I was wrong, it was my fault and I take responsibility, but I am not an Islamophobe.

The chances are that if you are inclined to read my blog you've heard a great deal about the subject of this post already. I believe it's time I put my own thoughts on record.


 I decided to ignore the approach from Evening Standard journalist Craig Woodhouse yesterday, fearing that making any statement directly to a journalist could only make things worse, not better, especially having read this article about how another newspaper (I doubt you'll be surprised when you see which) treated a lady with no regard for the harm they could do. Please read it if you have the time, it's shocking stuff.


I was first made aware of the reaction to my mistake when I received a call from the Yes campaign asking me to confirm that I was indeed responsible for the tweet in question and explaining that the Evening Standard had approached them and they were considering how to respond. Shortly after this they clarified with me that they had had to inform the journalist that they had dismissed me from my official position with the campaign. I accepted this without question. Between the two phone calls as I gathered my thoughts I had come to expect this as the likely outcome and understood the political reasons for it and was fully prepared to accept responsibility and this consequence which I could see was appropriate.


Indeed I realised the potential impact my tweet could have, not long after I posted it and promptly removed it from twitter regretting it there and then. I stand by the official statement of apology I issued through the Yes campaign: "I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused," it read. "My comments were thoughtless and I bitterly regret them."


That is where I had expected the matter to end. I would accept my dismissal, take a break from campaigning and focus on the remaining commitments in my life. In light of this affair I would also abandon my plans to make any connection between my band and the campaign.


At this point it was perfectly clear that it was my own fault and I would take responsibility, the campaign would do their best to limit the damage to themselves and I would pick myself up and move on as best I can.


But Craig Woodhouse and the Evening Standard had other ideas. I was made aware of the article when my twitter rivals on the No side brought its online version to attention there. There is a link to it here:


So much for representing my mistake as thoughtless and putting on record the Yes campaign's contempt for the affair. Clearly the author did not deem that sufficiently interesting or newsworthy, and decided instead to frame the tweet as anti-Islam and myself as an Islamophobe. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recognise that offence was taken and I recognise that I was naive and in the wrong, but Islamophobic? Absolutely not.


The context of my comment was in reply to a suggestion that God and religion might be relevant to the debate between the two voting systems. My reply was intended to show how ridiculous this idea was. My tweet was risqué and politically unwise, and I recognise that it was gratuitously so. However it was not intended simply to get a cheap laugh, and it was not intended as a criticism either of the Islamic faith, its holy book, or of any people who subscribe to that faith. By describing something that so obviously is not truly said in the Qur'an, I believed I had made it clear that my criticism was of the idea of bringing religion into the debate, not of any religion, religions, or religious people.


And so I read the article and saw that two spokesmen for London's Islamic community had been approached for their opinions on the matter and both criticised my tweet calling it offensive. I would speculate at this point that this reaction came from Woodhouse stirring up spokesmen for a response of outrage, not Islamic spokesmen coming forth to express outrage to the Standard.


After all, my tweet, although available to the public had to be actively looked for. It was "opt-in" in that it could be seen only by those who follow both myself and a close friend. I used no hash-tag. It was an @-reply to that friend and to one other twitter user and I did not go out of my way to ensure that it was viewed by anyone and everyone. That was done later by other people, after I had recognised my mistake and deleted the message. Therefore if it was rubbed in the faces of the Islamic community, it wasn't by me, and the Islamophobic spin certainly did not come from me.


Even so, I immediately realised that the decent thing to do would be to write directly to each of them apologising for the offence that was taken, explaining that I hold no Islamophobic views and had never intended for my comments to be received as a criticism of Islam. MP Khalid Mahmood was quoted as saying "What does AV have to do with Islam?" and really that is all I had been trying to say in the first place.


Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation replied to my letter of apology the same day, in an appreciative manner. He expressed to me that unfortunately a good deal of offence was taken by himself and many of his friends, but he appreciated my taking the trouble to contact him and attempt to resolve the issue between myself and London's Islamic community, despite the Evening Standard's best efforts to drive a wedge between us. Mr Mahmood has not replied but as a Member of Parliament I would imagine he is a very busy man and it may be a good while before he finds the time.


