Muslim Girl Loses Case To Wear Special Dress At School.

[Blub2k]

She had the choice to go to another school nearby that allows the dress.*
If the decision had gone the other way and unfairly forced other muslims in that school who didnt want to wear the dress but would be forced too, that would have been unfair and caused distress to others and therefore the wrong decision.

This is pure speculation and there is no evidence apart from anecdotal that this would be the case.

And on a personal level:
Both the above reasons point to a selfish person who places herself and her rights above the rights or wishes of others.

So what you are saying is that anyone who stands up for their rights is selfish? Or is it just in this case?

Uniform should not be religious in any form, because this does cause factions and bullying among other things.
And I hate seeing people playing the race card to there own advantage, if you want a rule changed for you religion thats fine, it's your right as a human being. But dont expect symmpathy by running around afterwards shouting 'racist' and 'your oppressing me' if it doesnt go your way, especaily if the reasons behind the desicion are valid and to protect others.

Hold on either she is selfish or it is her right, will you make up your mind?

*I dont believe that any school is worse than an other not unless it has a more voilent nature, it is simply down to the individual what they achieve or dont. If the other schools in the area are more violent in nature then is that down to the Uniform? Another question that we cant really look at because we dont have the full details.

So all schools are equal, I think not, there is both nature and nurture involved in education so your statement of belief would be erroneous.

[nichomach]

Right, basicaly I think nows a good time to sum up
The Judge for me was right for the following reasons:

She had the choice to go to another school nearby that allows the dress.*
If the decision had gone the other way and unfairly forced other muslims in that school who didnt want to wear the dress but would be forced too, that would have been unfair and caused distress to others and therefore the wrong decision.

You're incorrect in that the school uniform would not have been changed to force other girls to wear the jilbab instead of the shalwar kameez. Both would have been allowed; your statement of what would have been a "wrong" decision is based upon a mistake. Further, your argument that she would be able to go to another school effectively closes off part of the public education system to a section of society purely on the basis of their faith.

And on a personal level:
Both the above reasons point to a selfish person who places herself and her rights above the rights or wishes of others.

No, since you base your argument as to the impact of a decision in her favour upon a fallacy.

Uniform should not be religious in any form, because this does cause factions and bullying among other things.

If you force someone to wear secular dress in contravention of their faith before they can go to school, you have effectively forced a uniform indicative of a religious position on them; atheism and agnosticism are also religious positions, bear in mind, and the enforcement of their practice or custom or appearance upon people of faith is as oppressive as the enforcement of the practice of a faith upon someone who does not wish to practice it.

And I hate seeing people playing the race card to there own advantage, if you want a rule changed for you religion thats fine, it's your right as a human being. But dont expect symmpathy by running around afterwards shouting 'racist' and 'your oppressing me' if it doesnt go your way, especaily if the reasons behind the desicion are valid and to protect others.

I don't see any sign of "the race card" being played here; frankly that expression's become a pretty lazy and obnoxious way for SWMs to justify the denial of equal protection to the members of minorities with whom they don't agree. As far as I know, at no point has this girl "run around shouting racist". We disagree as to the validity of the reasons for the ruling anyway, and as to the responsibility for the protection of those others.

*I dont believe that any school is worse than an other not unless it has a more voilent nature, it is simply down to the individual what they achieve or dont.

I'm sorry, but this is just a nonsense; schools may have better or worse qualified teachers, may be better or worse resourced, or have better or worse facilities, and their results will reflect that. Not all schools are equal and claiming that they are just flies in the face of reality.

If the other schools in the area are more violent in nature then is that down to the Uniform? Another question that we cant really look at because we dont have the full details.

Based upon my own experience, a uniform never stopped bullying at any school and it never prevented violence or cruelty between children.

[Shogun]

Based upon my own experience, a uniform never stopped bullying at any school and it never prevented violence or cruelty between children.

Times have moved on

[nichomach]

Times have moved on

In what sense? Can you provide any evidence of a school uniform preventing bullying? Or cruelty? As opposed to other measures, like education, counselling or better teaching practice?

[Devilbod]

This is pure speculation and there is no evidence apart from anecdotal that this would be the case.

Er no. I first heard about this on Channel 4 and I remember the reporter said that one of the statements realesed by the Headmaster contained this as I said in a prevous post. It can also be backed up with what I read form the BBC report about the statement that Iqbal Javed issued after the court case that the uniform was agreed after wide consultation.

"The uniform is designed to be inclusive and takes into account the cultural and sensitive needs of the pupils," he said.

In terms of other other pupils being forced to wear the jilbab instead of the shalwar kameez, as was refering to another previous post where I stated that they would be forced to wear it by the parents, this was an assumption made by me on the basis of the school would obviously not be forcing to wear the jilbab because that would be an infringement of human rights. And fair enough you can blame the parents for that problem, but for me the girl has caused the problem.

Bulb2k, I was refering to just this case, as I stated in the top. And after all that whats this thread is about.

And the view on schools I was refering to a persons ability to achieve greatness with indifference to there situation, it's just a personal belief which I attained from reading about Dave Pelzer. I appologise if I didnt put that part of my message over well enough but English and explaining myself in writern word is not my strong point.
Uniform may not stop bullying but niether you or I could deffinatly state that bullying or tension would not increase within schools if the uniform didnt exist, but I think it's a fair enough assumption.
I'm sorry if it was too much of a generalisation using the phrase 'race card' I was of course refering to this case and that she feels that this in an abuse of her religious rights of which she is an minority as you so rightly pointed out, but I do feel you incorrectly focused on the rasict part rather than the opression part after all that is correct.

All all honesty having to justify every single paragraph that I post after a deconstrucion and constantly have go to back to posts that I have made before explaining the reasons for my comments now is beginning to feel like a interegation, this is a difficult topic to undertake without being labeled, hinted at or impling that someone is a racist, so you may understand if I decide to leave it there for this one, especialy after hopefully better explaining the the points in my summing up (which I will stick by ).

[Blub2k]

Er no. I first heard about this on Channel 4 and I remember the reporter said that one of the statements realesed by the Headmaster contained this as I said in a prevous post. It can also be backed up with what I read form the BBC report about the statement that Iqbal Javed issued after the court case that the uniform was agreed after wide consultation.

No matter what the source of the report the fact is that it is speculation as the event did not take place or at most hypothetical/conjecture as it has not taken place. Because the people who defended against the action of the girl (i.e the headmaster) state these things does not make them true, or did I miss something?

Just to add after reading your post again, what makes this girl selfish for standing up for her rights? I have not thrown a label at you, if I did it would not stretch to racist but possibly culturally insensitive or ignorant.

[nichomach]

Er no. I first heard about this on Channel 4 and I remember the reporter said that one of the statements realesed by the Headmaster contained this as I said in a prevous post. It can also be backed up with what I read form the BBC report about the statement that Iqbal Javed issued after the court case that the uniform was agreed after wide consultation.

Which says absolutely nothing other than what we already know; that the shalwar kameez is acceptable to most girls at the school but not to this one. Freedom isn't about just giving the majority everything that they want, it's also about defending the minority who want something different. If the school aren't forcing the majority to wear the jilbab, but allow the choice of the jilbab or the shalwar kameez, then surely that gives everyone what they want.

In terms of other other pupils being forced to wear the jilbab instead of the shalwar kameez, as was refering to another previous post where I stated that they would be forced to wear it by the parents, this was an assumption made by me on the basis of the school would obviously not be forcing to wear the jilbab because that would be an infringement of human rights. And fair enough you can blame the parents for that problem, but for me the girl has caused the problem.

So being forced to wear the jilbab would be an infringement of someone's rights, but being forced to wear the shalwar kameez isn't? That just doesn't make sense. And the "problem" as you put it is not caused by the girl. How can she be responsible for the misdeeds of people with whom she has no association and over whom she has no control? Again, that just doesn't make sense. As I said earlier, if a liberty is abused, then address the abuse, don't strip away the liberty.

And the view on schools I was refering to a persons ability to achieve greatness with indifference to there situation, it's just a personal belief which I attained from reading about Dave Pelzer.

"A Boy Called "It""? Look, the fact is that a person's situation does have an effect upon their chances and the choices open to them. They may achieve greatness from a very poor situation, but they are far less likely to, and why should they needlessly be put into that situation?

Uniform may not stop bullying but niether you or I could deffinatly state that bullying or tension would not increase within schools if the uniform didnt exist, but I think it's a fair enough assumption.

No, it's just an assumption with nothing to back it up, that you are choosing to make because it fits in with your point of view. By all means assume that if you wish, but don't expect everyone else to agree with it, since you produce not a shred of evidence to back it up; it's rather akin to the idea that every person's definition of "common sense" is whatever they happen to agree with at the time.

I'm sorry if it was too much of a generalisation using the phrase 'race card' I was of course refering to this case and that she feels that this in an abuse of her religious rights of which she is an minority as you so rightly pointed out, but I do feel you incorrectly focused on the rasict part rather than the opression part after all that is correct.

OK, but as I said, it's not a particularly helpful phrase to bandy about. And my view would be that the denial of her religious freedom is oppressive. Please see above comment on the nature of a free society.

All all honesty having to justify every single paragraph that I post after a deconstrucion and constantly have go to back to posts that I have made before explaining the reasons for my comments now is beginning to feel like a interegation...

No, it's a debate; and one of the problems with that is that where someone disgarees with you, they will say so. Where they feel that you are mistaken, they will tell you. Where they see you make an assertion with nothing to back it up and demand that it be accepted as fact, they'll likely challenge you on it, and where you are unclear, they'll seek clarification. Them's the breaks.

...this is a difficult topic to undertake without being labeled, hinted at or impling that someone is a racist, so you may understand if I decide to leave it there for this one, especialy after hopefully better explaining the the points in my summing up (which I will stick by ).

I haven't labelled you a racist, but I do think that some of your views are very intolerant. As for your summing up, by all means stick by it if you wish. I think it's largely wrong or baseless and have provided reasons for that opinion, but it's your opinion.

[Blub2k]

Sleep well. Also, lets both move away from World War I, and back to your mistaken and unworkable, studenty arguement, that the Courts should be ignored, and we should all bend over backwards as soon as a member of a religious minority demands special treatment.

I cannot, as you so rightly point out, wait.

This is an overly simplistic, incorrect, extremely stilted reading, bordering on deliberate childish misinterpretation of what was said, not condusive to debate at all really. Cant you do better than that?

[Stewart]

This is an overly simplistic, incorrect, extremely stilted reading, bordering on deliberate childish misinterpretation of what was said, not condusive to debate at all really. Cant you do better than that?

Oh no, Blub2k, he of the constant anti-UK nattering is having a go at my posting style and content. That comes as such a blow, I can tell you.

And please Blub, don't tell me whats condusive to debate, nor ignore purposely the 2 smilles (It was banter, not the sort of drivel you churn up when you're on your latest anti-Brit, anti-American crusade), nor the fact that in this thread, although disagreeing, me and Rave have been able to put our argument across, without the comments moving away from discussion and towords argurment.

Also, whilst your posts consist of 'OMG!!!1!! teh UK sucks!!11!' with a bit added depending on what the issue in question happens to be, its probably best if you don't try to judge anyone else's posting style.

I think the whole Question Time forum should be asking you in general - can't you do better than that?

Oh, refresh my memory Blub; a while ago, there was a thread in General Discussion containg jokes. One of these jokes was an Irish joke, and someone, who I believe to be you, was up in arms, complaining about the joke. Was this you by any chance? Just for future referance...

[Stewart]

Which says absolutely nothing other than what we already know; that the shalwar kameez is acceptable to most girls at the school but not to this one. Freedom isn't about just giving the majority everything that they want, it's also about defending the minority who want something different. If the school aren't forcing the majority to wear the jilbab, but allow the choice of the jilbab or the shalwar kameez, then surely that gives everyone what they want.

Ah, so all is well. You've cracked it Nich; all we have to do is 'give everyone what they want', and its fine. You really believe thats the case, don't you?

As I said before, if you could avert your gaze from this single, individual case for a fraction of a second, then you may see that its not just a ruling for this case; it now sets a clear message in place, that school rules are there to be respected and followed, and they cannot and will not simply be over-ruled or ignored, as soon as someone has a problem with them.

