Secular Education Forum

The Secular Education Forum (SEF) provides expert and professional advice and opinion to the National Secular Society (NSS) on issues related to education and provides a forum for anyone with expertise in the intersection of education and secularism.

The SEF's main objective is to advocate the value of secularism/religious neutrality as a professional standard in education. The SEF welcomes supporters of all faiths and none. It provides expert support for the NSS working towards a secular education system free from religious privilege, proselytization, partisanship or discrimination.

Want to get involved?

Sign up

Join our mailing list to apply to join the forum. You'll be kept up to date with news, meetups and opportunities to contribute or volunteer.

Membership of the Secular Education Forum is intended for education professionals (including current, former and trainee professionals) and those with a particular expertise in the intersection of secularism and education. All requests to join will be considered after signing up to the mailing list.


Education blogs and commentary

A selection of blogs and comment pieces on education and secularism. For education news from the NSS, please click here.

Secularism has never been so relevant and necessary – unlike the established church

Secularism has never been so relevant and necessary – unlike the established church

Posted: Tue, 29th Nov 2022

The Census 2021 results reveal that for the first time, most people in England and Wales aren't Christian. Megan Manson says the case for a secular state has never been stronger.

It's official: Britain can no longer be called a 'Christian country'.

The 2021 Census figures published today reveal Christians are now a minority in England and Wales, making up 46% of the population. The nonreligious are now the largest religion or belief group in Wales and the second largest in England. Non-Christian religions have generally seen an increase in their adherents.

It should be a humbling moment for the UK's churches – not least the Church of England. Christianity has been in decline for decades, but rather than relinquish its disproportionate privileges, the Church has clung on to them for dear life. It continues to use its 26 bishops in the House of Lords as a voting block to support its agendas. It resists calls to remove Christian prayers from parliament and from all state-funded schools. And it refuses to let go of the thousands of state schools under its control. Faced with rising competition from a myriad of other religions, and of course nonreligious worldviews, the Church no doubt sees these privileges as the final aces in its hand.

And yet, the number of Christians continues to fall.

The decline of Christianity and the rise of nonreligious identity can be seen throughout the UK. In Northern Ireland, those without a stated religion are the second largest group according to its Census results published in September. Scotland's Census data won't be published until 2023, but 2018 survey data found 59% of Scots are not religious.

Explaining the shrinking Christian percentage isn't difficult. Migration fuels a steady stream of non-Christian religions from Asia and Africa into the country, diluting Christianity's overall market share. Meanwhile, Brits who are descended from Christians are turning away from their ancestral religion as its ideology no longer fits the 21st century world they now inhabit. Science has replaced creationism. Equality has replaced biblically endorsed patriarchy. Tolerance has replaced condemning those who aren't in an opposite-sex marriage. And the stigma of being a non-believer has almost completely vanished.

Within this picture of religious diversity and irreligiosity, the established church and its web of institutions and influence across the state look increasingly incongruous. And that's something to bear in mind for the upcoming inauguration of our head of state next year.

Our monarchy's ties to the church run deep – indeed, the monarch's authority is supposed to be divinely ordained. As well as being our official head of state, King Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and 'Defender of the Faith'. While Charles has stated he wants to be defender of all faiths, his coronation will be an explicitly Anglican rite. He and his wife will be anointed and blessed by the archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey. And he will take an oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England".

For many the ceremony will be a fascinating view. Fascinating because, for most Brits, it will be inscrutable and exotic. We'll be watching an ancient quasi-shamanic initiation ritual of a largely unfamiliar tribal religion, complete with elaborate costumes and esoteric songs and chants. But is that how a nation should be viewing its leader? As an otherworldly and outlandish religious figure with little to nothing in common with the people he leads? As Monty Python and the Holy Grail put it, "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government". Neither are strange men invoking a god only a minority believe in to crown the head of state.

For the Church to continue to cleave to its constitutional privileges in a country where Christians are now the minority is embarrassing at best, imperious at worst. Never before has it been clearer why a secular state is really the only settlement that can meet the British public where it's at: a largely irreligious, diverse hodgepodge of people with a broadly liberal outlook on life. It's time for state and church to go their separate ways, for the best for both.

