LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOh, oh I must be atheist, agnostic or christian then.....I suppose I'm white too?Originally Posted by nichomach
Oh, oh I must be atheist, agnostic or christian then.....I suppose I'm white too?
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
Are you going to tell me that you are not atheist, agnostic or Christian? If you're a Muslim, please tell us; or Jewish, since actually the point of principle is the same as whether a Jewish boy should be allowed to wear a yarmulkah. As to whether you're white or not, I neither know nor care, since this discussion isn't about race; as I note above, a white Muslim girl would face the same issue, were she to believe that her faith required the jilbab.
I'm perfectly aware the the night of the long knives was about a Nazi purge. I'm also perfectly aware who Ernst Rohm and the Sturmabteilung were. It may be over 20 years since I studied it but I do have a hazy recollectoin of my rudimentry comprehensive education.
No one said this girl should give up her faith to attend school. More a case of adhering to the school rules. These rules were no great secret before she attended so why should she have the right to turn up and tell the school to change their rules to suit her? No one told her to leave her faith at home and an alternative was offered. She refused it. My sympathy is not with her but with the school.
You are quite right, she doesn't want to set herself apart from society. She wants an establishment to change to suit her. Let's go with your balance of evidence and assume that she is indeed a mature and eloquent individual. Add selfish to that based on the changes she has demanded and wrought for herself. As you yourself have pointed out she could have taken an alternative. She didn't. She had choice which she chose NOT to exercise. There are other muslims who attend the same school without any issue with uniform. Are you suggesting that they are any less devout or pious than she?
I take exception to the fact that I feel oppressed in the workplace in regard to having to be careful over normal every day conversation. What about my human rights? Don't I have the right to go to work without having to worry if a statement I regard as innocuous can be construed as something more than that? Before you rubbish that statement I have seen such situations occur with my own eyes and have heard of others from various work colleagues. That's the problem with human rights. While defending one persons set of rights you risk stamping over someone elses. We are not all the same, it is naive to assume we are, different cultures have different value sets.
At no time have I uttered anything remotely ascribing to the concept of 'poor suffering white folk'. Kindly leave such tripe out of a response to me and use it in response to one who has followed that line.
As for Hamza, I would be perfectly happy for him to be taken to our borders and dropped off unharmed. Given that we are an island and our borders are essentially 12 miles out at see, that hook of his could be seen as a bit of a handicap in such a situation. But then, life is seldom fair.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
I just think it should be left up to the school or local gov to decide what happens in these cases.
If she is allowed to wear what she wants to school - then everybody else has the right to - if they are religious or not.
I also think putting 100's of thousands of taxpayers money into Cherie's pocket is quite wrong and could have been avoided.
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
This is a STATE school. It's paid for with TAXPAYER'S MONEY. Since this girl's parents are (presumably) taxpayers, why the hell should their daughter be excluded from enjoying the education that her parents have funded? I'm a taxpayer too, and I will be almightily annoyed if my kids (should I have any) are prevented from attending the school of their choice as a result of their beliefs.
No, of course he isn't, as I'm sure you know full well. Just as Catholics are not more or less devout Christians than Protestants, different sects of the Mulsim faith interpret the requirements of their religion in different ways. Not exactly hard to understand.You are quite right, she doesn't want to set herself apart from society. She wants an establishment to change to suit her. Let's go with your balance of evidence and assume that she is indeed a mature and eloquent individual. Add selfish to that based on the changes she has demanded and wrought for herself. As you yourself have pointed out she could have taken an alternative. She didn't. She had choice which she chose NOT to exercise. There are other muslims who attend the same school without any issue with uniform. Are you suggesting that they are any less devout or pious than she?
Well it either is innocuous or it isn't. I work in an office where more than 50% of my colleagues are members of an ethnic minority, and I have never once felt like I had to watch what I say, so I have precisely no sympathy. If a comment truly is innocous, then no-one will take offence, it's that simple.I take exception to the fact that I feel oppressed in the workplace in regard to having to be careful over normal every day conversation. What about my human rights? Don't I have the right to go to work without having to worry if a statement I regard as innocuous can be construed as something more than that?