Also, you mentioned earlier that no-one had tried to play the race card; the girls lawyer did, in her statement after the case. Blub2k did (Ok, I know its Blub, but still, he did...) with his rather predictable and childish nonsense "Its an attempt by the UK system to prevent displays of the Islamic religion', and to be honest, you have, with some of your comments suggesting that anyone arguing on the other side of this debate must have some sort of anti-Muslim agenda, albeit in a nudge nudge, wink wink way.

Rather sad that you can't debate a point invoving a member of an ethnic minority without resorting to to the left's one and only tactic during these debates, but still, I suppose I should expect nothing more.

OK, but as I said, it's not a particularly helpful phrase to bandy about. And my view would be that the denial of her religious freedom is oppressive. Please see above comment on the nature of a free society.

Hmmm; oppressive denial of religious freedom doesn't sound like a policy a school with an 80% Muslim attendance would favour, does it? Also doesn't sound like the sort of policy our fine and respected Courts system would help to enforce. So what is it then?

Well, its your overly dramatic way of saying 'She has to wear the same uniform as every other Muslim girl in the school' and trying to make it sound far worse. Have you considered the cheif headline writing job at the Guardian?

If having to wear the same uniform as every other Muslim girl in the school, at a school which is 80% Muslim, because your arguement to be allowed special treatment and a special uniform just for you, was not allowed, after a ruling from the High Court, is oppressive, than so be it. Its the correct ruling in this case.

I haven't labelled you a racist, but I do think that some of your views are very intolerant. As for your summing up, by all means stick by it if you wish. I think it's largely wrong or baseless and have provided reasons for that opinion, but it's your opinion.

If his or my views are intolerant, then intolerant of what? Intolerant of the need to allow each individual Muslim (Hindu, Christian, etc) the right to ignore school rules at will, and demand special treatment, ignoring the uniform already in place, perfectly acceptable to the other Muslim pupils? And yes, I realise you will say 'But not acceptable to her', but then, the school is not going to allow a single pupil to wear a uniform outside of the permitted one, nor should they have to, with a uniform already in place.

I'd say they were right to refuse, and the Courts it would seem, as well as others in this thread, agree.

Maybe when \ if this girl appeals, we can again debate the outcome.

[nichomach]

Ah, so all is well. You've cracked it Nich; all we have to do is 'give everyone what they want', and its fine. You really believe thats the case, don't you?

And you STILL haven't come up with a single good reason not to.

As I said before, if you could avert your gaze from this single, individual case for a fraction of a second, then you may see that its not just a ruling for this case; it now sets a clear message in place, that school rules are there to be respected and followed, and they cannot and will not simply be over-ruled or ignored, as soon as someone has a problem with them.

But they are man-made rules, and should not be regarded as set in stone and immutable. In this instance, there is no good reason for denying this girl the liberty to dress as her faith dictates; if you are simply saying (yet again) that the rules shouldn't be changed because they're the rules, then they're rules for their own sake - not rules for any useful purpose. In that case there is simply no justification for them

Also, you mentioned earlier that no-one had tried to play the race card; the girls lawyer did, in her statement after the case. Blub2k did (Ok, I know its Blub, but still, he did...) with his rather predictable and childish nonsense "Its an attempt by the UK system to prevent displays of the Islamic religion', and to be honest, you have, with some of your comments suggesting that anyone arguing on the other side of this debate must have some sort of anti-Muslim agenda, albeit in a nudge nudge, wink wink way.

If I were going to allege that someone's view was racist, there'd be nothing "nudge nudge wink wink" about it; I have neither openly alleged or implied racism. So get off it. You can't distract attention from the fact that you haven't addressed any of my arguments with a good counter simply by alleging, with no basis in fact, that I am "playing the race card". The closest that I have got was responding to one of Shogun's points by accusing him of intolerance towards people of a different faith, for which I immediately and openly apologised, and which accusation I openly withdrew.

Rather sad that you can't debate a point invoving a member of an ethnic minority without resorting to to the left's one and only tactic during these debates, but still, I suppose I should expect nothing more.

Except I haven't; so get over it. You on the other hand have pursued the standard tactic of the political Right - "We stand for common sense and the reasonable man. Anyone who disagrees with us is obviously unreasonable.".

Hmmm; oppressive denial of religious freedom doesn't sound like a policy a school with an 80% Muslim attendance would favour, does it?