Photo by Heidi Fin on Unsplash

Time for an Islamophobia self-awareness month

Time for an Islamophobia self-awareness month

Posted: Thu, 17th Nov 2022

Recent incidents reveal pushing the term 'Islamophobia' is less to do with challenging genuine anti-Muslim bigotry, and more to do with controlling speech around Islam – including excusing extremist behaviour, says Jack Rivington.

November has seen a noticeable increase in the use of the expression 'Islamophobia' by politicians and public figures. Afzal Khan MP described it as an "insidious hatred" in a parliamentary point of order, Labour party chair Annelise Dodds wrote to her opposite number Nadhim Zahawi demanding the government take greater action to address it, and Baroness Warsi accused the Conservative Party of being in denial over the extent of the issue.

This extra attention coincides with the annual observance of 'Islamophobia Awareness Month' (IAM) campaign, the stated intention of which is to bring about a "society free from Islamophobia in all its forms". However, what IAM considers to be amongst those forms should be of concern to all, especially those within the political establishment who have lent the campaign, and concept, their support.

In one respect, a call to address anti-Muslim discrimination is justified. In the year ending March 2022, 42% of religious hate crimes involved Muslims as the perceived target group, with an increase of 28% in the total number of cases over the previous year. This makes Muslims the largest group by some margin, though it should also be noted that in 23% of cases British Jews were the target, despite their population being approximately one tenth that of Muslims.

No matter the numbers, freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right that must be maintained and fought for in a secular and democratic society. This is as much the responsibility of citizens as it is of government, and it is therefore right that we all remain mindful of the abuse faced by British Muslims. A campaign with this as its goal would be uncontroversial.

However, it is clear that some advocating for IAM do not have this as their sole purpose and are instead using the campaign to promote a concept of Islamophobia which reclassifies legitimate discussion and critique as racism or hate speech.

One such organisation is the pressure group 'Muslim Engagement and Development' or MEND, which has been accused of supporting an Islamist agenda. A co-founding organisation of the awareness month campaign, many of its employees, including members of the senior leadership, have faced accusations of extremism, including legitimising the killing of British troops in Iraq, promoting antisemitic conspiracies, and downplaying acts of terrorism.

MEND has also sought to undermine the Prevent counter-extremism strategy – which it has described as 'Islamophobic' – by spreading misinformation that the program deliberately targets Muslims. They have been joined in this effort by the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP), another supporter of the IAM campaign which recently claimed "institutional Islamophobia" was an issue within counter-terrorism policing. The association further called for the term 'Islamist' to be scrapped due to its unfair stigmatisation of Islam, a ridiculous demand which demonstrates a startling instance of mistaken priorities. The association's capacity for offense would be far better redirected towards the extremists themselves – if anyone, it is they who are giving the religion a bad name, not those who record and monitor their activities.

Concerningly, the sentiments expressed by NAMP are also to be found in All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims' report setting out its definition of Islamophobia. In a section setting out why instances of Islamophobia are not confined to hate crimes, but also include more general behaviours or attitudes, the report approvingly quotes a claim that opposition to Islamism can be a constitutive part of Islamophobia. According to that view, as Islamism can be viewed as the advancement of Islam as a political system, secular opposition to such religious interference is Islamophobic.

It is this APPG definition which advocates of the IAM wish to see adopted by all organisations and government bodies as the proper understanding of 'Islamophobia' – and indeed, many local governments and political parties already have.

Other instances of 'Islamophobia' as identified by MEND include criticising those who protested against the film 'The Lady of Heaven' in June. Despite the anti-Shia sentiment reported at many of these protests, as well as the implied threat towards cinemas and their staff, MEND said that those who described protests as "dangerous and harmful" exemplified "structural Islamophobia". According to MEND, it isn't those who chant sectarian slogans targeting other Muslims who are guilty of a hate crime, just those who are concerned by it.

Another set of protests MEND was keen to support were those in Batley, which last year saw demonstrations outside a local school after a teacher used cartoons from the Charlie Hebdo magazine depicting Muhammed to teach about the issue of blasphemy. MEND described the cartoon as both "Islamophobic" and "extremely offensive", with the school eventually pressured into suspending the teacher before making a frightened apology. Although MEND said they condemned threats to both the staff and school, the teacher was ultimately driven into hiding and remains unable to resume a normal life.

