Muslim Girl Loses Case To Wear Special Dress At School.

[Blub2k]

The girl was trying to set a legal precedent by having her right recognised by the court, now the next time someone decides to take a similar case there is a precedent to be referred to which is negative and without legislation it will be hard to have this changed. For all the talk of tolerance she will not be able to continue at school there without changing her religious principles, some attempt to suggest that there is someone in the background pushing her to press the case, well thing is if you read the whole story you would see that she got more devout after her mother died.
This is an attempt by the British extablishment to suppress further public shows of the Islamic faith similar to what has been done in France. This is a clear violation of her human rights, unless it is a private school they should change to meet the need.
If someone from a new religion joins that wears should they be forced to wear the Shalwar Kameez, the normal uniform or should they change the rules to allow inclusion of the new dress code that this student brings with them for religious reasons? same thing.

[Devilbod]

If I ever have kids from Day 1 I'm going to teach them to be Jedi, so they will be allowed to go to school wearing a black dressing gown, light saber and go round telling other kids that 'These are not the driods you are looking for.'

[Saracen]

This forum is not the place for arguments between individuals, so this thread has been edited to remove said arguments, and I've also removed posts by anyone else that commented on the argument (trying to calm it down). My apologies to those latter individuals.

As for those involved in the argument - it stops NOW. OK?

No comments, apologies etc needed. Just stop bickering.

Back on topic, please, people. It's a good thread - let's not ruin it.

[Big RICHARD]

Why does she think she deserves special treatment? A lot of people think they deserve better than other for whatever reason. Why was this girl allowed to content this anyway? Your religious views do not qualify you to be treat any differently from anyone else! Why do you think it does?

[G4Z]

If I ever have kids from Day 1 I'm going to teach them to be Jedi, so they will be allowed to go to school wearing a black dressing gown, light saber and go round telling other kids that 'These are not the driods you are looking for.'

LOL

I think I will do that as well, sounds like fun.

[Rave]

Why does she think she deserves special treatment? A lot of people think they deserve better than other for whatever reason. Why was this girl allowed to content this anyway? Your religious views do not qualify you to be treat any differently from anyone else! Why do you think it does?

Um....read the thread? As we've discussed at some length, Sikhs are exempted from wearing helmets when they ride motorbikes, so the principle of differential treatment on the grounds of religion is an established principle in the laws of this country.

Rich :¬)

[Rave]

If I ever have kids from Day 1 I'm going to teach them to be Jedi, so they will be allowed to go to school wearing a black dressing gown, light saber and go round telling other kids that 'These are not the driods you are looking for.'

Good, you do that. According to the 2001 census I'm a Jedi, so I also would have a right to raise my kids in the Jedi faith.

Rich :¬)

[nichomach]

Good, you do that. According to the 2001 census I'm a Jedi, so I also would have a right to raise my kids in the Jedi faith.

Rich :¬)

I always felt that it was a bit of a shame that it was a myth that if you got enough people to put down the name of a religion on the census that it had to be recognised...

On topic, though; Big RICHARD - it's not a question of being treated better than other people. Non-Muslims can wear the apparel that they feel is appropriate, why shouldn't Muslims be allowed the same liberty? Or to put it another way, if you impose a style of dress on a Muslim which is considered appropriate for a non-Muslim, yet would be considered by a Muslim to be immodest, before you even let a Muslim into a state school, then you're treating a Muslim significantly worse than a non-Muslim.

To devilbod's point concerning the opinion of other Muslim girls at the school; as Rave has said, it's a good point. I'm not sure it's a decisive one, though, since at the end of the day, you'd then be making this girl responsible for the behaviour of other girls' families, which I'm not sure is just or fair. I haven't worked all the way through that; is it right to deny someone a liberty which may be right in principle because someone else might abuse it (I felt, for instance, that the blanket ban on ownership of pistols after Dunblane was an incorrect response for much the same reason). I don't think it is, but as I say, I'm still chewing that particular cud .

[Rave]

I always felt that it was a bit of a shame that it was a myth that if you got enough people to put down the name of a religion on the census that it had to be recognised...

Ah, well I'm pretty sure I knew that it was a myth even when I was filling in the form. I still did it as a way of saying 'screw you- my religion is none of your business'. As did my housemate.

Rich :¬)

[nichomach]

You realise that between you quoting me, and the two you put in, there's 3 smilies in that post, Rich - how many are you allowed again?