Once again the frankly idiotic assumption that all Muslims are alike and that they must all agree with each other...unfortunately, Vaul, you appear functionally incapable of grasping the simple truth that a faith may have many different sects, branches and traditions, all worthy of recognition and protection.

Also doesn't sound like the sort of policy our fine and respected Courts system would help to enforce. So what is it then?

Actually our legal system has frequently assisted in the oppression of religious minorities; Catholics, Jews and Muslims for a start; not much of an argument there, Vaul; D- , must try harder.

Well, its your overly dramatic way of saying 'She has to wear the same uniform as every other Muslim girl in the school' and trying to make it sound far worse.

No it's my entirely reasonable way of saying that not all Muslims dress alike or think alike, but that absent a good reason for denying them that liberty (a good reason that no-one here, especially you, have so far been able to produce) they should be allowed to dress as their faith dictates. Once again, Vaul, not all Muslims are alike and what is appropriate for some may not be appropriate for all. Get it yet? Apparently not...

If having to wear the same uniform as every other Muslim girl in the school, at a school which is 80% Muslim, because your arguement to be allowed special treatment and a special uniform just for you, was not allowed, after a ruling from the High Court, is oppressive, than so be it. Its the correct ruling in this case.

No, it isn't, and for the reasons that I have outlined above.

If his or my views are intolerant, then intolerant of what? Intolerant of the need to allow each individual Muslim (Hindu, Christian, etc) the right to ignore school rules at will,

No, since I have not suggested that the rules be ignored, but that they be interpreted more tolerantly or amended, absent a good reason for not so doing, which again you have failed to adduce.

And yes, I realise you will say 'But not acceptable to her', but then, the school is not going to allow a single pupil to wear a uniform outside of the permitted one, nor should they have to, with a uniform already in place.

Yes, because the rules are the rules and they're right because they're the rules...we've heard it before, Vaul and it was nonsense the first time - and given that other pupils may wish to wear the jilbab, it is not another rule just for her, but for anyone who may wish to.

I'd say they were right to refuse, and the Courts it would seem, as well as others in this thread, agree.

Maybe when \ if this girl appeals, we can again debate the outcome.

We can debate the outcome anyway, Vaul, since just because the Courts have made a decision it doesn't mean that they were right to do so. Of course, if we DO, you might have to come up with a rational argument and avoid the snide, patronising ad-hominem attacks...but I wouldn't want you to strain anything...

[Stewart]

If all you can do are accuse me of attacks, then perhaps you can list the attacks I have made, whilst also stateing that you have made none.

Personally, it seems that you dismiss my 'attacks', before making one of your own.

"Except I haven't; so get over it. You on the other hand have pursued the standard tactic of the political Right - "We stand for common sense and the reasonable man. Anyone who disagrees with us is obviously unreasonable.".

Damn those ad-hominem attacks.

Wasn't their also a comment about me not having a sense of humour? And something about me and my arguments being idiotic? Should you really be bringing up these 'attacks' on my part, or are you prepared to agree that you have resorted to these attacks as well?

"I wouldn't want you to strain anything."

Not a snide remark? Are you going to tell me that?

Be interested to see what you think.

[nichomach]

If all you can do are accuse me of attacks, then perhaps you can list the attacks I have made, whilst also stateing that you have made none.

"All I can do?" Aside from presenting clear, rational arguments? Aside from answering every single point you have attempted to make?

Personally, it seems that you dismiss my 'attacks', before making one of your own.

Your choice of weapon. The difference between us is that I have a clear and reasoned argument. You don't. I note that again you decline to debate the issues, probably for that very reason.

[Shogun]

And you STILL haven't come up with a single good reason not to.

A reason is that no-one will have any authority if you let everyone have what they want.

But they are man-made rules, and should not be regarded as set in stone and immutable. In this instance, there is no good reason for denying this girl the liberty to dress as her faith dictates; if you are simply saying (yet again) that the rules shouldn't be changed because they're the rules, then they're rules for their own sake - not rules for any useful purpose. In that case there is simply no justification for them

So rules don't serve any useful purpose? I thought they were there to be followed. Maybe thats just me then...

