do you like my new taxi?" and suddenly thinking, "I'm home".

A great deal is going into building this feeling of belonging.

Others will be able to add much more, but let me look back a little.

An Imam telling a group of us what Islam means to him and expressing his concern that Muslims should not isolate themselves; the launch of a book by a Jewish Quaker, proud of his Jewish heritage, and at the same time critical of Israeli policy towards Palestinians and seeking a just peace; a talk on the influence of Indian thoughts on Western thinking; an inside line, via my wife, to a campaign to stop the deportation of an asylum seeker mounted by Leicester City of Sanctuary (a great example of cooperation); an e-mail from a Sikh friend telling me that the Pope had said atheists like me might earn salvation through good works.

At the top of my concerns, however, is education: it can do so much to bring us together but it can also promote division.

Please, let us bring up our children together, let us bring them up knowing one another; learning to appreciate the long journey that we humans have taken together and that the human family includes us all: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, humanist, atheist, whatever.

There is increasing realisation of the importance of this issue.

I have been pursuing it for a long time, recently at meetings in London and in Birmingham and on the web.

It will be taking up a lot of my time and effort in the coming year.

Recently, I told a humanist group in rural Dorset about how we do things in Leicester – I spoke with pride.

Allan Hayes is a board member of Leicester Secular Society

FIRST PERSON: WE MUST AVOID STEREOTYPES AND RAISE AWARENESS

Suleman Nagdi has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

We must avoid stereotypes and raise awareness

A root and branch review of how we tackle child abuse is needed, says Suleman Nagdi

It is tragic that in this modern society, which promotes the rights of so many individuals, groups and communities, we have collectively failed to protect the rights of innocent and vulnerable children from such sadistic individuals representing a mindless minority, which has carried out the most despicable and abhorrent of acts against these youngsters.

Child abuse in all its guises has no place in this society.

The physical, mental and psychological abuse of children is totally abhorrent and must be condemned whenever and wherever it occurs.

All communities, irrespective of faith, hold dear the value of children as a great blessing which must always be protected.

Any individual or group that commits any act of abuse against children must be condemned and brought to justice under the full weight of the law.

In our commitment to eradicate child abuse we must strive to avoid the sweeping generalisations and stereotyping that can become apparent in attributing culpability to one community or another as being synonymous with the perpetrators of exploitation and abuse.

We have seen a number of cases recently where television personalities and media presenters have been convicted of abuse and exploitation as a result of the trust placed in these individuals by the general public, highlighting the notion that this is not a crime that is unique to one group or community.

We must also recognise there are individuals in society who are shaped by a range of social and psychological factors affecting their personality which causes these individuals to commit mindless criminal acts, including the abuse of children.

While these individuals must be brought to justice we must avoid associating their actions with certain religions, faiths and communities. Such an approach is counter productive and ignores the significant work done by the vast majority to promote the safeguarding of children.

The responsibility of tackling child exploitation and abuse does not lie with one group, or one public body or one institution.

This is a problem that affects every community therefore we need to work together to rid society of this evil. We need to raise awareness of this in our schools so our children do not feel they cannot speak about this.

As parents, we have a fundamental role in protecting our children but we must also be mindful of other vulnerable children who may not have the same protection.

We must work with the authorities and police so these crimes can be better reported and the rightful actions are taken. Our faith and non-faith institutions have a role to play so that this issue is discussed and debated openly and a consensus on tackling this problem is agreed. Ultimately, there needs to be a root-and-branch review of how we as a society should tackle and eradicate this heinous crime.

Suleman Nagdi is chairman of Leicestershire Faith Forum

FIRST PERSON: FAITH SCHOOLS HELP REINFORCE SOCIAL DIVISIONS

Harry Perry has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Faith schools help reinforce social divisions

State education must not be allowed to discriminate by religion, says Harry Perry of Leicester Secular Society

All state-funded schools should be open to all children regardless of their parents' religion. Seems obvious when stated like that, doesn't it? Taxpayers from across the belief spectrum pay for our state schools yet there is in our country a Government-promoted policy for large numbers of publicly funded schools to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of parents' beliefs.