[Rave]

(I felt, for instance, that the blanket ban on ownership of pistols after Dunblane was an incorrect response for much the same reason)

So did I. I can still remember walking into Chapel the morning after Dunblane (I was a sixth former at the time) and being profoundly moved. I remember seeing a news report at the time that said that two of Thomas Hamilton's four guns were illegal anyway. In the two years since handguns were banned gun crime rose by 40%. That might have happened anyway, I don't know; but the point is that bans on anything generally don't work. Bans on drugs haven't stopped hundreds of thousands of U.K. citizens becoming addicted to heroin, for example.

Rich :¬)

[Shogun]

Non-Muslims can wear the apparel that they feel is appropriate, why shouldn't Muslims be allowed the same liberty?

If i went to school in my normal casual clothes and when asked why answered "because i feel this is appropriate" i would be not let in. You just have to go through life knowing when to question a decision and when not to. This girl obviously doesnt know.

[Moonshade]

Well, this a hard thing to answer really. And I can understand both sides. I must say i agree a bit with Raul, when he said children shouldn't be taught any religious stuff.

This is hard, cos you cannot know what's the right to do. I mean maybe they helped this girl out by letting her have a special uniform or maybe they didn't maybe it was just her parents wish!

I know the school uniforms was brought into the school so that everyone would feel equal, well bullying etc is always gonna be there. Uniform or not, so when it comes to that, maybe it doesn't matter.

As I said, I understand both side of the argument.

[nichomach]

If i went to school in my normal casual clothes and when asked why answered "because i feel this is appropriate" i would be not let in. You just have to go through life knowing when to question a decision and when not to. This girl obviously doesnt know.

And you really can't see the difference between a personal desire, and a requirement of one's faith? Between "I want to do this" and "my faith requires that I do this"? Pull the other one. And as to when or when not to question a decision, I've observed that most people seem to feel that the occasion when it's inappropriate to question a decision is when it agrees with their point of view...

I should have said that this girl most certainly DOES know when to question a decision; even if one agrees with the ruling of the High Court (we've established that you do and I don't so let's not do all that again), it's still an important issue, and by taking it to the High Court I think this girl has actually performed a useful act, even though she lost her case.

[Devilbod]

Ok I understand and agree that it is important to take this type of thing normaly to a high court, but I dont think she was justified to do this in this case. It would be different if this was about every school in this country but it's not, she had the choice to go to another school.
What she has done is cause a bigger divide between what some people think is bending over backwards to to the needs of too many different religions that are not native to this country, and those that think taking that veiw is racist or unfair, which doesnt help the issue at all.
Her responsability for others, well thats a two sided coin (a bit like this whole issue really) "When does the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many?" (OMG I'm quoting Spock!?! ). It depends how you look at it personaly, it could be called inconsiderate and selfish and when you put it like that it's very difficult to see the other side.

On the whole issue of religion over law. With the sikh from what I understand the turban is used to hold a cap which has a top not of hair underneath it with which god comes down and carries you away. The cap is religious and so is the top not, very important to there belief but for the sake of safty could they not have just worn the cap under the helmet because that would have been a good balance, I mean your going to have to have some form of comprimise because there is no way you could get every religious/ethnic variation to live happily in one country, we can't even do it when everyone has there own countries just take a look at how many religious wars are still going on today.
Oh and the Jedi point was a semi serious one: if I bought up my kid to believe in the Force to the point it became religion to them and then they where stoped from wearing there dressing gowns to school, then by your reasoning I'd be perfectly right to take it to a High Court?

My mum came up with an interesting point (religion v law), she asked when do you draw the line? Because some religions class you and me as evil for the way we live our lives, and they want us dead. The point is how far should someones religious beliefs be allowed to bend or brake the rules or law, as we've already established that laws have been changed to favor someones religion over there own safety what happens when it becomes the safty of others.

[Off Topic]On a side note the pistol ban I am very suppirsed at because if your of the mind "guns dont kill people, people kill people" then think about this: to kill someone with a gun you can do it from a distance, your not up close and personal if you where to use your own hands, you cant see the look in there eyes as they die. That type of detachment from killing someone is what makes a gun a whole lot easier to kill people with. Pistols are the easest to conceal where as a rifle or shotgun are more noticable and so if someones walking down the street with a gun or even a gun bag you call the police where as before with pistols anyone could have one hiding.
Think about road rage, a gun fits into a glovebox perfectly, somebodys snaps, and bang! a member of your family has died. And at a rough guess considering how much violent crime has risen in the last ten years I think it's safe to say that if pistols where still allowed they would be a lot higher. We could do another topic on this if you like, but you'll never convice me guns are a good idea in the hands of anyone (other than police and army of course)... [/Off Topic]

[Shogun]

And you really can't see the difference between a personal desire, and a requirement of one's faith? Between "I want to do this" and "my faith requires that I do this"?

You can say faith is a personal desire... as its their "desire" deep down to beleive in that g-d.