Well in the context of this argument, please explain how allowing one girl to wear a Jilbab adversely affects anyone else's rights, since I totally fail to see it.Before you rubbish that statement I have seen such situations occur with my own eyes and have heard of others from various work colleagues. That's the problem with human rights. While defending one persons set of rights you risk stamping over someone elses.
First off, to deal with poindextermatic's crack, appearance fees even for Cherie Booth, don't total "hundreds of thousands", especially in a case like this, although even assuming that she charged for the work (she has a long history of taking pro bono work in civil liberties cases) IT'S HER JOB, and she was an extremely distinguished trial lawyer long before Tony got anywhere near government. She's a Queen's Counsel, and they don't hand silk out like Smarties. I'd further point out that the case was taken on by the Childrens' Legal Centre at Essex Uni, who briefed and paid Ms Booth and two junior counsel. And the only reason that their involvement was necessary was the intransigence of the school.
As regards RVF500's post:
1. I take it that you accept my point then that the National Socialists were given power by a majority of the representatives of the German people, and that they had overwhelming popular support; as I said, a tyranny of the majority.
2. Shabina Begum has merely asked that the uniform code be extended, not changed for everybody, so this stuff about changing an "entire establishment" is over-dramatic piffle. Moreover, it is precisely about excluding her from this school on the basis of her faith, since her faith requires that she wear the jilbab, as does the faith of many other Muslim women. As regards what other pupils consider appropriate, I do not and have not suggested that they are any "less pious" than she is. In the same way that I don't suggest that Methodists are less pious than Anglicans for instance. That's a fabricated nonsense, but then you have a tendency to play fast and loose when putting words into peoples mouths.
3. As regards "poor suffering white folk", given that I specifically used that phrase with regard to your point about people jumping the bandwagon of this case and specifically to point out that this was hardly the exclusive preserve of Islamic extremists, and given that the phrase was never applied to you or to anything you said, stop pretending that it was some form of ad hominem attack when you know damn well that that's untrue.
4. I am sorry that you have difficulty adjusting to the idea of being considerate in the workplace, but that's hardly Shabina Begum's fault and is hardly a justification for denying her rights. And other people have the right to go to work without being confronted by bigoted statements quickly followed by the fig-leaf of "no offence, mate".
Well I'm sorry my 'crack' is inconveniencing your thread...
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
...and thanks.
No, not at all, please feel free to continue...after all, free speech is another of those annoying little ECHR rights. You never answered my question about what your faith or lack of it is, by the way. I'm still curious; but then there's a lot of question ducking going on. For instance, I asked RVF500 whether he would ban a Jewish boy from wearing a yarmulkah to school, and I'm still waiting for the answer to that one too...
Oh, by the way, I'd just remind you that the power to set a uniform STILL lies with the school, but when they determine what it is, they must have regard to the religious beliefs or lack of them of their pupils. The Court of Appeal (and indeed Shabina Begum) don't want the idea of a school uniform thrown out, they merely want it extended to allow Muslim girls who believe the jilbab to be required (apparently it's specifically mentioned seven times in the Q'ran) to participate in state education.
No one is saying she shouldn't... it just all seems like a terrible waste of time.
If they continue changing the uniform it stops being a uniform, therefore whats the point in having a uniform, or at least one with guidelines as long as this thread.
Windows XP / 1.1MB Orange BB: E6600 Core 2 Duo Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3P EVGA 8800GTS Superclocked WD 250GB SATA2/300 2GB Corsair TwinX 6400 DDR2 Corsair HX 520 PSU 17in LG Flatron SONY DVD RW DRU-800A Akasa Zen case SB Audigy
Well, for a start, it'd be fairly easy to establish some basic guidelines; these are probably open to challenge, but...
