Muslim Girl Loses Case To Wear Special Dress At School.

[nichomach]

So lets say you work in an office or a bank. And you decide to not to wear a shirt and tie which is the policy. You then get sacked after many warnings. Would you file for unfair dismissal? I somehow dont think you would.

The flouting of a requirement for smart appearance in the workplace is hardly a comparable case; the analogy is spurious.

She does have a right to be educated. Yes. But school policy is school policy. Why doesnt she just go to a school which does allow it? Matter solved. Its their choice which school they go to.

"School policy is school policy" is rather a banal truism, which doesn't speak to whether that policy is right or wrong, and I would submit that a policy may be simply wrong. As to whether she should "go to a school which does allow it", you're assuming that there is one in the area where she lives (and even if there is, given this judgement which allows the banning of the jilbab, there probably wouldn't be for long). Consequently, your presumption that there is a choice is likely to prove false.

[Stewart]

Ah Rave, me old mate. You don't give up eaisily, I;ll give you that. I didn't expect I'd be arguing with the peoples champion of rights, to be honest, was just posting a link. Now I'm arguing with Swampy.

Anyway, once more unto the breach...

Oh, the correct image? What exactly is the 'correct' image? We all look the same, consequently everything must be hunky-dory?

Basic, but pretty much correct, yes. Looking smart, well dressed, and in school colors. Although you have to allow for different styles of dress, all styles should look like they come from the same school. Your wording is, as I say, basic but correct.

It does not make everyone equal, it tries to impose equality on everyone. There's a big difference. Musilm clearly /= Christian, why try to pretend that all the kids at that school have a shared set of values when they clearly do not?

They are all thei for the same reasons though Rave, to be educated. Also, they are all (note that word - all) expected to adhere to the same set of rules. Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. And as the Courts have ruled, one of those rules is; you wear the unfirom deemed acceptable for your religion and sex, as set out by the school.

Unless you're some Human Rights warrior, I really can't see any reason to have a problem with that. Rules, as I've said before, are rules.

Right, well seeing as I'm obviously a thicko, perhaps you could explain them in words of one syllable. Cheers.

Already have done mate. See above. Although, for a nice, easy answer, ring your local school tomrrow, and ask to speak to the Head, and ask him or her, why they current impose a dress code on the pupils who attend the school. No problems with that, I assume?

Um, yeah, there is actually a perfectly good alternative to this, which is that Sikhs take their turbans off and put on a helmet before riding a motorcycle. They're not sewn on to their heads you know.

Correct, but you fail to grasp the following simple concept; the Sikhs had a problem, namely the wearing of a turban and the need under British law to wear a chrash helmet. So, being the tolerant, welcoming people that we British are (and not the racist scum the Guardian and other leftwing rags constatly claim that we are) a law was passed that they can be excused, if they are wearing a turban.

Now, that is the solution offered; and should a Sikh wish to take that option he can, but if he demands a diffferent solution, despite the fact that the exsisting one has been ruled to be perfectly acceptable, then he'd be told where to go. This is what this girl wants.

There is a uniform for female Muslims to wear, this addresss the problem of female Muslims and school uniform.

Just to make sure you are still with me - the uniform the school has for Muslims is the equiverlant to the crash helmet solution.

Now, this girl wants something more. She does not want to take the solution offered, she wants special treatment. Why would the school bend the rules for this one girl? If there was no Muslim unifrom avalible, then I'd support her in asking for one, as I support the rights of Sikhs to not wear a crash helmet; but once that solution is offered, in this case, a uniform deemed acceptable by the school (80% Muslim, remember), then I cannot suppport her right to demand a different uniform because of her 'deepening' religious beliefs.

You with me, mate?

Once again, I entirely fail to see how simply imposing one dress code on all Muslim girls is acceptable? It suits the school and the government fine, but it obviously doesn't suit all the Muslim girls.

Well, thats the way it is. If it suits the school, and the pupils, 80% of which are Muslim, as well as the High Court, and is also 100% legal, then I see no reason to change it, because of the demands of one school girl. There are lots of things that don't suit me, to be honest, but I do not expect my demands that they change are going to be listened to.