However things were to get worse still for me. In conjunction with maliciously branding me as an Islamophobe, Woodhouse chose to research the other activities in my life and include the name of the school where I work in his article. This was utterly irresponsible, unnecessary and as far as I'm concerned completely undeserved. Up until I saw this I was absolutely prepared to accept full responsibility, but this is where I feel I have been utterly wronged.


In the article the Standard claimed that the school were investigating the matter. This as I suspected during the day, I was able to confirm in the evening was utterly untrue. I called my line manager, who is a good friend of mine as we worked together in my very first school position after qualifying back in 2007. She assured me that the school had not been contacted at all, and my informing her of what had happened was the first she'd heard of it. However thanks to the mention of the school in the article, once it had gone to print I knew the school would be fully dragged into the affair. It is not fair on me and certainly not fair on the school.




I will be speaking with the headteacher tomorrow morning, apologise that the school had been dragged into this and attempt to retain the one job I have left during very difficult financial circumstances for myself, just as I'm looking to take my life in the direction I want. Should I be dismissed from the school additionally and consequently find it incredibly difficult to find another job in the near future, for that I will not accept full responsibility. That I would put down to malice from the Evening Standard.




At this point I want to put on record that I hold no animosity to either the Yes Campaign who've acted professionally through an affair that they did not bring on themselves, or the No Campaign whom I cannot blame for taking advantage of the opportunity which I inadvertently presented to them. Most of all I have no grudge against the Islamic community. This is the most important message I wish to get across. I did not have anything to say against Islam before and I do not now. On the contrary I want to resolve this issue with them and reach an understanding as a top priority.


I would also like to place on record appreciation for the comments posted by internet users on the online version of the article. They were largely very supportive and almost all of them came from people who had never previously encountered me, online or otherwise. I would distance myself from those that blamed Muslim spokesmen for their reaction as I place no such blame myself, but any support at all is very much appreciated.




My initial reaction to reading the article was to contact the Evening Standard immediately and express fully how angered and hurt I was at the article's tone and the needless disregard for the damage it could do to me outside of my political role. However I was wary that anything I said, no matter how carefully I chose my words (and in my emotional state I was in no position to choose my words that carefully), there was every chance it could have been used against me to make matters worse.


So instead I approached the Press Complaints Commission. I found a number of clauses from their Editors' Code that Woodhouse's article appeared to breach and I shall now list them here:




1: Accuracy


i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.


The mention of the school as investigating the matter was untrue. The school was not made aware of the situation until much later when I contacted the head of music, and when the article went to print in the evening. Additionally, the branding of myself as Islamophobic and my tweet as anti-Islam was misleading, distorted and defamatory.




iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.


The branding of my tweet as anti-Islam was clearly down to interpretation and yet from the very headline it was presented as fact.




3: Privacy




i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.


First of all I was not the one who sought to bring my digital communication to the attention of the general public. Secondly by researching and interfere with my unrelated commitments and place of work, and placing them alongside the wrongful branding of me as Islamophobic is a gross intrusion and a damaging one. The article has in fact caused the school's involvement unnecessarily in a malicious attempt to do me an enormously disproportionate amount of harm, purely for the sake of a tastier story.


6: Children
i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.


Dragging the school into the affair was completely irresponsible and unnecessary. My job is to contribute to the learning of pupils and the author has sought to cause disruption to that learning.


12: Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.


Branding me as an Islamophobe and then approaching members of the Islamic community for a response in order to add extra flavour to the article is extremely irresponsible. I hold no prejudice towards Muslims and until yesterday they hold none towards me and yet the Evening Standard has decided to stir things up and create the potential for serious prejudice where there was previously none.




-----
And so I submitted my appeal to the Press Complaints Commission yesterday afternoon. I have no knowledge of the timescale or the form of their procedure but I am hopeful of a positive response from them.


Please feel free to comment on what I have written here. It is not likely I will add anything further on the matter. I just wanted to set out my point of view.


If you have been, thanks for reading.


Ben