 Thank you very much for that. I have great pleasure in introducing Fatima Manji. This is a real treat for me because I'm very keen on Channel 4 news and I think it is the best of investigative journalism that we've got on British TV. Fatima works on a variety of news domestic and international. Recent examples include reporting on the refugee crisis from Hungary and Serbia and charting the rise of Jeremy Corbyn here in the UK. Ysgolion, identifiad a'r bobl gyda'r bwysig yn cynnwys pethau gwirio. Rwy'n ddwych ar ychydig â'r gweithio yma, Fatima'r gyfyrd a'r iawnau'r gweithio'r defnyddio yng nghymru, Maheri Blyg, a phobl yng nghymru ar y Westminster yw Scotland. Fatima'r gweithio'r gweithio yng nghymru ystod ddau'r gweithio, gan gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio o'r Ysgolion. Last year, Fathom was a finalist for the Royal Television Society's Young Journalist of the Year Award, and it's a real treat to welcome her here today. Thank you. Thank you very much for that kind introduction. It's good to know Channel 4 News has one fan in your genes. So good morning everyone, and it's a huge pleasure to be with you here today as part of this debate, which I really believe is going to be one of the defining political and social issues of our time, that of British Muslims and integration. Now, as a journalist, I'm in the fortunate position of very often asking the questions and very rarely having to provide the answers. And you'll be pleased to hear I have no intention of breaking with that tradition today, so I'm going to pose a series of questions, and hopefully throughout the day, the distinguished panellists will be able to answer them. Now, these are all kind of challenges, confusing thoughts, tensions that have appeared in my mind, both personally and professionally as a journalist and a Muslim, and just a few thoughts that I want to share with you. Now, I know you've already been thinking about what does integration actually mean. A question I'd like to pose to you is, what does the integrated British Muslim look like? Maybe to some of you, that's obvious in the debates that you've already had. But recently, this tension particularly popped up in my mind when a colleague of mine interviewed a young British Muslim woman who had gone to Syria with her five children to join ISIS. Now, this woman's subsequently left, and this isn't really about her case, but what I thought was fascinating is, in the interview she gave about why she had decided to leave ISIS and telling other people not to join, her description of this violent, brutal, barbaric group was this, that they were just not my cup of tea. Now, frankly, that's perhaps the most culturally British statement, or maybe even typically British understatement I have ever heard. But at the same time, here's a woman who apparently actively joined a group who were fundamentally opposed to British values as defined by the government, and I understand that is democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and respect for other faiths. Now, all of that you can debate later. But the question it does pose is, was the lack of integration really the problem here? And the further question it also leads us to is, is integration and Britishness really about culture, or is it to be a political project? And I don't think we decided on what that is yet. So culture or political project, is it possible to distinguish between those two things? Let's take an example. Last year, the Sun newspaper ran a headline on its front page called United Against ISIS. Now, it featured a very prominent photograph of a woman in a union jack hijab and promoted a campaign by an anti extremist organisation, which focuses on women, largely supports the government's prevent policy. And the paper cried out that to be British was to make a stand against any hatred or extremism. Now, what if someone opposes this campaign? More specifically, what if a British Muslim disagrees with this campaign, as many Muslims I know did at the time? Does that make them less British? Does that make them less integrated? I think here we have an example of where it seems British values actually become a synonym for deradicalisation. And we need to think about what the long term implications of that are. I believe that one of the dangers of talking about Britishness and integration in this way is it narrows our debate. It stops us from having that wider, much needed, sometimes painful conversation we need to have as a society. Now, I don't want to get into the business of denying that there is a problem. There definitely is a problem of some disaffected young Muslims turning to violent sectarian Wahabi ideology. And for me personally, it's been incredibly disturbing to report on some of the rhetoric and actions taken by young British Muslims. As an example, I covered the story of Aqsa Mahmoud, 21-year-old, young, middle-class, privately-educated, Glaswydian girl, strong family links. She ends up leaving her parents devastated by not only choosing to go to Syria and join ISIS herself, but then also publishing online material, some of it filled with hate, encouraging other young women to do the same. Now, how do we as a society, and I'd say as a society rather than community, make sense of something like that? I think one thing's for certain, it won't happen if ordinary Muslims in Britain are afraid to express what they really feel for fear of being labelled as deviant, unintegrated, or perhaps the worst of them all being opposed to British values. And I think sadly that fear is starting to take hold, and we're already witnessing Muslims feeling the need to go above and beyond to prove their commitment to British values and their Britishness. Now, one Muslim group, excuse me, one Muslim group last year, and I understand repeated this year, launched a hijab with poppies on, and the Daily Mail rather excitedly seized upon their campaign, urging Muslim women to show their support for the armed forces and defy extremism. And notice, by the way, how these great patriotic anti-extremist gestures often seem to take place on Muslim women's heads. Not for the first time in history have Muslim women become totans in political and cultural battle. But to come back to the idea of poppy hijabs. Now, this isn't a criticism of remembrance. It's not a criticism of ideas of the idea of poppies themselves. That's a different debate entirely and not one I want to get into. But the question here is, why is it Muslims that urge to go the extra mile? For every other Brit, a humble, subtle paper poppy on your jacket is enough. For