Why should that be? We also pay for the NHS, police and armed forces, for roads and social services and for the criminal justice system, yet nobody would dream of arguing aspects of these should be managed differently for people with different beliefs. So it should be for schools.

Even where faith schools have made pledges to ensure a mixed intake, we find admissions are skewed towards children of their own religion.

A national campaign has been launched to oppose religiously selective school admissions policies. It is called the Fair Admissions Campaign and you can easily find it on the web.

This campaign is particularly relevant in Leicester, where diversity of beliefs and communal harmony are trumpeted as our unique selling point in a world where religious conflict is a growing threat to international peace.

Elsewhere, we hear of children from families with the "wrong" beliefs being forced to travel far to find a non-discriminatory school.

There is a growing trend for parents to lie about their religious beliefs and even to attend services as part of the deception, in order to get their kids into a favoured school. How can that be a good example?

The most dramatically segregated schooling system in the UK is in Northern Ireland, but even there, after decades of civil strife, politicians are now pressing for integration.

Why is it important? It must be clear – especially from recent events – that so many of the tensions and conflicts in the UK and elsewhere are based on faith and ethnic divisions. Our communities remain riven by the differences which we should be learning to set aside.

Religiously selective schools cannot, of course, be held solely responsible for these problems, but they do underpin a system in which children learn they are different. They do not build friendships with others and the separation of children within schools reinforces wider divisions, as parents do not meet at the school gate.

It is vital individuals throughout the education system recognise and adhere to an inter-cultural approach that seeks at every opportunity to get people to mix rather than living with a constant emphasis on difference.

FIRST PERSON: SAY "NO MORE" TO THOSE WHO TRY TO DIVIDE

Suleman Nagdi has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Say "no more" to those who try to divide

Suleman Nagdi ways separation by faith or ethnic background must stop - for the good of us all

The message is simple and must be emphasised loud and clear. NO MORE. No more messages that seek to divide our communities. No more actions that promote hatred, division, prejudice and violence. No more attempts to isolate and scapegoat individuals and organisations for being “different”. No more attacks like the heinous murder of Lee Rigby, committed in cold blood in full horrific view of the passing public.

We must not view this incident as the concern of one community but as a concern for all as we work collectively to safeguard our communities against the evil of violent extremism. No more incidents of hate crime committed against innocent members of a community or faith group for the crimes perpetrated by others. No more racially-motivated murders of innocent elderly people, like 75-year-old grandfather Mohammed Saleem, who was murdered in cold blood in Birmingham. No more senseless attacks on religious places of worship, like the burning down of the Al-Rahmah Islamic centre in Muswell Hill, North London.
No more hurtful and unfounded attacks on our teachers and scholars who have worked for decades to educate communities to become upstanding, law-abiding citizens of Great Britain. No more compartmentalisation of crime where a crime committed by an individual or group from one faith or community is seen as worse than the same crime committed by others from a different faith or community. A crime is a crime, regardless of the identity of the criminal. Any individual or organisation that breaches the law of the land we all share must be dealt with by the full force of the law.

No more being duped by the dastardly motives of individuals and organisations intent on fostering hatred and misunderstanding. 

It is important we all recognise each other’s differences, heritage and rights and respect each other accordingly. We must work collectively against those seeking to disrupt community cohesion and also against those who break the law. No more of all of the above at a time when we are all faced with an economic crisis that is affecting millions of people and seems to continue with no end in sight and where so many, from a diverse range of ethnic and religious backgrounds, are suffering from hardship and poverty.

To see people becoming reliant on food banks is a tragic sight in 21st century Britain. No more should now mean no more. Let us all work together collectively and in harmony to rid our society of all acts of lawlessness in this most challenging of economic climates. 

Suleman Nagdi is a spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations

FIRST PERSON: RESPONSIBILITY THAT EACH OF US MUST SHOULDER

Suleman Nagdi has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Responsibility that each of us must shoulder

Society should come together and oust radical extremists - wherever they are, says Suleman Nagdi

The cold-blooded murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has once again cast a spotlight on radicalisation and raised questions about its causes. The notion of individuals driven by a particular cause to commit acts of murder and destruction is abhorrent to the majority, but what leads these individuals to shun society and and develop this hatred for their fellow human beings?