She took it to the Courts, the Courts ruled, now, she either appeals, or she accepts (and more to the point - respects) the ruling. As Muslims are very tolerant people, I'm sure her parents could do this, as could the girl in question; it might also go someway to avoiding the impression in the press, that this is another example of the fanatical Muslim approach to religion, which has, in the recent past, became an all too often displayed trait.

Good, so I can be proud that my country used to lock up people for being homosexual, and used to shoot shellshocked teenage boys for deserting. At the end of the day, rules are rules eh?

You can be proud that the Brits discovered penacillin, invented the steam engine, light bulbs, and the jet engine if you like. You can be proud that we stood alone against the Nazi menace and fought and died on the beaches on D-Day against facisim. You can be proud of our history of offering a place of assylum for the percicuted peoples of the world.

Shooting boys for deserting and locking up Homosexuals were the rules of the day. This girl is not going to be shot, she is not going to be imprisoned. She is going to have to wear the same uniform to school as all the other Muslim girls.

Excuse me if I don't shed a tear.

No, but we can protest against those rules when they clearly infringe an individual's fundamental human rights. At the end of the day, amongst all this moaning about Muslims abusing the system and taking the mick, has anyone given any thought to the fact that her parents (like every Muslim I know, which is several) almost certainly pay their taxes and national insurance and consequently have a right to have their daughter educated?

Please don't start banging on about human rights, like someone's being tortured or raped. She is being told to wear the same school uniform as everyone else. Nothing you say, no matter how dramatic, is going to change that fact.

As far as I am aware, no-one in the thread has questioned or suggested that her parents do not pay taxes, nor national insurance. The Courts would have ruled the same regardless of how much tax her her family pay.

Well, then IMO they are all wrong. Nothing unusual in that to be fair.

Oh? Well, I wish you'd said so before. If only you'd mentioned that the school, the Courts, the High Court, me, Shogun, Swafeman and everyone else is wrong, then we'd never have had to have this debate.

You thinking that the Courts are wrong will not change anything. She has the right of appeal...

Well, I have a democratic right to protest, which I have used in the past, and no doubt will use again in the future.

More power to you then. I hope you enjoyed your human right to protest. (Non viloent of course, not that protestors would ever abuse the right to protest by turning violent of course)

[Shogun]

Um- yeah I would, in a heartbeat? I'm a troublemaker, remember?

Oh yea, sorry i forgot...

Sure. Find me another school in Luton which expressly allows Jilbabs will ya, since it's so easy?

If you watched the channel 4 news a few days ago there was an interview with the lawyer of this case. They asked why couldnt she go to another school which did allow this and the answer was something like they were all full or they were on the other side of town which was too far away. Surely if they could afford to take this case to court they could find the money to for her transport.

The flouting of a requirement for smart appearance in the workplace is hardly a comparable case

Last time i checked you were at school to do work and suprisingly at work to do work. Smart dress gives a working atmosphere.

[nichomach]

Last time i checked you were at school to do work and suprisingly at work to do work. Smart dress gives a working atmosphere.

And last time I checked, a shirt and tie was not a required component of any religious observance. Like I said, a spurious analogy.

[Rave]

Ah Rave, me old mate. You don't give up eaisily, I;ll give you that. I didn't expect I'd be arguing with the peoples champion of rights, to be honest, was just posting a link. Now I'm arguing with Swampy.

Mate, I never give up. If I think I'm right I'll argue till I'm blue in the face. I've annoyed a lot of people that way, including my wife.

Basic, but pretty much correct, yes. Looking smart, well dressed, and in school colors. Although you have to allow for different styles of dress, all styles should look like they come from the same school. Your wording is, as I say, basic but correct.

Right, so explain how a Jilbab couldn't be integrated into the standard school dress code? What exactly is there about the school identity that stops it being embroidered onto a Jilbab?

