Oh Michelle O.

[Gob]

Of all the schools in all the towns in all the world, why did Michelle Obama visit a girls’ school in the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets this week?




She says it was her own choice to make a speech on education at the Mulberry School for Girls. But was it?

I doubt the First Lady had ever heard of the school before this trip, and probably couldn’t point to Tower Hamlets on a map. My guess is that the venue was chosen deliberately by the Department for Education to showcase our new, rigorously enforced State religion: ‘Celebrating Diversity’.

Actually, if that was what they intended, they couldn’t have chosen a worse example. The Mulberry School is probably one of the least diverse schools in Britain. And that includes Eton.



More than 90 per cent of the pupils are Muslim, from a predominantly Bangladeshi background. That make-up pretty much reflects the demography of the surrounding area.

Tower Hamlets, in East London, isn’t so much multicultural, it’s virtually a monoculture. The local council, under its recently deposed Muslim mayor, Lutfur Rahman, has been a by-word for Third World-style corruption and vote-rigging.



There are more burkas on the streets of Limehouse than there are in Lahore. So it wasn’t surprising to see the vast majority of the girls photographed with Mrs Obama wearing the now familiar headscarfs and long robes insisted upon by the more devout adherents of Islam.

Did the First Lady not appreciate the contradictions inherent in delivering a speech on female emancipation and education in front of an audience which could have been transported direct from Saudi Arabia?

Before the usual, excitable suspects start bouncing up and down, hurling their predictable knee-jerk smears of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’, let me emphasise that this isn’t a criticism of the girls themselves or the Mulberry School, which is rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

The pupils have no option other than to wear the restrictive clothes imposed upon them by their parents and their religious leaders.

It was bizarre, to say the least, to watch the wife of the President of the United States preaching equality to a single-sex audience dressed from head to toe in what most of us would consider to be a symbol of separatism, female oppression and a rejection of Western democratic values.

While we’re at it, what was she doing there in the first place? Surely her remarks would have been more appropriate in Riyadh or some other outpost of fundamentalist Islam. And it’s not as if America has an exemplary record of educational equality, especially in the inner cities.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z3dxePSKUP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[MajGenl.Meade]

Pandering knows no frontiers. How crass! Still, they don't need to get elected again so it's gravy train from now on

[Guinevere]

I can't think of a better audience for the First Lady's message.

And dear author, when you have to argue in your piece that you're not being a racist asswipe before anyone even reads your piece, you're being a racist asswipe.

We all know you'd like to pretend these girls don't exists in your country. You'd like to ignore them. Call them worthless. Treat them like dirt. As your asswipey article demonstrates. I'm glad someone isn't going to let that happen, even if it takes an American to point that out.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Written in haste much? I read the article - may have missed it but where does the author (Littlejohn) argue that he isn't a racist asswipe? And are we sure that the United Kingdom (what, the entire place?) likes to "pretend these girls don't exist"? And are they treated like dirt in the UK?

I don't get it. An article criticizing the UK Education Dept and the Goddess Obama sure elicits a rather.... well, let's not say bigoted.... vituperative over reaction.

[Guinevere]

Third paragraph after the last photograph.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So this

Before the usual, excitable suspects start bouncing up and down, hurling their predictable knee-jerk smears of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’, let me emphasise that this isn’t a criticism of the girls themselves or the Mulberry School, which is rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted

.

is this:

when you have to argue in your piece that you're not being a racist asswipe before anyone even reads your piece, you're being a racist asswipe.

A minor quibble perhaps but how can he argue that he's not a racist before anyone reads him saying he's not a racist?

More noticeably, gee... I spot knee-jerk smears of what he said not a million miles from here. And all the man wrote was that he's not criticizing the girls or the school. His piece is critical of the UK DOE and the illustrious visitor. Of course, he also objects to the treatment of women by certain Islamic groups.

Is there something wrong with the latter?

[Sue U]

The pupils have no option other than to wear the restrictive clothes imposed upon them by their parents and their religious leaders.

It was bizarre, to say the least, to watch the wife of the President of the United States preaching equality to a single-sex audience dressed from head to toe in what most of us would consider to be a symbol of separatism, female oppression and a rejection of Western democratic values.

What total horseshit. How are these girls and their families any different from Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Mennonites, Sikhs, Amish, or any other religious community that adopts distinctive dress -- or any other school that requires a uniform or imposes a dress code. The writer just can't stand that in this case it's a hijab (not a burka).

Racist asswipe.

But then again, Daily Mail, so really what would you expect.

[Guinevere]

I read his piece as criticizing the notion of bringing education to women he believes (1) aren't worthy because of their religion, and (2) couldn't possibly make use of the education because they are hamstring by their religion.

I submit that undervalues the women and the entire concept of education, and is racist asswipery. See, e,g, Malala.

ETA: What Sun ( ) said . . .

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm looking for the third blind mouse...

[Gob]

What total horseshit. How are these girls and their families any different from Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Mennonites, Sikhs, Amish, or any other religious community that adopts distinctive dress -- or any other school that requires a uniform or imposes a dress code. The writer just can't stand that in this case it's a hijab (not a burka).

As it says;

Before the usual, excitable suspects start bouncing up and down, hurling their predictable knee-jerk smears of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’, let me emphasise that this isn’t a criticism of the girls themselves or the Mulberry School, which is rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

The pupils have no option other than to wear the restrictive clothes imposed upon them by their parents and their religious leaders.

But then again, Daily Mail, so really what would you expect.

Exactly your sort of reaction?

[rubato]

Of all the schools in all the towns in all the world, why did Michelle Obama visit a girls’ school in the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets this week?

Because Britain is a deeply racist society steeped in religious bigotry and by going there you will complain that it was a uniquely poor choice proving everything I said in this sentence is true?


Because if you weren't a racist bigot this would not stand out as a choice which was different in any interesting way at all, would it? Bigot.


Gotcha.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Try again, using English if possible

[Econoline]

Bigot.

I sure hope you were aiming that at the author of the Daily Mail story, and not at Meade.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh I'm sure it was at the author, Econo. But thanks.

[oldr_n_wsr]

At least they aregetting educated. There are a few Muslim enclaves/sects where that is forbidden.

[Gob]

Fair point O-n-W

[Gob]

Of all the schools in all the towns in all the world, why did Michelle Obama visit a girls’ school in the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets this week?

Because Britain is a deeply racist society steeped in religious bigotry and by going there you will complain that it was a uniquely poor choice proving everything I said in this sentence is true?


Because if you weren't a racist bigot this would not stand out as a choice which was different in any interesting way at all, would it? Bigot.


Gotcha.


yrs,
rubato

Gibberish.


See also.

[Lord Jim]

Bigot.

I sure hope you were aiming that at the author of the Daily Mail story, and not at Meade.

Regardless of who it's aimed at, seeing rube bring anyone to task for being "steeped in religious bigotry " really gives me a case of the ho, ho, hos...

It's like watching Mike Tyson criticize somebody else for being a misogynist....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yep - gibberish, hence my plea for a rewrite in English

[rubato]

If you, Gob, Maj Genl, the author &c were not racists and religious bigots you would not have seen this choice of a school to visit as at all interesting.


It is your racism and your bigotry towards Muslims which identifies this choice as deserving of criticism.


You reveal yourselves so clearly and so obviously for what you are.


The only way for you to understand it is to admit your own racism. And no amount of re-writing will ever do that.


yrs,
rubato