Whilst it would be nice to know whether members of parliament such as Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner – who were photographed alongside Khan with a 'Labour against Islamophobia' placard in hand – agree with groups such as MEND on what constitutes Islamophobia, such clarifications are now irrelevant. 'Islamophobia' is irretrievably linked to the suppression of entirely legitimate speech and is unsalvageable as a useful term.

This is unsurprising given the historical origins of the idea of 'Islamophobia'. Between 1999 and 2010, a series of resolutions regarding the 'defamation of religion' were presented at the United Nations which introduced the term for the first time. Originating with the Islamist organisation the Muslim Brotherhood, these resolutions were pushed by a coalition of 57 Islamic nations known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and constituted an attempt to introduce a blasphemy law on an international scale. The campaign was opposed at the time by western democratic nations on the grounds such resolutions were incompatible with the human rights to freedom of speech, belief, and religion.

It is therefore strange to see members of parliament for one of those western democratic nations getting onboard with a campaign promoting the idea. This understanding, that 'defamation' of the religion of Islam is itself Islamophobic, has never gone away, as evidenced by its continued usage in that context by organisations such as MEND.

Furthermore, the term is now not only being deployed to suppress criticism of Islam as a religion, but also as a cover for hateful actions perpetrated by individual Muslims. This month, the president of the National Union of Students, Shaima Dallali, was dismissed from the role following an investigation into accusations of antisemitism. Despite admitting to making a number of antisemitic posts on Twitter, for which she has apologised, Dallali attributed her dismissal to 'Islamophobia', which rather seems to undermine her apology. A number of organisations echoed her claim including the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain. Both are listed as supporters on the IAM website.

This accusation, presented without any evidence, that Dallali is herself a victim of discrimination when she is simply facing the consequences of her own conduct, is an outrageous attempt on the part of all involved to excuse her actions. The involvement of organisations central to IAM in such allegations should be sufficient to discredit the entire campaign, as well as any notion they are concerned with anti-racism or improving community relations.

The important work to tackle genuine instances of anti-Muslim discrimination and abuse is also tarnished by these poorly disguised attempts to deflect criticism from a religious and political agenda by designating such critiques bigoted or racist. Those involved should be ashamed.

The time is long overdue for those who have lent their support to the concept of Islamophobia to issue a clarification. Do they agree with the organisations behind IAM on what constitutes Islamophobia or not, and will they distance themselves from the term or continue to act as useful idiots?

Update 14/12/2022: After being contacted by the NSS regarding the National Association of Muslim Police's proposed changes to counter-terrorism terminology, the Home Office and College of Policing have confirmed that there are "no plans" to make any such changes and that current terminology is both "accurate" and "fit for purpose".

When it comes to religion, the BBC is showing its age

When it comes to religion, the BBC is showing its age

Posted: Mon, 14th Nov 2022

Radio 4's discriminatory 'Thought for the Day' slot is totemic of religious privilege at the BBC and should be the starting point for reform, says Megan Manson.

The BBC is celebrating 100 years since its founding, making it the oldest national broadcaster in the world. This is a remarkable achievement and is testament to the BBC's consistent effort to keep ahead with the times. As director of BBC content Charlotte Moore says: "The BBC's future depends on remaining relevant to all our licence fee payers and reflecting modern Britain in an authentic way."

The BBC's commitment to staying relevant is typified by its increasingly ambitious diversity targets. In 2017 it had no targets regarding women and LGBT people. In 2020 it aimed for 50% women in its recruitment and on screen portrayal, and 8% for LGBT. It also aimed for 15% Black, Asian and ethnic minorities and 8% people with a disability in its workforce and on screen portrayal.

But there's one dark, dusty corner of the BBC which has remained stubbornly resistant to all attempts at modernisation and inclusion. And that's the 'Thought for the Day' slot of Radio 4's Today programme.