There is no faith which condones extremist violence, even though faith is quite often used as a mask to further the extremists' geo-political aims.

The radicalised can also include far right extremists, animal rights activists and separatist movements - ultimately, anyone who sees their cause as a justification for their extremist behaviour.

Unfortunately, we all too often associate radicalisation with Islam. But extremists comprise a very small minority and are predominantly detached from the mainstream Muslim majority.

The 2012 Home Affairs Select Committee report on the Roots of Radicalisation, chaired by Keith Vaz MP, identified a number of drivers for radicalisation which we are familiar with but also suggested that "radicalised individuals come from a wide range of backgrounds" and are "demographically unremarkable".

There can be many sources of radicalisation, including institutions. However, as the home affairs report identified, it is most likely to be the internet.

Disillusioned and disenfranchised individuals are more likely to be using private premises to access extremist sources from the internet.

We must adopt a unified approach to tackling extremism. It is a shared responsibility for all in society and not simply the responsibility of one group, faith or organisation.

This responsibility needs to be borne by our many institutions and centres.

We also need to teach our children the dangers of the internet and must monitor their use of internet sites as the shadowy sources of extremist hate and radicalism are only too easily a click or two away.

From an early age, we need to eradicate any opportunity for extremism to take root in the minds of our young people.

It is very difficult to identify an individual who is being radicalised and therefore we all need to remain conscious of our responsibilities.

There are organisations such as East Midlands Community Contact Unit, of which I am part, and the Channel project, which seeks to provide a multi-agency approach to helping vulnerable people who may be targets for radicalisation.

We need to ensure we don't criminalise these individuals and further disenfranchise them from society but rather look to bring them away from the causes of radicalisation.

Suleman Nagdi is chairman of Leicestershire Faith Forum [sic] and spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations.

FIRST PERSON: WE MUST "BOX CLEVER" TO BEAT THE EXTREMISTS

Simon Bennett has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

We must "box" clever to beat the extremists

Dr Simon Bennett, an expert in safety and security, examines the aftermath of Lee Rigby's murder

The murder last week of Drummer Lee Rigby shocked all right-minded people, whatever their faith or ethnicity. What impressed me was the country's determination not to be intimidated or demoralized by the misguided act of two disturbed individuals.

The public's response reminded me of a poster issued by the government in 1939: Keep Calm and Carry On. This is always the best response to threats and intimidation. By keeping calm and carrying on we prove terrorism doesn't work.

I'd like to make two comments: First, I believe ethnic, religious and cultural diversity is a strength, not a weakness.

As societies develop, the problems they face become ever-more complex and difficult to solve. Bringing a range of views and experiences to bear on problems improves our chances of solving them.

The Government has put its faith in the Big Society as a means of filling the gaps left by cuts. The social support offered by Britain's mosques, temples and cultural centres is an example of the Big Society in action.

I am old enough to remember Britain in the 1950s - a monochrome and stuff land of skiffle, football and fish and chips. Social diversity has made Britain a more enjoyable place to live.

Secondly,. the way to beat extremists is to "box" clever, by which I mean gather high quality intelligence and act on it in a timely manner in the context of laws that are fit for purpose.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks I wrote to the Prime Minster: I suggested he increase the budget for Britain's security services by one third.

In a 2006 article in Public Services Review, I suggested MI5 put more resources into recruiting members of extremist organisations, whether of the far-right, far-left or faith-based.

Needless to say, the Prime Minister did not respond to my letter. Nevertheless, in the years since 9/11 the Security and Intelligence Services (SIS) have put more resources into gathering intelligence organically.

Parachuting operatives into communities is a recipe for failure. Getting those communities to self-monitor is a recipe for success.

Last week, I met with a retired senior Metropolitan Police Service officer: We discussed the case of Mark Kennedy, the policeman who spent too long undercover.

The Kennedy case illustrates the difficulties of undercover work. While the murder of Lee Rigby was shocking we must remember how many plots have been foiled by the police with the support of SIS and the British public.

Intelligence gathering is not glamorous. It's dirty, dangerous and stressful. But it helps keep all of us safe.