They are all thei for the same reasons though Rave, to be educated. Also, they are all (note that word - all) expected to adhere to the same set of rules. Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. And as the Courts have ruled, one of those rules is; you wear the unfirom deemed acceptable for your religion and sex, as set out by the school.

The courts have ruled that. I am here to say that the courts are run by ignorant, backwards, racist scum.

Unless you're some Human Rights warrior, I really can't see any reason to have a problem with that. Rules, as I've said before, are rules.

Well, not only am I a human rights warrior (and paid up member of Amnesty FWIW) I feel that I have given sufficient reasons for saying that rules are not rules- which I'll come to in a minute.

Already have done mate. See above.

Where?

Although, for a nice, easy answer, ring your local school tomrrow, and ask to speak to the Head, and ask him or her, why they current impose a dress code on the pupils who attend the school. No problems with that, I assume?

None at all mate. In fact I work for Ofsted and so I'm intimately familiar with the mechanisms for contacting schools. Still, since you apparently think there is a nice, easy answer, perhaps you'd like to post it here rather than shirking the responsibility by telling me to ring my local school?

Correct, but you fail to grasp the following simple concept; the Sikhs had a problem, namely the wearing of a turban and the need under British law to wear a chrash helmet. So, being the tolerant, welcoming people that we British are (and not the racist scum the Guardian and other leftwing rags constatly claim that we are) a law was passed that they can be excused, if they are wearing a turban.

Now, that is the solution offered; and should a Sikh wish to take that option he can, but if he demands a diffferent solution, despite the fact that the exsisting one has been ruled to be perfectly acceptable, then he'd be told where to go. This is what this girl wants.

There is a uniform for female Muslims to wear, this addresss the problem of female Muslims and school uniform.

Well, that is still totally inconsistent at the end of the day. I have been involved in a motorcycle accident, and judging from the protective effects that trainer shoes and a pair of robust looking leather gloves had on me, I feel I'm in a good position to say that a turban would provide precisely no protection to a person's head in the case of an accident. Now while I like riding a motorcycle without a helmet (as I have done for the last 14 years in my Grandad's field on an old moped) I'm glad that I'm forced to wear a helmet when I ride on the road because I know how much damage a 30mph accident can do a person. The law of this country essentially says "you must pretect your head from serious injury when you ride a motorcycle unless you're a Sikh". If that isn't a blatant bending of the law to appease religious sensibilities I don't know what is.

Just to make sure you are still with me - the uniform the school has for Muslims is the equiverlant to the crash helmet solution.

Um- no it ain't. The crash helmet law essentially says 'you must avail yourself of a safety measure that has proven to be very effective at saving lives- unless you're a Sikh.' The uniform rule says 'You must conform to the ruling for the ethnic minority in which we've pigeonholed you'.

Now, this girl wants something more. She does not want to take the solution offered, she wants special treatment. Why would the school bend the rules for this one girl? If there was no Muslim unifrom avalible, then I'd support her in asking for one, as I support the rights of Sikhs to not wear a crash helmet; but once that solution is offered, in this case, a uniform deemed acceptable by the school (80% Muslim, remember), then I cannot suppport her right to demand a different uniform because of her 'deepening' religious beliefs.

Well, as I've already said more than once, you're lumping all Muslims in with one another and assuming that what is acceptable to one is acceptable to them all. If religious schisms are that easy to solve, perhaps you'd care to solve the troubles in Northern Ireland out for us? It must be easy for a man of your talents.

You can be proud that the Brits discovered penacillin, invented the steam engine, light bulbs, and the jet engine if you like. You can be proud that we stood alone against the Nazi menace and fought and died on the beaches on D-Day against facisim. You can be proud of our history of offering a place of assylum for the percicuted peoples of the world.

Indeed I am immensely proud of that mate, and I've posted to that effect in several other threads, most recently in a post encouraging my fellow Hexites to exercise their right to vote.

Shooting boys for deserting and locking up Homosexuals were the rules of the day.

So were they right?

This girl is not going to be shot, she is not going to be imprisoned. She is going to have to wear the same uniform to school as all the other Muslim girls.