Described by the former Today presenter John Humphrys as "discriminatory", "inappropriate" and "deeply, deeply boring", TftD is perhaps the only part of the BBC that takes pride in cleaving to exclusivity and increasingly abandoned worldviews. The slot gives nearly three minutes' airtime during Radio 4's flagship programme to prominent religious public figures to bestow their godly wisdom unto the nation. And it's only given to religious public figures. Not once in its 40+ year history has a nonreligious person delivered TftD.

Understandably, many nonreligious listeners feel insulted and excluded by TftD's policy of only inviting religious speakers. The policy implies religious voices offer some sort of unique wisdom that would be inappropriate to challenge and should be treated with deference.

The nonreligious likely comprise the largest religion or belief group in the UK. NatCen's British Social Attitudes surveys consistently find the percentage of nonreligious in the UK to be above 50%. It's hard to see how TftD lives up to "reflecting modern Britain in an authentic way" when it alienates over half the population by excluding people who have something to say from a nonreligious perspective.

And it's not just nonreligious thinkers who are discriminated against by TftD. Is your religion not considered one of the 'major faiths' by the BBC? Bad news, your thoughts are not welcome either. Over the years, Pagans have tried multiple times to get a representative on TftD, only to be told that their religion isn't big enough (although some estimate the number of Pagans in the UK to be similar to the number of Hindus, who are allowed on TftD).

The idea of barring religious minorities from TftD seems completely at odds with the BBC's wider policies of actively ensuring minority ethnicities and sexualities are represented in its broadcasting.

It's no accident that TftD is so unbalanced. It's one of the legacies of the BBC's first general manager, John Reith, a hardline Calvinist who took the role after feeling a "divine calling" to do so. Under Reith, the BBC did not broadcast on Sunday before 12:30pm to give listeners time to attend church, and for the rest of the day it only broadcast religious services, classical music and other 'non-frivolous' programming.

Religious privilege was baked into the Beeb from the outset. This is reflected in the words of the BBC's fifth director general William Haley in 1948: "We are citizens of a Christian country, and the BBC - an institution set up by the state - bases its policy upon a positive attitude towards the Christian values. It seeks to safeguard those values and to foster acceptance of them. The whole preponderant weight of its programmes is directed to this end".

That same religious privilege is mirrored by the state at large. Echoing TftD's soft proselytism that greets morning listeners as they commute to work, sittings in both chambers in parliament begin with Anglican prayers, while millions of children across the country will be compelled to sit through some form of Christian prayer every day enforced by collective worship laws. For a largely irreligious country, waking up to some form of call to prayer is strangely inescapable.

The symptoms of systemic deference to religion at the BBC extend beyond TftD. For the really early birds, Radio 4 has 'Prayer for the Day' at 5:43am, and Radio 2's breakfast show includes its own TftD entitled 'Pause for Thought'. On TV we have 'Songs of Praise', a show which only features Christian worship and has a strongly evangelising approach.

And then there's the BBC's cringing coverage of religious affairs which regularly seems at pains to play up positive perspectives of religion while whitewashing the negatives. In 2010, BBC 1 and BBC 2's coverage of the pope's visit to the UK clocked up to over 12 hours. There was also coverage on Radio 4, Radio 5 Live and other BBC TV, radio and online services, in addition to Catholic-themed current affairs programmes and documentaries.

During this visit, the NSS and others organised the biggest protest against a papal visit in history, with over 20,000 taking part. The protest aimed to highlight the Vatican's role in the concealment of child abuse and its denial of justice for victims. There were also protests about the Vatican's damaging stance on social issues such as women's rights and LGBT equality.

The protest received a few minutes' coverage on the BBC, much of it critical.

While it may be short slot, TftD is totemic of the spectre of religious privilege haunting the BBC. That's why it attracts such ire and frustration from those who object to its discriminatory premise and its consequential irrelevance and dreariness for growing numbers of people.

Perhaps the BBC needs to listen to one of the many oft-repeated platitudes on TftD, and 'take time to reflect'. The centenary is a great opportunity for our national broadcaster to take time to reflect on how it can age gracefully. It may be 100 years old but it needn't look it. A fresher, more critical, and more inclusive approach to religion and belief would keep it relevant to the increasingly irreligious and religiously-diverse country it serves. And ensuring all thoughts, not just those from the religious elites, are welcome on Thought for the Day would be a good place to start.