1. Start with the colour; a jilbab as far as I am aware doesn't HAVE to be black, they merely have to cover the whole person aside from hands and face, so school colours ought to be acceptable. I could be wrong, and if any Islamic scholar wants to slap me, then go ahead... So we can say that all variations of the uniform should incorporate the school colours.
2. School badge - the uniform should display the school insignia, either as a badge or as a printed design.
3. Within that, children may wear shirt and trousers, skirt, shalwar kameez, or jilbab according to their convictions or lack thereof...
This isn't exclusive, and I'm sure that it could be expanded upon, or expressed better, but this is off the cuff.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that the shalwar kameez isn't necessarily traditional Islamic dress, it's traditional Pakistani dress, so I understand. It's quite widely accepted as satisfying the demands of modesty, but isn't mentioned in the Q'ran whereas the jilbab is.
Last edited by nichomach; 07-03-2005 at 01:48 PM.
Haven't read the post about the Jewish boy.....but to answer your question off the cuff ...no I wouldn't. A symbol such as a headdress is not the same as a complete costume.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
That criterion would also exclude the wearing of the shalwar kameez. So basically one person can dress according to the dictates of their faith, but another cannot; that's not equality, that's not integration, that's discrimination on the basis of faith. State education should be available to everybody, regardless of their faith, and requiring them to discard their faith to participate is utterly wrong.
It refers to a passage of dialogue between nicho and myself in an earlier exchange of posts. Not directly related to the case in hand but something that has grown alongside it.
The assumption that I wish to make bigoted statements and cover it with a 'no offense mate' is wrong. Plain and simple. I also have no difficulty with being considerate in the workplace. Once again don't assume. In fact having swapped posts with me on enough occaisions you should know enough about my attitude to know that is a wrong assumption. In short, you know thats damn well untrue. Nor did I at any time lay the blame at Shabina Begums door. Nor indeed attempt to use it as an excuse to deny anyones rights. My aim was, and I have stated it previously here, was to highlight that I believe there is a lack of balance and a pervading feeling of 'big brother' almost.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Despite your assertation it is not something I intentionally or consciously try to do. It's a question designed to highlight that there is not just one person involved in this. There are others who have the same religion but did not deem it necessary to go to court to attempt to get school policy changed.
In answer to Rich. Comments that are entirely innocuous have been taken wrongly. Happily that has not happened to me personally. Though it has made me more guarded. I also work in a very diverse environment. I actually quite like it. I like discovering how various diverse cultures do things. In fact in my work I'm extremely fortunate to have been able to work alongside these people not just here but in their countries of origin. Where I was the minority. Hopefully I'll get to work in Eastern Europe at some time in the future as that's an area I've yet to visit at length.
On the historical note I agree to a point that the majority did indeed give that power to the Nazi party. But it has to be remembered that up to this point they had behaved as a political party and not as a bunch of genocidal maniacs. They also had a presidential order signed by Paul Von Hindenburg authorising the incarceration of individuals revoking freedoms of speech, right to assembly etc. Von Hindenburg's name carried a lot of weight at the time and assisted a very astute politician in the shape of Hitler to get powers voted in. You may, or may not, know Dachau concentration camp was opened scant weeks after this power was granted in 1933. So yes, I take your point that the German people essentially voted him in. The night of the long knives took place in 1934 though was designed to weaken the SA so didn't really affect the German people. Let's not also forget that news availability was much more restricted in the early '30s. So I disagree that they did so knowing fully what they were letting themselves in for. After that the majority were ruled by fear of the minority. Before we go any further I am not suggesting that this is a parallel to be drawn regarding this discussion.
Last edited by RVF500; 07-03-2005 at 03:25 PM.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Forgive my ignorance here but isn't the shalwar kameez a full length robe, a form of dress in it's own right?
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
No, it's a tunic and trousers, and is in fact a "full costume". It is NOT a full length robe; consequently it is felt by quite a few Muslim women to be insufficiently modest. Note, I do NOT say (and never said) that they are any more or less pious than other Muslim women who believe it to be sufficient.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote