During Ramadan, the evenings can be a very busy period for Muslim families, particularly if the breaking of the fast (Iftar) falls in the early evening. Furthermore, some adults will spend their time observing additional religious activities, like the special evening prayers (Taraweeh) at the mosque. This may make it difficult for parents to attend meetings or other functions in the evening during the month of Ramadan. The scheduling of parent evenings before or after the month of Ramadan would be appreciated by parents and is likely to ensure better attendance.

How much more mild is that las sentence than calling for a ban? I'd find it difficult to write a more polite request.

And lastly, vaccinations:

No oral medication can be taken by a person who is fasting. Anyone needing regular medication during fasting hours is normally exempt from fasting in any case. Medication can be taken once the fast has ended. Medical injections can be taken by a person who is fasting, although not those injections that influence body nutrition. Guidance should be sought from local Muslim organisations on specific issues if necessary. During emergencies, where a child’s wellbeing is at risk, medicine should be administered. Routine vaccinations should be scheduled for other times of the year.

Notice the lack of the 'ban' word.

And that's it. No bans. Not a one. A few requests for accommodation or exemptions for Muslim pupils for some things, and requests not to schedule other things during Ramadan and that's it. Keep that in mind when you read the next sentence:

His presence there was seen as “deeply worrying”, and a sign that the report was backed by the Government.

But it seems to be referring to Greg Hands' comment that it was 'very' worrying. I'm ashamed to say that Greg Hands is my MP. Twat. But anyway - it's not clear whether he's responding to the real report or the Express' fantasy version involving the Taliban and bans. After that, Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society demonstrates why I, as a massive atheist and secularist, would never entertain the idea of joining the National Secular Society. Still, it's not easy to see if he's responding to the real report or the made up version.

And the cavalcade of utter, utter bullshit continues:

The report, Towards Greater Understanding – Meeting The Needs of Muslim Pupils In State Schools, says all schools should bring in effective bans for all pupils on “un-Islamic activities” like dance classes.

The report uses the term 'un-islamic' once, and never uses the term 'un-islamic activities'. To put this phrase in quotes is to lie about the report's content. And the paper says the document calls for a ban on dancing. It actually says:

When swimming is allowed, boys should wear clothing covering their bodies “from the navel to the neck”, even during single-sex pool sessions [...]

This is an enormous, fat, pustulating lie. The report says that, 'In public boys should always be covered between the navel and knee'. Navel and neck? Fucking hell. This cobblers is repeated in both the paper and online versions of the article. It then goes on to mention how girls should be covered except the face and hands. The important thing, though, is that this section of the report is only explaining what the rules on modesty are. It does not say anything at all about what non-Muslims should wear. The paper gives the impression that Muslims have demanded that all children be dressed in this way. It doesn't even claim that all Muslims must be forced to dress like this.

Next:

The MCB adds that schools should ensure contact sports, including football and basketball, “are always in single-gender groups”.

This is what the report really says:

Some sports involve physical contact with other team players, for example basketball and football. Most Muslim parents would find it objectionable for boys and girls to play such sports in mixedgender groups. Schools can respond positively to this concern by making sure that contact sports are always in single-gender groups.

Not the same is it? It's just not. 'Should' and 'can' have completely different meanings. This is why I never trust a partial quotation in any paper. Ever.

And the beat goes on:

Even school trips are targeted in the report, which wants them all to be made single-sex “to encourage greater participation from Muslim pupils”.

The report really says:

Class outings for educational purposes should not generally pose any problems for Muslim pupils and their parents. Parents should be made aware of the objectives and purpose of the trip. Care should be taken when planning the event to ensure that Muslim pupils’ needs, especially dietary and prayer requirements, are taken into account.

So, even though the report does mention making residential trips single-sex, we can see very clearly that the report does not want all trips to be single-sex. The paper is lying. Again. The report does say this, regarding residential trips:

When organising overnight trips involving Muslim pupils, mixed-gender groups should be avoided. This will encourage greater participation, particularly from Muslim girls, as Muslim parents will be more willing to send their children if they are assured that the Islamic requirements of modesty and morality will not be compromised.

Different again, isn't it. Never trust a partial quote. Ever.

And on:

It wants Arabic language classes for Muslim pupils, and says the Koran should be recited in music classes. And all schools should ensure they have prayer rooms with washing facilities attached, it says.

Lie. It says:

Schools should consider giving Muslim pupils the opportunity to study Arabic and/or other languages relevant to their family background.

And:

Particularly in schools with a large number of Muslim pupils, the music curriculum provides opportunities for cultural inclusion. For example, there are opportunities to explore or study the art of Qur’anic recitation and composing and singing of nasheeds.

The last bit, about prayer rooms, is the biggest lie here. The report doesn't once mention prayer rooms. At all. The paper has told yet another whopper. The report actually says:

In accommodating prayer requirements, schools need to allow pupils to use an appropriate classroom or area for the purpose of prayer.

There's sod all there about providing a special prayer room. Only that an appropriate area or classroom should be used. It's also worth pointing out that the report also says that the prayer times during winter will fall during break times so the children don't miss any education and nobody would have their lessons disturbed, but the paper ignores this. As for washing facilities - what's so special about requiring washing facilities? They have to be provided by law anyway. The report says absolutely nothing at all about 'prayer rooms with washing facilities attached' - just that pupils need access to washing facilities. The paper's just lied again.

Next:

In art classes, Muslim children should not be allowed to draw people, as this is forbidden under some interpretations of Islamic law.

Lie. Big, fat, hairy, stinking lie. The report says:

In Islam the creation of three dimensional figurative imagery of humans is generally regarded as unacceptable because of the risk of idolatress [sic] practices and some pupils and parents may raise objections to this.

There are a couple of problems - the most obvious is that a drawing is not a three dimensional representation. The report says fuck all about drawing people. But the other point is that the report does not say that 'Muslim children should not be allowed' to do anything here. It says 'some parents may raise objections', and 'the school should avoid encouraging pupils'. This article gets worse and worse and worse.

And more:

And while the MCB insists that all British children should learn about Islam, it wants Muslims to have the right to withdraw their children from RE lessons dealing with Christianity and other faiths.

Notice the old technique of opposing 'Muslim' with 'British', as if Muslims are not and cannot be British. And this sentence is, yet again, incredibly misleading. The report recommends that schools teach about Islam, and points out that there is already a statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from Religious Education, which must be respected. It's not calling for any right that isn't already there. The paper, though, gives the impression that somehow the MCB report wants non-Muslims to not be allowed to withdraw their children from lessons about Islam, which is not the case.

The rest of the article is just nonsense about MCB and some organisations that don't like the report. Meh. Until it ends with a loaded question for a phone vote which goes 'Should Muslims tell us how to run our schools?' As those of us who have read the report can tell you, they don't do that anyway.

The main difference between the paper and online versions of the article crops up at this point. In the paper, this article appears next to one about Lord Ahmed of Rotheram moaning about veils, but in the online version, that artciles tacked on the end of this one because the paper is so desparate to link to something sort of positive about Muslims so it can pretend to be unprejudiced. It's funny that the best it can do is to speak favourably about a Muslim because he's criticising other Muslims, but that's as close as this filthy rag will ever come. Oh, and there's a big extra headline on page two of the paper version that says 'We must fight demands from Muslim leaders' just before it asks whether Muslims should tell us how to run our schools. Which is not designed to influence anyone's vote in any way, of course.

I've made comments before about papers not behaving in a way that suggests they want their readers to know the truth, but this article really takes the biscuit. If you're a secularist like me, there's plenty in the report to object to. If you're an intolerant, fat-headed goon, there'd be even more. But you wouldn't have to fucking lie about it.