Show FIFA’s moral relativism the red card

Show FIFA’s moral relativism the red card

Posted: Thu, 10th Nov 2022

Human rights defenders are perfectly entitled to ignore FIFA's plea to 'focus on the football' and use the World Cup to shine a spotlight on Qatar's regressive regime, says Stephen Evans.

"Please, let's now focus on the football!".

That was the desperate plea of FIFA president Gianni Infantino and general secretary Fatma Samoura, who last week sent a letter to all 32 nations participating in the forthcoming World Cup, asking them not to lecture Qatar about moral values.

The usual excitement that precedes the world's foremost festival of football has been noticeably absent this time. Instead, the build-up has been dominated by discussion of serious human rights abuses, including Qatar's criminalisation of homosexuality, the limited rights of women in the country and the plight of migrant workers.

At a time when many people are campaigning for greater LGBT inclusion in the sport, the men's World Cup is about to be hosted by a country in which homosexual acts are illegal, considered haram under sharia law. Under the Qatar constitution, Islam is the state religion and sharia shall be "a main source" of legislation. Punishments for same-sex sexual activity can include fines, prison sentences of up to seven years, and even death by stoning. One might have hoped that the awarding of the World Cup might help shift attitudes in the country. But there's no evidence of that yet. Just this week, Qatari World Cup Ambassador Khalid Salman described homosexuality as "damage in the mind."

The country has a terrible record on women's human rights, too. Qatar's male guardianship rules severly restrict women's freedom of movement. Women need a male guardian's permission to marry. Once married, a woman can be deemed "disobedient" if she does not obtain her husband's permission before working, travelling, or if she leaves her home or refuses to have sex with him, without a "legitimate" reason. Men can marry up to four women at a time without needing permission from a guardian or even from their current wife or wives.

Women can't even be primary guardians of their own children, and discriminatory laws relating to divorce can leave women trapped in abusive relationships.

Earlier this year, a female World Cup official fled Qatar due to the threat of facing 100 lashes and a seven-year jail term for 'extramarital sex', despite reporting she was raped.

Meanwhile, flogging is used as a punishment for alcohol consumption or illicit sexual relations and its penal code criminalises 'blasphemy'. Conversion to another religion from Islam is defined by the law as apostasy – and is illegal.

But never mind all that, say FIFA, let's focus on the football! According to the letter, "One of the great strengths of the world is indeed its very diversity, and if inclusion means anything, it means having respect for that diversity. No one people or culture or nation is 'better' than any other."

Pass me the bucket.

Diversity isn't about tolerating the intolerable. 'Respect for diversity' here is code for turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. The idea that no culture is "better" than any other asks us to put aside our disdain for cruel, harmful, discriminatory, and degrading practices and simply accept that some cultures 'just do things differently'.

This cultural relativist approach may be expedient with a world cup on the way, but in rejecting the universality of civil and political rights, FIFA are throwing LGBT people, religious minorities, and women under the bus.

Such relativism downplays common values. It suggests that human rights, equality, liberty, democracy, and the separation of religion and state aren't for everyone. Tell that to the Iranian women risking their lives to rid themselves of the tyranny of the misogynistic theocracy they've been living under.

One may wonder why this tiny desert sheikhdom, with little in the way of football pedigree, stadiums or the necessary infrastructure was chosen to host the tournament in the first place. Many suspect shady deals. The fact that eleven of the 22 committee members who voted on awarding the tournament to Qatar have been fined, suspended, banned for life or prosecuted for corruption tells its own story.

The infrastructure it was lacking has been hastily assembled by migrant labourers who have endured miserable conditions, including low wages, non-payment of salaries and unsafe workplaces. Last year the Guardian reported 6,500 migrant workers had died in Qatar since the World Cup was awarded, although the exact figure is disputed.

As Norway's Football Association president Lise Klaveness told FIFA's Congress in Doha earlier this year, this was a tournament "awarded in an unacceptable way, with unacceptable consequences…Human rights, equality, democracy, the core interests of football, were not in the starting XI."