Dr Simon Bennett is Director of Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester

FIRST PERSON: RELIGION CAN'T BE DEFENCE FOR BRUTAL KILLINGS

Suleman Nagdi has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Religion can't be defence for brutal killings

Suleman Nagdi says the murder of a soldier on a London Street betrays all Muslims

The shocking murder which took place on Wednesday has left me appalled and angry. Appalled at the brutality and savageness of the murder of an innocent man and angry that this wanton act of violence is being labelled as "Islamic".

The Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) rightly condemned in the strongest terms possible what occurred. I concur with our Prime Minister when he said: "This was not just an attack on Britain. It was a betrayal of Islam and the Muslim communities who give so much to our country."

I must begin by expressing sympathy and condolences to the family of the dead soldier, who have lost their loved one as a result of inexplicable violence.

It is shocking that this tragedy happened in broad daylight.

Eyewitness accounts describe the depth of psychotic callousness with which the killers acted – killers whose motives are irrelevant, as the crime itself demonstrates an extreme level of psychological disturbance.

I am numb and outraged that two people intent on violence have hijacked my faith to such an end. This is a complete distortion of the true meaning of Islam.

It betrays all Muslims who have peace and compassion in their hearts and particularly those in our Muslim communities across the UK who work for the security of our nation.

Such a brutal act of murder cannot be justified using religion as a defence. Islam places the highest value on life and safeguarding a single human life is tantamount to safeguarding all life.

It is truly distressing to see the extreme right opportunistically using this tragedy to spout their vicious racist hatred and sadder still to see that some people are responding to this incident by joining their extreme cause.

Most Muslims I have spoken to have been distressed by the fact they are being made to defend themselves when the deranged killings have nothing to do with them or their religion.

The killers' motives are political and their methods are criminal.

The tensions felt by British Muslims will be exacerbated in the days to come by those who blame all Muslims for the actions of two psychotic men, who may happen to be Muslim.

As reports of two lone attacks on mosques in Britain are covered in the media, it is imperative that all of our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail.

It is important we allow our police authorities to do their job without speculation. We also urge the utmost vigilance and ask the police authorities to calm tensions and ensure this tragedy does not unfold into greater tragedy.

Suleman Nagdi is chairman of Leicestershire Faith Forum [sic] and spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations.

FREE SPEECH, YES, BUT MUST IT BE SO LOUD?

Harry Perry has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Free speech, yes, but must it be so loud?

Harry Perry, of Leicester Secular Society, has his own say on the city's modern speakers' corner

A reprint of a 1958 article in the Mercury referred to a Sunday morning Speakers' Corner, in the Market Place. Orators from different persuasions would regale onlookers with their particular truth – even some from Leicester Secular Society. And all without artificial amplification.

Speakers' Corner has long since ended, but I ventured into the city centre on a sunny Saturday to see how free speech is faring today.

The first encounter was by the Haymarket – seven Christians singing in Chinese to the accompaniment of a chap on a fiddle.

It was easy on the ear so I stopped to listen for a minute. This brought me to the attention of the choir and a chorister broke away to offer me … eternal salvation. I explained I was an atheist and way beyond redemption.

Next stop was a Muslim stall near the Clock Tower. The African chap here was keen to debate. I struggled to hear, being hampered by the PA system blaring out behind me.

I think he explained he didn't belong to a mosque, believing them all to be wrong in their telling of Mohammed's message. We soon got to the inevitable, "how did the universe start?"

For the sake of argument I said "The Big Bang". He said: "Yes, and that's what Allah told Mohammed, too"!

My eyebrows rose of their own accord. Pulling out his well-thumbed Koran he flicked to the relevant verse… which refers to the Earth appearing in a puff of smoke.

"There, he said, the Big Bang."

"A puff of smoke is hardly the Big Bang," I replied, and left to give my undivided attention to the Christians with the PA system.

I was offered another leaflet promising forgiveness and was told the group was made up of "Charismatics and Pentecostals". My new friend was unfazed by my declaration of atheism and invited me to a meeting. I declined, and dreaded to think what their PA system must be like within the confines of a closed room.

As I passed the Big TV on my way home I thought its manager could take a leaf out of the evangelists' book. It can be heard for only about 40 yards, while the evangelical sound waves travel far down High Street. Indeed, if loudness was any guide to truth they'd have a head start on the skyway to Heaven for sure.

What a wonderful thing free speech is – but guys, there is no correlation between volume and veracity, so why not turn the amp down – or dump it altogether?

Harry Perry is president of Leicester Secular Society

PROTECTION IS NEEDED FOR ALL VICTIMISED FOLK

Dr Neil Chakroborti has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Protection is needed for all victimised folk

Dr Neil Chakraborti tells how changes to hate crime policy will protect people victimised for looking "different"

The news that Greater Manchester Police will now be recording attacks against goths, emos and other members of alternative subcultures as hate crimes has quickly become the subject of extensive debate, taking centre stage in the local, national and even international press.

So why such a fuss?

In one sense I'd like to say it was for positive reasons. People expressing alternative identities, appearances and tastes are routinely subjected to all kinds of prejudice – including being spat at, harassed, called abusive names, bullied and physically attacked – simply for "daring to be different". Recognising this as hate crime will encourage higher levels of reporting and, perhaps most importantly of all, will make people feel safer and less vulnerable.

However, there are some who have been highly critical of this policy change.

Some have asked: are attacks on goths, punks and emos really hate crimes in the same way as attacks on, say, ethnic minorities or gay people? For me – and for anyone else who has engaged with victims of these attacks – violence directed towards people because of how they look or how they dress is just as serious as other more established forms of hate crime.

The physical pain, emotional hurt and the fear of subsequent attack is similar for anyone singled out for being "different". Hate is hate.Equally, concerns this will water down the importance of the concept of hate crime have little justification in practice.

Those who would confine this protection to historically victimised groups fail to recognise targets of hatred evolve with time, place and societal attitudes. Adapting our policies to fit the realities of present-day life is something which invariably strengthens, not weakens, the effectiveness of this protection.

Finally, some suggest that other groups will start lobbying to have their experiences of hate recorded as hate crime. If so, perhaps this is a prospect we should welcome, not fear. Not only might this make us all more aware of bigotry we may not be familiar with, but it might force us to think collectively about how we should challenge these expressions of bigotry.

This move from Greater Manchester Police underlines that no-one should have to suffer being the victim of hate or prejudice. About 260,000 hate crimes are committed each year, according to British Crime Survey estimates, and far too many are unrecognised, unreported and unchallenged. Let's do all we can to respect 'difference' and to stamp out intolerance.

Dr Neil Chakraborti is a Reader in Criminology at the Department of Criminology, University of Leicester. He is the leader of the Leicester Hate Crime Project, Britain's biggest-ever study of hate crime victimisation. For further details visit http://bit.ly/11cTwg5 or contact: uolhatecrime@le.ac.uk

THE KING OF KINGS & THE KING UNDER THE CAR PARK

The Bishop of Leicester has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

The King of Kings and the king under the car park

It may be that the Easter story takes on a special significance for us in Leicester this year. In the story, Jesus is laid in a tomb and three days later those who were closest to him discovered the body missing. The tomb could not contain Jesus. His presence, his spirit and his very life continued to make itself felt and, 2,000 years later, Christians feel and experience that life and seek to share it with others.

Unexpectedly, this year the story of our city seems to be almost intertwined with the story of a body and with a debate about the kind of tomb he should be laid in.

This newspaper has reflected that debate and shown us how deeply felt are the views people hold about where Richard III should lie and how his grave should be marked.

Rationally speaking, these are simply the last fragmentary remains of an individual whom none of us knew and whose story belongs to the remote past. Why then such passion, indignation and desire to signify his life and his death in a particular way?

Presumably, because in some way the spirit of Richard III lives on. In some way his short life is not extinguished by his death. In some way his life and his story have meaning beyond the grave.

If that is true for Richard III, Christians believe it is true for every human being. Our life is not defined and contained simply by the short span of time on this Earth.

Through the Easter story, we are given a picture of the highest possible degree of human living as seen in Jesus Christ. In him, the gap between what it is to be human and what it is to be divine was bridged. The love of God shone through him undimmed and undistorted.

The extraordinary conviction of the first followers who found the tomb empty was that a life lived so close to the love of God could not be extinguished by death. Further, they came to believe if this was true for Jesus Christ it is true potentially for every one of us who seek to live the loving life he led.

I welcome the debate about Richard III and his final resting place. It is a reminder to us all of the ultimate significance and dignity of every human life, including those who are not kings or whose names do not appear in the newspapers.

If Easter is true it is true for every one of us. Our life extends beyond the grave into an eternal life with God.

When Richard III is reinterred in Leicester Cathedral, that truth will be affirmed and celebrated as the truth about King Richard and as the truth about us all.

A very happy Easter to you all.

By the Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester

WE'VE MADE DIVERSITY OUR OFFICIAL CIVIC RELIGION IN LEICESTER

Ben Ravilious has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury. The titles given to these articles on the Mercury website sometimes differ from that in the print version. On the website, this piece has the title, "We've made diveristy our officila civic religion in Leicester". I'm sticking with that here, since if anyone goes searching for this piece online, that's what they'll find.

This isn't an original piece that Ben has written for the Mercury. He wrote this as a post on his blog, Only in Leicester. The Mercury approached him and asked if he could adapt it for their First Person format.

The important thing is what diversity brings

The City of Culture bid must do more than just state Leicester has a diverse populatioon, says Ben Ravilious

I was delighted to learn the city mayor has given the green light to Leicester's City of Culture bid. However, I already have nagging doubts about the direction this might be taking.

It's the flogging of the word "diversity" that concerns me. We've made diversity our official civic religion in Leicester but I think we should place more emphasis on the ways in which we mix to give us the best chance of winning.

Let's be clear, my wife is of a different race, religion and nationality to me, we have two mixed-race daughters and my life is far richer as a result.

I also think it's essential to continue the battle for equality so everyone in Leicester can all feel equally represented and respected.

But diversity alone is just a statistic and having diversity doesn't necessarily mean harmony or cultural significance. It's what we do with it that counts.

Leicester has done something with it, demonstrated by the extent of blending, mixing and intermarriage.

This is something to celebrate because it's somewhat unique to Leicester and is a living testament to the community cohesion this city is rightly famous for.

I recently took my daughters to a Chinese New Year party at a schoolmate's house where all but one of the children was mixed-race.

Census data echoes this and it's high likely mixed-race people will one day become the majority in Leicester. Even our existing monocultural festivals, such as the Caribbean Carnival, Diwali and St George's Day, are becoming increasingly mixed events.

But mixing rarely gets much attention because it tends to happen quietly and without fanfare in our homes, workplaces and schools.

Also, the participants are not one single cultural or political group whose voices get heard.

I think we have a great chance of winning City of Culture but I think we need to do more than just celebrate our constituent ethnic groups (noble though that is) and put more emphasis on new, home-grown, hybrid and shared culture.

We should be uncovering and showcasing the culturally unique things our city has produced through cultural mixing or otherwise: the food, music, art, science, sport, business, language and humour.

Mixing in particular has brought us interfaith sport, stars such as Gok and Engelbert, English market traders who can speak Hindi, curry pubs, musicians such as Cornershop and Laurel Aitken and it sets the scene for completely unique new culture to develop.

Let's celebrate the fruits of diversity, not just the facts of it.

Ben Ravilious lives in Leicester and runs a web development company

STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE ABOUT OUR CULTURE BID

Reagan Oates has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Stop being so negative about our culture bid

Leicester has announced that it is bidding to become the UK's next City of Culture in 2017. With a proven track record of excellent festivals and cultural events from Diwali to Pride and with the recent discovery of Richard III's bones, it's no wonder the city has decided to try its luck.

If successful, it could lead to millions of pounds in increased trade, a rise in tourism and the possibility of hundreds of new jobs.

Since this exciting news, what has Leicester done to celebrate? Readied the bunting, congratulated ourselves?

Sadly not. We've done what the Brits do best and started to moan.

We've moaned about our lack of culture, lack of architecture and, more worryingly, a lack of British festivals and events on offer in the city.

Now hold on: we live in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the UK. What exactly is it that makes a festival British? The definition of British relates to the characteristics of the citizens, or inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and last time I checked our events have reflected the people of Leicester.

On top of that, you can't walk 10 yards these days without a new festival or event popping up.

Also, if anyone has a reason to moan about the culture of the city this month, then sorry folks it's me, not you.

Having watched The Monograph magazine recently announce it was ending its printed production, struggling without council or arts funding, I could sit around bemoaning its fate, forever holding a grudge against Leicester's cultural empire.

However, if the city council wants to spend £50,000 on this new city of culture venture, then let it.

Agreed, times are hard to be spending money on arts, but look at the long-term possibilities.

A city celebrated for culture will attract attention, investment and will benefit us all.

It's a simplistic view, yes, of a complex situation but – newsflash, people – recessions are nothing new.

They've happened before, they suck and, yes, we're all skint!

But for this you have a choice. You can choose to pick apart the intentions of the people that are trying to make something for your enjoyment – or you can stop moaning about it and get involved.

Go explore the city. Visit one of our attractions or free museums, such as the one in New Walk (everyone enjoys a good dinosaur) and get behind the bid!

Cease looking at what is wrong with the city. Tackle the small things, such as simple pleasures, and maybe the big things won't seem so bad after all.

The bid gets my vote and I look forward to seeing what's on offer in the future.

Raegan Oates is music editor at From Dusk 2 Dawn magazine.

KORAN CASE SHOWS FLAW IN THE LEGISLATION

Harry Perry has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury (which is not on the website):

 

Koran case shows flaw in the legislation

Secularist Harry Perry calls for the removal of the word "insulting" from part of the Public Order Act

Tearing up a holy book is not an effective way to take issue with religion but the right to free expression valued by jury members is so fundamental to our way of life that it must be protected even when its exercise involves bad taste or insult.

A criminal prosecution was recently brought by Leicester’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) against a man who publicly demonstrated his opposition to religion by ripping up a Koran in public and throwing it to the ground.The case ended with a hung jury and a decision by the CPS not to pursue it further. The failure of the jury to reach a verdict reveals a problem with the law.

Many religions take it on themselves to seek to persuade people of other religions or of no religion to convert. Dire consequences of failing to believe in this or that god are often cited in these attempts. Likewise, atheists sometimes seek to expose the fallacies in religion, hoping to persuade people to give it up. They can all do this because what they are seeking to change is a matter of personal conviction. With race, gender, sexual orientation or disability the position is completely different. You cannot persuade someone to change these characteristics.

The legislation that rightly protects people in these categories from being harassed and abused or put in fear of their life on account of their characteristics has been developed over recent decades. But the addition of protection on grounds of religion more recently has brought with it a threat to the right of free speech because the police and the CPS have not got clear in their minds the qualitative difference involved. It is because of this that a broad coalition, including religious opinion, is currently trying to get Parliament to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act as it has been used by the police in several instances to silence critics of one or other persuasion.

There is no special protection from insult or abuse on matters like politics, vegetarianism, astrology, homeopathy, and so on, beyond that which ordinary citizens expect purely in virtue of being a citizen. 

The same should apply to religious belief and non-belief.

Leicester Secular Society is a “Freethought” organisation dedicated to the idea that the best way to change people’s convictions is through the rational debate of available evidence. People in Leicester who wish to show their disagreement with others’ beliefs should normally do so in a calm and reasoned way, showing respect for persons even when condemning or lampooning their ideas or station. This is common courtesy and politeness, after all, and exemplifies the kind of city and country that most of us would like our children and grandchildren to inherit from us.

But by the same token, those whose beliefs are challenged, even when done discourteously, would be best advised to ‘turn the other cheek’ rather than calling for prosecutions. 

Harry Perry, Leicester Secular Society

WHAT'S TO CELEBRATE ABOUT BEING A MULTI-CULTURAL CITY?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

What's to celebrate about being a multi-cultural city?

In his First Person column ("Let's start new year with pride and confidence", Mercury, December 31), Sir Peter Soulsby reckons that two events need celebrating.

Firstly, the census shows Leicester to be one of the most "diverse" cities in the country and, secondly, Richard III's remains are probably ours, which will be good for tourism.

