Richard Adams (The Guardian's 'education editor') sort of gives the game away when he says that the “Trojan horse affair” has “race” as part of its “Birmingham-sized bundle”. (In his article: 'Is the Trojan horse row just a witch hunt triggered by a hoax?') Apart from the fact that race has played no part in the matter whatsoever (except according to the Guardianistas who are drunk on Marxist theory), that comment tells us what's really behind the many articles The Guardian has published criticising - in many and various respects - the inquiry.
The Guardian is obsessed with race: as nearly all Leftists/progressives are. And that's why it assumes that racism and even, in some cases, fascism simply must (with a Marxist necessity) be behind the investigations into - and the critical comments about - the Islamisation of Birmingham's schools. And because The Guardian's role is to guard British society against both racism and fascism, it sees it as its solemn duty to protect all Muslims from such evils – no matter what Muslims do and no matter what Muslims say.
In other words, no matter how factual or bad this Islamist plot is (or no matter how many Muslim grooming gangs there are; or how many cases of FGM and “honour violence” there have been; or indeed how many Islamic terrorists there are within our midsts), The Guardian believes that it pales into insignificance when compared to the threat British society faces from racism and, in some cases, from fascism. If The Guardian didn’t protect Muslims - and indeed all of us - from racism, then British society would quickly be overrun with it. (Although many Guardian journalists think that the UK is already in deep trouble on this score.)
The main problem with Richard Adams's article is that he mentions the “hoax” nature of the “Trojan horse document” in almost every paragraph – sometimes more than once. This is strange really because the most of the investigators, The Telegraph and even the much-hated (by Guardianistas) Daily Mail have either explicitly stated that the document is a hoax or said that it “probably is” a hoax. Despite that, Richard Adams bases his entire case on the fact that the document is a hoax. Now why is that?
Richard Adams's reasoning is terrible. His argument – if that's what it is – seems to be that because the document is a hoax, then no one involved in this investigation has “much evidence of anything”. Does that include the dozens of testimonies from people directly involved in these matters (unlike The Guardian): including governors, pupils, teachers and even two Labour MPs? (Guardian journalists have even had harsh words to say about Khalid Mahmood MP on this matter.) What about the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) Islamisation-of-education document (from 2007) and the umpteen quoted passages to be found in, for example, Andrew Gilligan's many articles on this subject? Is all that “not much evidence of anything”?
I just mentioned the fact that some Guardian journalists aren't happy with Khalid Mahmood's comments on this “affair”. That is also true of Richard Adams. He says:
“... both parties [the Labour and Conservative Parties] appear to have been briefed by Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, who argues the letter reveals a truth about an Islamist takeover that has eluded others.”
So does that mean that according to white, middle-class Leftists, Khalid Mahmood is also some kind of Muslim “Uncle Tom”? (Just as many Leftists believe that all the blacks and Asians - all of whom suffer from severe “false consciousness” - who support UKIP are Uncle Toms.)
In any case, as far as I can see, Khalid Mahmood must surely know that the said document is a hoax... But that's not the point. He only said, according to Richard Adams himself, that “the letter reveals a truth about an Islamist takeover”. That doesn't mean that he thinks the letter is genuine. It simply means that it neatly encapsulates what is in fact going on in some English schools. It may even be the case that the hoaxers wrote this document in order to make what's going on in our schools known to the wider public. In other words, the hoaxers might have wanted it to go public because they knew – partly thanks to Leftist/progressive institutions such as The Guardian - that nothing was being done about these matters. And lo and behold, The Guardian (or at least this journalist) still believes that nothing should be done about these matters!
Richard Adams also says that it all “began with a letter sent to Birmingham city council in November last year”. No it did not! Just in the last few days there have been articles published about John Major - when he was Prime Minister (in 1994) - being warned about similar plots. Other articles and accounts have said that various figures - including MPs, councillors, journalists, etc. - have been aware of these things since at least 2000. In fact my bet is the Islamisation-of-British-schools project began as soon as the Muslim demographics allowed it – as was the case in Birmingham, Bradford and all the other places mentioned in the various reports.
Richard Adams's other crude argument (it can't help but be crude considering The Guardian's relentless and often mindless “fight against racism”) is that if the Islamists involved haven't committed any illegal acts (which is debatable), then everything must actually be hunky dory. Or as Adams puts it:
“.... there is no evidence that anyone caught up in the Trojan horse row in Birmingham has acted illegally.”
I see. Does that mean that as long as UKIP, the BNP, Gert Wilders, Pamela Geller and the EDL don't do anything that's illegal, The Guardian will stop writing critical articles about them? Has Nigel Farage done anything illegal? Not as far as I know. Yet The Guardian has been fuming about this man for the last year or so.
And, yes, Richard Adams may well be right when he says that it all “comes down to a definition of extremism”.
It's clear that because of The Guardian’s pious and sanctimonious fight against usually non-existent (white) racism and (white) fascism, it deems that nothing Muslims do and say should be deemed to be extreme. To deem it extreme will be “to play into the hands” (as Leftists often put it) of racists and fascists. That's why the only extremism The Guardian ever seems to recognise is (white) extremism by (white) “far-right” groups; as well as the lesser extremism of Michael Gove himself and the Conservative Party generally (not to forget UKIP).
Richard Adams shows us more of his (positive?) racism when he writes that
“the DfE's [Department of Education] definition of extremism has shifted from actual bomb-throwers to religious conservatives”.
That's funny! There have been literally countless articles written by Guardian journalists about “religious conservatives” in which these people have also been deemed to be “extreme”. … Yes, you guessed it: these religious conservatives were all Christians with white skin. (So that's okay then.) In fact, even more relevantly, The Guardian has published many articles about what's wrong with religious schools (one just today)... Yes, you're right again: they were all about Christian schools mainly populated with white people.
So if the people who believe in “segregated classes, compulsory prayers and incendiary preachers at school assemblies” (in Richard Adam's own words) happen to have brown skin, then it will of course be racist to criticise - or report on - such things. Or, at the least, it will “encourage racism” (as Leftists often put it). But as everyone who isn't a Guardian journalist knows, the position that Richard Adams and other Guardian journalists advance is itself profoundly racist. Why? Because they are applying different standards to Muslims (because, on the whole, they have brown skin) than they do to people with white skin. Now what could be more racist than that?
Consequently we have The Guardian’s prime anti-racist mantra:
Never see any Muslim evil. Never hear any Muslim evil. But, most importantly of all, never report on any Muslim evil.
The fact that many Leftists see all this as positive racism (actually, they don't see it as racism at all) doesn't stop it from being racism. It simply makes it politically-correct racism: the sort practised almost every day by white, middle-class Guardian journalists.
So doesThe Guardian's racism know no limits?