Except I haven't; so get over it. You on the other hand have pursued the standard tactic of the political Right - "We stand for common sense and the reasonable man. Anyone who disagrees with us is obviously unreasonable.".

Its called common sense

Once again the frankly idiotic assumption that all Muslims are alike and that they must all agree with each other...unfortunately, Vaul, you appear functionally incapable of grasping the simple truth that a faith may have many different sects, branches and traditions, all worthy of recognition and protection.

I do recognise that there are many branches of one religion but you can't always accomadate everyone.

Actually our legal system has frequently assisted in the oppression of religious minorities; Catholics, Jews and Muslims for a start; not much of an argument there, Vaul; D- , must try harder.

But some have been justified and some have not. I think this case falls into the first catergory.

[Stewart]

I ask again (and please don't convince yourself that you have been debating and have a clear and rational argument and I haven't); are you accusing me of these attacks whilst admitting that you to have made them, or are you accusing me alone?

I have to admire your large, if completely misguided, confidence in your own argument though. You really believe that during this thread you have 'answered every point I've made' with a 'clear and reasoned argument' don't you? And you also believe that I've simply declined to debate.

I admit, I wish I could kid myself to that extent. It must be fun.

Your only style of replying consists of accusing others of making attacks (whilst making them yourself... hypocricy is par for the course, as to be expected), then arrogantly claiming that your argument during this thread has been some sort of work of genius, clear and consise (Not clear or consise enough to convince me, Shogun, or anyone else in this thread who disagreed with you at the start to change thier mind though, I notice), then, to complete the show of arrogance, you claim that no-one else had been debating, and simply dodging the issue.

Shogun and Devilbod have tied you in knots during this thread. My advice to you, would be; stop telling everyone how amazing your own argument was, and if you can go a step further, stop telling everyone else how poor there's was. At least while they are tieing you in knots.

There's a good chap.

[nichomach]

I ask again ....There's a good chap.

Yawn...delude yourself all you want.

I ask again (and please don't convince yourself that you have been debating and have a clear and rational argument and I haven't); are you accusing me of these attacks whilst admitting that you to have made them, or are you accusing me alone?

No, I've responded in precisely the manner in which you elected to address me.

I have to admire your large, if completely misguided, confidence in your own argument though. You really believe that during this thread you have 'answered every point I've made' with a 'clear and reasoned argument' don't you?

Point to one that I haven't.

And you also believe that I've simply declined to debate.

You merely restate the tired old "the rules are the rules because they're the rules and they're right because they're the rules" line time and again, seasoned with a little bit of "opening the floodgates" panic

I admit, I wish I could kid myself to that extent. It must be fun.

You appear to be able to kid yourself of just about anything else...

Your only style of replying consists of accusing others of making attacks (whilst making them yourself...)

No, my style of replying consists of engaging you upon the bases of human rights, religious freedoms, the practicality of accomodating various styles of dress within a broad school uniform, the relationship between law and morality...none of which appear to be points upon which you wish to debate.

hypocracy is par for the course, as to be expected),

That would be "hypocrisy", were I practicing it, which I haven't been.

then arrogantly claiming that your argument during this thread has been some sort of work of genius

At no point have I claimed that my argument is a work of genius (setting up the old straw man again, are we, Vaul?); nor would I. It has, however, been based upon both reason and fact.

Not clear or consise enough to convince me, Shogun, or anyone else in this thread who disagreed with you at the start to change thier mind though, I notice)

Start out with your mind made up and it's no surprise to find that you end up exactly where you started.

then, to complete the show of arrogance, you claim that no-one else had been debating, and simply dodging the issue.

No Vaul, I do not claim that no-one else has been debating, I merely stated that you, that's YOU, have utterly failed to counter any of the arguments that I've put forward. And that's true.

Shogun and Devilbod have tied you in knots during this thread.

Laughable, purely laughable; I'm sure that you're utterly DAZZLED by the sublime brilliance of everyone who agrees with you.

My advice to you, would be; stop telling everyone how amazing your own argument was,

But I haven't been telling you that; I've at least been presenting an argument, not a continuing rehash of the same (lack of) points. And where I believe your argument to be flawed, I'll say so.

and if you can go a step further, stop telling everyone else how poor there's was.

No Vaul, I was just telling you.