Excuse me if I don't shed a tear.

So? The rules are wrong. I'm trying to prove that rules are not rules, not that this girl is being oppressed in the same way as a First World War underage soldier was. This is not an avenue I want to go down; FWIW my Grandfather got his leg shot off as an underage soldier in the First World War.

Please don't start banging on about human rights, like someone's being tortured or raped. She is being told to wear the same school uniform as everyone else. Nothing you say, no matter how dramatic, is going to change that fact.

Facts indeed they are. Perhaps you'd like to define for me where rulings on human rights start and stop?

Oh? Well, I wish you'd said so before. If only you'd mentioned that the school, the Courts, the High Court, me, Shogun, Swafeman and everyone else is wrong, then we'd never have had to have this debate.

Um....if we automatically accept that the courts are right why are we having this debate in the first place?

More power to you then. I hope you enjoyed your human right to protest. (Non viloent of course, not that protestors would ever abuse the right to protest by turning violent of course)

Nope. I won't turn violent until I consider myself to have been disenfranchised.

Rich :¬)

[Shogun]

And last time I checked, a shirt and tie was not a required component of any religious observance. Like I said, a spurious analogy.

No i was trying to make the point that a uniform is a uniform. Is she going to go through life trying to make people let her wear whatever she wants to wear? And if they dont let her, taking them to court?

[nichomach]

No i was trying to make the point that a uniform is a uniform. Is she going to go through life trying to make people wear whatever she wants to wear? And if they dont let her, taking them to court?

No, she is attempting to get a school to allow her to wear what she feels is appropriate to her religious observance; she's not trying to "make people wear whatever she wants to wear". I'd point out that uniforms include a fair amount of variation for personal circumstance anyway (as I've said elsewhere, if the Met have a uniform hijab for Muslim women officers, what's wrong with a school uniform jilbab?), and that it would be perfectly possible for that uniform to be expanded to include a jilbab in school colours, for instance, as an option. I shouldn't imagine that the school makes its non-Muslim pupils wear the shalwar kameez either, so uniform codes are not absolute.

[Shogun]

No, she is attempting to get a school to allow her to wear what she feels is appropriate to her religious observance; she's not trying to "make people wear whatever she wants to wear". I'd point out that uniforms include a fair amount of variation for personal circumstance anyway (as I've said elsewhere, if the Met have a uniform hijab for Muslim women officers, what's wrong with a school uniform jilbab?), and that it would be perfectly possible for that uniform to be expanded to include a jilbab in school colours, for instance, as an option. I shouldn't imagine that the school makes its non-Muslim pupils wear the shalwar kameez either, so uniform codes are not absolute.

Sorry i edited my post as you were typing this. I didn't phrase it right. Tis what tiredness does to you. And thats why im going to bed now.

[Stewart]

Over the top lads!

Mate, I never give up. If I think I'm right I'll argue till I'm blue in the face. I've annoyed a lot of people that way, including my wife.

Not the best boasts really. Basically saying you're stubborn, annoy people, will never admit you are wrong and will argue until you are blue in the face. Hardly floods you with credibility, as now, people are going to get the impression that debate with you is pointless.

Right, so explain how a Jilbab couldn't be integrated into the standard school dress code? What exactly is there about the school identity that stops it being embroidered onto a Jilbab?

The rules, mate, the rules. Those things that keep the country running, that you, in my opinion, in a rather childish, studenty, naive way, (I hope I can say without offending) seem think are meaningless and we should scrap the entire Court system because its garbage, and bend over backwards for anyone who demands their own special treatment.

The courts have ruled that. I am here to say that the courts are run by ignorant, backwards, racist scum.

Ah, the standard Lefty tactic of calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist, and hoping that it frightens them into silence. I'm glad you rolled that one out. The Judge was obviously the secret head of the BNP. It’s as clear as day in this case...

Well, not only am I a human rights warrior (and paid up member of Amnesty FWIW) I feel that I have given sufficient reasons for saying that rules are not rules- which I'll come to in a minute.