Muslims though, this poppy, or in this case multiple poppies on your head, becomes a kind of loyalty to Britain test. In the last week when I was doing some research for this presentation today, I also came across no doubt well-meaning, but pretty confused article in The Independent, announcing that the Prophet himself had British values. Now, given that arguably Great Britain was founded some thousand years after his lifetime, that seems a rather odd thing to say. Upon closer examination, the author was actually critiquing the government's prevent policy, and calling for extremism to be challenged through Islamic teachings themselves in schools. But they felt the need to couch it in this projection of British values upon Islam's central character. The danger then is increasingly we're only going to hear the views of those who look and sound acceptable as good British Muslims. And those who have a more critical political contribution to make will either stay silent for fear of their loyalties being questioned, or retreat into their own communities instead of engaging with mainstream political discourse. Perhaps the exact opposite of what we might want an integrated society to look like. And as ever, throughout this debate, I think we also need to ask who speaks for and about British Muslims. Now, when we ask that question for journalists like myself, it means we need to think about how we present a diversity and a range of British Muslim voices, not just the good Muslim citizen who's speaking out against extremism versus the nasty extremist. But there are also lessons here for policymakers. Look to the history of this nation's colonial past, and we see how empire relied on elites from native populations, who often told their masters what they wanted to hear rather than being reliable bellwethers of opinion. Now is history repeating itself here. I often hear Muslim communities complain that the government is not listening and not engaging, that it's choosing to take policy advice from a small cabal of irrelevant elites who have little knowledge of what is really happening within communities. So we also need to ask who benefits from the framing of Muslim communities as a problem. Who are the careerists cashing in on the securitisation of Muslim behaviour? Now the more cynical of you might point to some of my fellow journalists making a career out of reporting on Muslim behaviour, and you wouldn't be wrong, it's true. Barely a day goes by without a national newspaper or a broadcast outlet reporting feverishly on Muslims using the terms radical Islam, Islamist. I've often sat in our morning editorial meeting willing it to be the one day that those pesky Muslims don't pop up on the news in Jadwnda. Excuse me, it's making me lose my voice, that's how upset I am. Now fortunately at Channel 4 News we pride ourselves at looking at things alternatively, being fair, being willing to challenge the established narrative on an issue. And I'm saying this without my bosses being present. But certainly the rising influence of Wahhabism in the UK is disturbing. It's a serious subject for well informed journalists and credible specialists in government to take up. However, as someone within the media industry, I think there is a systematic problem. With the disproportionate interests my fellow reporters are showing in Islam and Muslims. A breathless and sensationalist story about Muslims is an easy one to put together. It plays on deeply held and pre-existing fears about Islam and Muslims that many readers and viewers already have. And it requires little explanation. I think an important point here also is most journalists are unlikely to be challenged by either their editors or by their audience when they either make mistakes or deliberately mislead readers and viewers. Unlike in stories about other minority groups. The Muslim groups that could potentially challenge these inaccuracies either don't exist or are under resourced. So a sensationalised or ill-informed story about Islam and Muslims is journalistically cheap. There is just no cost to making mistakes or misleading audiences. One example to consider here, and I'm sure lots of you read about it, is mysterious surrounding the so-called Trojan horse scandal in Birmingham schools. All based on a letter that was later found to be forged. There were weeks of headlines proclaiming that hardline Islamists had conspired to take over schools. The first question that you should probably ask yourself here and one that I certainly did is what self-respecting Islamist resorts to Greek mythology to describe their plots. In any case, subsequent investigations seem to suggest that what had happened in these schools largely was about incompetence and mismanagement, and in fact when the House of Commons Education Select Committee, the respected group of cross-party MPs considered it, they found no evidence of extremism or radicalisation apart from a single isolated incident. They also said there was no evidence of a sustained plot and no evidence of a similar situation pertaining elsewhere in the country. That obviously received much less media attention. How did all of this escalate so quickly? More importantly, what do Muslim communities and good journalists need to do to ensure accuracy when a story like this rears its head in the future? I was asked to end on something that makes me optimistic for the future. I think the organisers were a little bit worried that I'd depress you too early in the day, so I am happy to oblige my room. Earlier I mentioned how Muslim women are too often used as a political football in these debates. When a woman who happens to be a hijab-wearing Muslim called Nadia won the Great British Bake Off, which was one of the BBC's most watched programmes of the year, naturally one Daily Mail columnist reacted with a snarky remark on chocolate mosque cakes. Another one claimed that this visibility of Muslim women was a sign of the unstoppable force of Islam in Britain. Even morning it would lead to veiled cabinet ministers and, wait for it, newsreaders. Imagine that. The more liberal media used Nadia's win to indulge in debates about multicultural Britain. Now, where's the optimistic part you're probably asking? It's coming. I think the best coverage of all came from, and you won't hear me say this very often, Hello Magazine. They simply put her on the front page with her family and build her as the nation's new sweetheart. It made me think that if a celebrity gossip magazine can get it right, then I think there's hope for the rest of our media and our policy makers yet. Thank you.