FIFA's shameless letter asks nations not to "allow football to be dragged into every ideological or political battle that exists."

If football has been dragged anywhere, it's into the gutter, by FIFA.

Human rights defenders and rights respecting nations are perfectly entitled to use the forthcoming tournament to shine a spotlight on Qatar's Wahhabi inspired regressive regime. Those who value liberal democracy should show FIFA's moral relativism the red card.

Salman Rushdie and the women’s revolution in Iran are linked

Salman Rushdie and the women’s revolution in Iran are linked

Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2022

There is a direct link between the threats and violence faced by Salman Rushdie and that faced by generations of women and men in Iran, says Maryam Namazie.

Salman Rushdie's agent has confirmed that the courageous writer has lost sight in one eye and the use of one hand after a brutal attack whilst he was preparing to speak at an event on asylum for writers.

The attack in New York state on August 12th has been a stark reminder that even decades after Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie and his book The Satanic Verses, the writer remains unsafe to write and to speak.

After all these years, it is still unimaginable that someone, somewhere, can be attacked or killed for their words and expression. And that for many, accusations of causing offence, hurting fragile sensibilities and of 'Islamophobia' are enough to justify loss of life and limb.

In this topsy turvy worldview, words are harmful, violence justifiable. It's the age-old victim blaming in defence of the powerful at the expense of those who challenge the sacred and taboo, and dare to dissent.

Infuriatingly, after all these years, those issuing or supporting threats of violence face little consequence even though incitement to murder is a crime.

To give an example from Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, who had said "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for [Rushdie]," was knighted by the British government in 2005.

Meanwhile, officials of the Islamic regime of Iran continue to travel with ease and without fear of prosecution. Only a few days after its morality police reportedly beat Mahsa Amini to death for 'improper' hijab, Iran's president Ebrahim Raisi was given a visa to address the United Nations General Assembly – in New York, no less. The Iranian regime, a regime of femicide, even sits on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Since Raisi's UN visit, many more protestors have been beaten, disappeared and killed using weapons of war. According to human rights groups, over 300 protestors have been killed, many of them children. The real numbers are higher. Over 14,000 have been arrested, including two women journalists who first broke the news of Mahsa Amini's death. An official of the regime has stated that the average age of those arrested is 15. A thousand have already been charged in summary kangaroo courts. Some have been issued death sentences for 'enmity against god.'

Clearly, there is a direct link between the decades of threats and violence faced by Salman Rushdie and that faced by generations of women and men in Iran. It is the Islamic regime of Iran which today is faced with a women's revolution that aims to end theocracy once and for all.

The veil, which since its imposition has been the most visible symbol of Islamic rule, is now the target and symbol of a women's revolution, led by a brave Generation Z that refuses to back down and has no illusions about Islamic rule. Their main slogans are: 'Woman, Life, Freedom,' 'We don't want an Islamic state,' and 'We don't want an anti-woman state.'

Just as the rise of the Islamic regime in Iran saw a corresponding rise of fundamentalism everywhere, the end of this regime via a women's revolution would herald a new dawn in Iran, the Middle East and the world. This regime came in by imposing the veil with acid attacks and violence. It will come to an end with free women burning and removing their veils.

Despite the ongoing protests in the streets of Iran and across the globe, western governments continue with business as usual, making only empty condemnations.

Pressure on western governments to stop relations with the regime of sex apartheid is one of the important ways in which secularists and freethinkers can defend the women's revolution as well as brave dissenters like Rushdie.

A banner at one of the protests in support of Iran's revolution sums it up perfectly:

"To the world leaders. Iranian women do not need you to save them. They only need you to stop saving their murderers."

In 2006, 12 writers (including Rushdie and I) signed a Manifesto against Totalitarianism, which says:

"We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.

"We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.

"We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark.'

The women's revolution in Iran has allowed us all to fathom another Iran and world free from fundamentalism.

Supporting it, defending it, and safeguarding its gains can help make this century 'one of light and not dark.'

Image: Maryam Namazie (left) and fellow activist Rana Ahmad by Ayman Ghoujal.

This piece was written for MIZ to be published in German.