This does not seem to make a great deal of sense. To begin with, why are we supposed to be celebrating the idea that Leicester is now one of the least English cities in England?

Are we not supposed to enjoy our own company? In which case, why would tourists?

And Richard III is part of English history – any tourism would be based on the idea of our monocultural, English heritage, wouldn't it?

Which is going to be tricky anyway because, dead kings apart, we seem to have knocked down a very respectable proportion of our historical heritage and seem to be waiting for a large part of the rest to collapse from neglect.

Besides which, how is more immigration a good idea when we cannot find enough jobs to keep the present population fully employed, in tourism or otherwise?

Or enough housing since we are now supposed to wreck a large part of our very attractive and tourist-friendly countryside in order to accommodate a population which, I have read, makes us the fourth most densely populated country in the world.

Possibly a new walk to a world of muck, brass and realism is in order.

Russ Ball, Leicester

COMMON SENSE AND TOLERANCE IS WHAT WE NEED

The Venerable David Newman's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Common sense and tolerance is what we need

The European Court of Human Rights' rulings this week on the four cases of alleged religious discrimination reveal what a lack of imagination our law-bound culture displays.

Issues that might have been resolved with a bit of common sense and compromise have become expensive displays of intolerance. Whose intolerance – the employers or the employees? There's the issue. One person's freedom is another person's bondage.

If I want my neighbourhood to be quiet, I discriminate against those who want to make a noise, and vice versa. If my conscience makes me a vegetarian then I shouldn't work in a butcher's. But if employed in a supermarket, it should be possible for me not to have to work on the meat counter.

Clearly all the cases were not the same. Wearing a cross as a mark of faith should cause no problem in a tolerant society, provided that any health and safety issues were explained and heeded.

A marriage counsellor who preferred to give sexual advice and therapy to heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples (and vice versa) could be accommodated in most organisations, unless of course it was contrary to their original job description, just as many professionals specialise in different areas.

A university lecturer who said that he didn't really get on with small children would not get prosecuted for not going to work in an infant school.

They tried to trap Jesus into taking a grand defiant step of conscience which polarised faith and the authorities when they asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, the hated occupying and oppressive power of His day.

He asked to see a coin, pointed to Caesar's head and inscription on it and told them to give to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what was God's.

In other words, he was saying that it was right and possible to be a good citizen and a conscientious believer; and both individuals and organisations should work to enable both.

The individual conscience may not always be right, but it should always be treated with respect. Similarly we may disagree with the prevailing ethos, but we should choose our battles carefully and always be lovingly principled.

Exchanging religious intolerance for secular intolerance (or vice versa) is not a recipe for a good society.

The Venerable David Newman is Archdeacon of Loughborough.

SHARING OF RESOURCES WILL CREATE JUSTICE AND PEACE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Sharing of resources will create justice and peace

I would like to thank the Mercury for publishing the First Person column written by Riaz Ravat entitled "A tribute to the power of shared values" (Mailbox, December 27).

I have always been of the opinion that the only way to resolve the chaos and injustice in the world is through sharing and selfless service.

What a glorious world it would be if all nations were to share together the Earth's bounty, such that no person lacked food, shelter, medical care and education.

Every day, humans die from hunger in a world with a 10 per cent per capita surplus.

Two thirds of the world's population live in abject poverty. Many men, women and little children do not even have the essentials to stay alive. This should fill all our hearts with shame, particularly when food is often left to rot in warehouses around the world. Celebrating 2012 as the Year of Service is a starting point.

However, it would surely be more productive if correct sharing and selfless service were undertaken in all walks of life, from Government level through to our day-to-day lives, so that it becomes the chosen and dignified approach to living for all of us.

Only worldwide sharing of resources will create justice and peace in the world, leading to cooperation, trust and a sense of true joy in all our hearts. If many of us were not complacent, we could not bear to live in a world in which these crimes happen; people dying in a world of plenty.

We need to eliminate the current unbridled march for consumerism and commercialisation which has seeped into every aspect of our lives. Could it be a green Marshall Plan is needed to put an end to the competition between nations and control access to world resources?

Bal Singh