A Human Rights Warrior you may be, but you are being a warrior for the sake of it; looking for a case to champion, without spending a bit more time working out if you should be championing it at all.

If you think that rules are not rules, then you are free to break the law, and on the basis that you disagree with it, and see what happens.

Just out of interest, do you only drink tea made with ethically produced tea-bags? Did you protest against the war in Iraq? Do you think that anyone who has any sort of concern about Asylum is obviously a racist? Do you think that anyone with a St. George’s cross out for the football must be a BNP voter?

Just trying to get a better view of the sort of person I'm arguing with here.

Where?

Up there.

None at all mate. In fact I work for Ofsted and so I'm intimately familiar with the mechanisms for contacting schools. Still, since you apparently think there is a nice, easy answer, perhaps you'd like to post it here rather than shirking the responsibility by telling me to ring my local school?

You asked for reasons why people need to wear a uniform, I gave you several, you seem to have difficulty seeing them, so I suggest that you ring a school, and they will tell you the same reasons. Not quite sure how I am sherking anything there, but if it helps you to believe that I am, then I'm fine with that.

Well, that is still totally inconsistent at the end of the day. I have been involved in a motorcycle accident, and judging from the protective effects that trainer shoes and a pair of robust looking leather gloves had on me, I feel I'm in a good position to say that a turban would provide precisely no protection to a person's head in the case of an accident. Now while I like riding a motorcycle without a helmet (as I have done for the last 14 years in my Grandad's field on an old moped) I'm glad that I'm forced to wear a helmet when I ride on the road because I know how much damage a 30mph accident can do a person. The law of this country essentially says "you must pretect your head from serious injury when you ride a motorcycle unless you're a Sikh". If that isn't a blatant bending of the law to appease religious sensibilities I don't know what is.

You are free to petition the Courts and attempt to change the law, banning Sikhs from being exempt from crash helmets if you like; not sure what that would do for their human right though, Mr warrior.

Anyway, as I said, the problem as the turban, the solution was the exemption from crash helmets. In the girls case, the problem was she was a Muslim, the solution was a perfectly acceptable uniform, as deemed so by the school, other pupils, High Court, etc. No problems there.

Well, as I've already said more than once, you're lumping all Muslims in with one another and assuming that what is acceptable to one is acceptable to them all. If religious schisms are that easy to solve, perhaps you'd care to solve the troubles in Northern Ireland out for us? It must be easy for a man of your talents.

If a Muslim moved here from Nigeria, and demanded that, as is correct under their interpretation of their religion, they must be allowed to operate Sharia law, and that the butchers they live above must stop selling pork as it is offensive to them, would you support their right to do so, or would you (evil, racist scum!) be forced to deny them this right?

You'd say, as would I - no mate, if you don't like pork, move somewhere else. Well, if you don't like the school rules, move to a different one. Don't expect (and I apologise in advance for the next bit ) the mountain to come to Mohammed.

Oh, and - The religious problems in Northern Ireland do not centre on correct school uniforms, I believe.

So were they right?

To shoot deserters? I'd say so, in general. To shoot small, shell-shocked orphans, with a little wikkle kitten under their arm, and a gammy leg? Well, we can all custom build a situation that makes a rule seem wrong, can't we?

Yes, there were right to shoot those deserting their duty as British solders, certainly by the standards of the day.

As for locking up our homosexual friends, again, the standards of the day have to be taken into context. Homosexuality has been seen to be a disease, a mental disorder, and many other things. Just like you could get locked up for showing breasts in a TV programme years ago, and now, you can get away with all sorts of fanny.

The standards of the day need to be taken into account. Looking back, was it right to lock up gay people? No. Still, you can’t anymore, so that proves that this archaic legal system that you so despise moves with the times, doesn't it?

So? The rules are wrong. I'm trying to prove that rules are not rules, not that this girl is being oppressed in the same way as a First World War underage soldier was. This is not an avenue I want to go down; FWIW my Grandfather got his leg shot off as an underage soldier in the First World War.

Well, as you say, being oppressed she isn't. Still, rules are rules mate, as confirmed by the High Court. After all, if the rules were not the rules, she could break them and get away with it, could she not?

Top marks to your Grandfather. It is on the sacrifices of men like him that our great, proud nation is founded.

Facts indeed they are. Perhaps you'd like to define for me where rulings on human rights start and stop?

They start with a need to protect someone's human rights, and end when people use the system to demand their own personal school uniform, or other such wastes of tax payer’s time and money.

Um....if we automatically accept that the courts are right why are we having this debate in the first place?

I'm not sure if you've noticed Mr Warrior, but apart from an appeal, you have no choice but to accept that the Courts ruling is correct. If you don't like it, and would prefer to try out a different system, might I suggest a one way ticket to Iran?

Nope. I won't turn violent until I consider myself to have been disenfranchised.

So you abuse the right to non violent protest as well? As fine a note as any for me to end this post on, I think.

Keep smiling mate,

Vaul.

[Devilbod]

When I saw the report on channel 4, one of the statments that was given by the Headmaster was that when they ask the pupils of the school if they want the particular form of dress added to the Uniform list, several students said they would prefer it if it wasnt because they would be made (by parents I guess) to wear that form of dress if it was accepted.
Now to me that puts a whole different slant on things, the right to wear religous clothing is fair enough, but it could be one of the reasons this school is so popular is because of this apparent racist dress code allows a certain amount of the pupils to leave religion at home?

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye, if it was a simple case that all the other schools in the area allow this dress and this is the only one that didn't then the judge wouldn't have much choice but to go in the girls favour, but if the school has proved that for some reason this would have a negative effect on the other pupils then...and that is if it's a public school, if it's private it can make almost any rules it wishes because it's private land.
Thats the problem with the news, you only every get a quick overview and not always the whole picture.

I understand where the point of veiw that this is racist or oppersion are coming from over this whole issue but in the grand scheme of things wouldn't it have been easier for this girl to go to another school if her religious beliefs mean that much to her?
She has that choice here in the UK which shows how tolerant the UK is to other religous beliefs.
By dragging this to court and into the media I think it's adding to an even bigger divide in veiws about the different cultures in this country, with some people feeling we do too much to accept everyone and that lines have to be drawn, and the others who think thats a racist veiw.
All you have to do is look at whats been in the papers and news to see this, Iraq, Immergration, Anti-Euro and now this. It's a difficult subject to approach because it needs a balance to be found, if it appears that we give to much some people will feel resentment, if you give to little people feel you are being racist.

To me this is a simple case of rules, if somebody says you can do this but not that here you either do it or go elsewhere at least in this country you can go elsewhere.

[Stewart]

To me this is a simple case of rules, if somebody says you can do this but not that here you either do it or go elsewhere at least in this country you can go elsewhere.

Bingo. (And other working class passtimes)

Rave seems to be under the impression that the rules mean nothing, and should be abandoned as soon as they are challenged, because to actually enforce a rule would be against someone's human rights.

[Shogun]

Bingo. (And other working class passtimes)

Rave seems to be under the impression that the rules mean nothing, and should be abandoned as soon as they are challenged, because to actually enforce a rule would be against someone's human rights.

Just what i was thinking...You boast you are a member of amnesty international. I haven't seen them do any good work in so called war zones except getting injured/killed and then complaining about it. E.g Israel. Because of this i hold them in very low regard.

[nichomach]

Just what i was thinking...You boast you are a member of amnesty international. I haven't seen them do any good work in so called war zones except getting injured/killed and then complaining about it. E.g Israel. Because of this i hold them in very low regard.

They're a campaign group. Possibly you feel that human rights should be abused in private, behind closed doors, with no witnesses. AI provide observers who have absolutely no protection, purely so that human rights abuses will not go unpunished. They take their lives in their hands, and yes, they sometimes pay with their lives. Personally, I think that it takes rather a lot of courage to go to such places and risk your life to at least try to ensure that murder, rape and torture do not go unreported, and to try to get the international community to act to stop such abuses. And if their members are hurt or killed in the course of such activities, why shouldn't they demand action? They are no less entitled to the protection of the law or the international community than anyone else.

