First in an article on the Quranic Concept of War:

“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.” – Majid Khadduri
https://securitypolicylaw.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MyersJoseph.Quranic-Concept-of-War.pdf
Second, the statement by the leader of the largest Muslim organisation in the world in the aftermath of Christchurch:

The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/24/prevent-another-christchurch-islam-must-confront-attacks-name/

http://newageislam.com/current-affairs/yahya-cholil-staquf/how-can-muslims-and-non-muslims-together–prevent-another-atrocity-like-the-one-in-christchurch?/d/118127
In this article we can see the process of psychological warfare that is the result of the teaching of those “portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims” leading to a state of “perpetual conflict”.

The Muslim children are, it seems, no longer bound by school rules and discipline and in that way are superior to the authority of the school and the teachers.

The ECHR summed it up in this 2003 judgment summary:

“Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.” – Annual Report 2003
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf

That ruling also provides the start of a tool set for correcting the situation but it will require government action. These suggestions will provide a way forward BUT it will require pressure on the government and the media to start a discussion of that ECHR ruling.

My suggestions are:

Get the ECHR ruling that sharia is “incompatible with democracy and human rights” taught as a compulsory part of the curriculum in ALL schools.

This follow-up report adds considerable detail to the original judgement summary
http://www.assembly.coe.int/Committee/JUR/ajdoc282016.pdf

1. Ask the government to publish the data behind paragraph 6 of Council of Europe resolution 2253 that shows exactly which parts of sharia law contravene the human rights convention.
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=25353

2. Get this statement of principle from the Council of Europe resolution(1804 – 2007) implemented via legislation with strong teeth:

“Nor may states allow the dissemination of religious principles which, if put into practice, would violate human rights.
If doubts exist in this respect, states must require religious leaders to take an unambiguous stand in favour of the precedence of human rights, as set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights, over any religious principle.”
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/17568/html