[nichomach]

The rules, mate, the rules. Those things that keep the country running, that you, in my opinion, in a rather childish, studenty, naive way, (I hope I can say without offending) seem think are meaningless and we should scrap the entire Court system because its garbage, and bend over backwards for anyone who demands their own special treatment.

The rules are man-made and as such they are not carved in stone. The rules to which you allude are as capable of being modified as any set of man-made rules; I don't think that the rules are meaningless, but I do think that saying, effectively, "the rules are the rules because they're the rules and they're right because they're the rules" is intransigent, petulant, and when you get right down to it, just a bit childish. I don't think that we should scrap the courts system, but I do think that anyone who regards the court system as infallible needs a reality check, and I know full well that the courts do make mistakes, and that simply because something is legal it doesn't make it right; conversely, just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it wrong.

Ah, the standard Lefty tactic of calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist, and hoping that it frightens them into silence. I'm glad you rolled that one out. The Judge was obviously the secret head of the BNP. It’s as clear as day in this case...

I am a Lefty, but have I called you racist? I'm afraid that in the same way as you would not, perhaps, wish to have it taken as read that your views coincide with the BNP, I don't particularly wish to have it assumed that because my politics are of the Left, that every cause with which you disagree is one that I espouse. It seems to be a bit of a habit with you, Vaul. You assume that because one person thinks a particular thing, anyone who might agree with them on that point automatically agrees with everything else that they think. Likewise, simply because a mode of dress is sufficient for many Muslims, it's overly simplistic to assume that it is acceptable to all. There are Christian sects, for instance, who require their women members' heads to be covered. Does this mean that all Christians should do this? No. Or that those women should be forbidden to do so? No. It certainly means, however that just as in Islam, there are many branches of the faith, and they all have their own customs and requirements; I believe that where these do not infringe others rights (and wearing a jilbab doesn't), these should be respected.

Just out of interest, do you only drink tea made with ethically produced tea-bags?

I buy FairTrade tea, if that's what you mean.

Did you protest against the war in Iraq?

I personally didn't, since I felt that the removal of that regime was a good idea (see? Not all Lefties agree on everything).

Do you think that anyone who has any sort of concern about Asylum is obviously a racist?

No, but I think that a lot of the commentary is ill-informed and motivated by tabloid sensationalism. The Home Office estimates that asylum seekers actually contribute some £200m per annum to the UK economy, but that's an estimate that you won't see the Mail or the Express or the Sun going on about. I think there is a racial undercurrent to a lot of the press commentary about asylum seekers and I think that's there because the tabloids are playing to the crowd and seeking the lowest common denominator in that crowd. That doesn't mean that I think every person in the crowd conforms to that lowest common denominator.

Do you think that anyone with a St. George’s cross out for the football must be a BNP voter?

No, although it's interesting to note the approach of the BNP in the North West. In at least one town up here, they went around selling flags claiming the proceeds were going to the McMillan fund, and not letrting people know who they were. The people up here obviously bought a lot of flags and hung them out, which the BNP then claimed indicated a massive level of support for their party. I'd guess most of the people who bought the flags weren't too happy to be lumped in with the BNP, in the same way that you wouldn't be.

You asked for reasons why people need to wear a uniform, I gave you several, you seem to have difficulty seeing them, so I suggest that you ring a school, and they will tell you the same reasons. Not quite sure how I am sherking anything there, but if it helps you to believe that I am, then I'm fine with that.

Problem with that is that I've offered compromises which would satisfy your objections, yet you don't appear to pay much attention to those. And I do think that you're rather dodging the issue, with the "ring a school" line, especially since Rave already works in the education sector, as he said, for Ofsted.

Anyway, as I said, the problem as the turban, the solution was the exemption from crash helmets. In the girls case, the problem was she was a Muslim, the solution was a perfectly acceptable uniform, as deemed so by the school, other pupils, High Court, etc. No problems there.

And I illustrated why the allowance of the jilbab would be more in line with your turban example than its denial.

If a Muslim moved here from Nigeria, and demanded that, as is correct under their interpretation of their religion, they must be allowed to operate Sharia law, and that the butchers they live above must stop selling pork as it is offensive to them, would you support their right to do so, or would you (evil, racist scum!) be forced to deny them this right?

The straw man argument; bound to occur eventually. I don't think either Rave or myself would support the infringement of another person's rights in this example (I certainly wouldn't), but it's an inappropriate analogy, since allowing the girl in question to wear the jilbab would only affect her, and not deny anyone else the right to dress differently to her.

Oh, and - The religious problems in Northern Ireland do not centre on correct school uniforms, I believe.

Pardon me, but I don't think Rave said they did; he merely used Northern Ireland as a (pretty good) example of how different sects within the same nominal religion may be sharply divided and indeed at loggerheads with each other. Consider also the oppression of Shia Muslims under the former Iraqi régime; oppression upon sectarian grounds by members of nominally the same religion. All Muslims are not alike, all Christians are not alike...get the idea? So stating that a majority of people nominally of a given faith believe that something is appropriate is not the same as saying that it will be appropriate for all members of that faith.

Yes, there were right to shoot those deserting their duty as British solders, certainly by the standards of the day.

Personally, I think the standards of the day were largely those adopted by a bunch of red-tabbed REMFs who never got nearer the front line than a cozy chateau thirty miles from the front. And the standards of the day were wrong.

The standards of the day need to be taken into account. Looking back, was it right to lock up gay people? No. Still, you can’t anymore, so that proves that this archaic legal system that you so despise moves with the times, doesn't it?

Oscar Wilde went to gaol in the 1890s. Homosexuality was only partially decriminalised in 1967. The pace at which the legal system moves is at best glacial.

I'm not sure if you've noticed Mr Warrior, but apart from an appeal, you have no choice but to accept that the Courts ruling is correct.

Actually, he, like I, does have a choice. We can state that we believe the ruling to be wrong, in principle and possibly in law also. See above.

[Shogun]

And if their members are hurt or killed in the course of such activities, why shouldn't they demand action?

There was a case of a burgular who sued the house owner of the house he was burguling at the time for falling onto a knife in the house. He shouldn't have been there in the first place and neither should they. They were certainly warned of the risks involved but they didn't care. They get no sympathy in my books.

"the rules are the rules because they're the rules and they're right because they're the rules" is intransigent, petulant, and when you get right down to it, just a bit childish.

Whats the point of having courts then.

Actually, he, like I, does have a choice. We can state that we believe the ruling to be wrong, in principle and possibly in law also

And what does your opinion make different? Last time i checked your opinion doesn't change a ruling.

[nichomach]

There was a case of a burgular who sued the house owner of the house he was burguling at the time for falling onto a knife in the house. He shouldn't have been there in the first place and neither should they. They were certainly warned of the risks involved but they didn't care. They get no sympathy in my books.

So in your books, Amnesty International are equivalent to a criminal organization, whose members go around burgling peoples' houses? Riiiiiiiiight...what colour's the sky on your planet? AI observers are well aware of the risks that they run, those risks being occasioned by the malpractice of the régimes upon whom they report; and they certainly do care about the risks to innocent people caused by such régimes - that's why they go, at great personal risk.

Whats the point of having courts then.

The point of having courts is so that they may rule upon the interpretation of law, but as I've noted above, the courts are fallible, and legal/illegal is not the same as right/wrong.

And what does your opinion make different? Last time i checked your opinion doesn't change a ruling.

Maybe none, yet since the only difference between us is that your opinion (which is completely irrelevant to the ruling of the court - unless of course they phoned you first - "Hey Shogun - we're about to throw out the judicial review application from that Muslim schoolgirl; is that OK, or would you like us to hang on a bit?" ) happens to agree with the ruling of the court, whereas mine is that the ruling of the court may be mistaken, if you're free to state your views I am equally free to state mine.