The Muslim veil issue

[pp05]

Eh? That COMPLETELY different. You are missing the point, that makes no sense. Shunning technology is an integral part for the Amish doctrine, the Veil is not an integral part of the Muslim faith. Telling Amish people to use the internet would be like asking a Muslim to stop using the Koran maybe, but the analogy with the Veil does not make sence. Jack straw was not asking Muslim people to stop practicing Islam.

And what if an Amish person when for a job at a school to tech IT, demonstated they could use the internet. Then, when they got the job, refused to use PC's? Thats a better analogy, although not a perfect one i admit.

Like someone else said, 80% of comunication is none verbal. Waring a Veil is like going to France and refusing to speak much Frech, even if you were fluent in it.

The point I was making was about generally Amish attire. No one in America would support it because they know it is trampling over their beliefs. But also because it ain't hurting anyone.

Like I said, in terms of those who do, it's something like 0.001% or something within the faith not british population, so my question is... looking at that figure.. do you think it was news worthy for a whole week in proportion to numbers who do wear it?

Like I said, fine bring the issue up, but is it as serious as it was made out? I argue it wasn't. But more so because of times we live in. This wouldn't make front pages 8 years ago.

[autopilot]

Like I said, fine bring the issue up, but is it as serious as it was made out? I argue it wasn't. But more so because of times we live in. This wouldn't make front pages 8 years ago.

That i agree with mate, it's amazing stupid what a fuss has been made.

[Taz]

It is not an attack on her faith, she can wear whatever the hell she wants, thats not for me to judge, its about teaching children.

I agree with this. To be honest, from the way she sounded at her interviews, even I found her scary! LOL! I can only imagine what the poor little kids were thinking.

But as others have mentioned, it's a mountain out of a molehill. She's not suitable to do the job. Period.

What she wears in the privacy of her own home is her business. I was chatting to my sister about this and she wouldn't send her (Muslim) kids to a school where a teacher wore a full-face veil.

[iranu]

i watched question time on thursday, and this was one of the major points.

i think with regards to teaching children, a man in the audience made a fantastic point.

80% of communication is not through word of mouth. if a woman wearing a veil, man wearing a balaclava, to be honest it doesn't matter, practices a job which requires a lot of communication, i.e. a teacher, then 80% of this communication is negated.

It is not an attack on her faith, she can wear whatever the hell she wants, thats not for me to judge, its about teaching children.

That my friend is complete and utter twaddle - and yes I did an engineering degree at strathclyde too - I would have expected better from someone who has to think to earn their marks.

If I was a 5 year old I would be frightened to death of the "thing in the mask" that was my "teacher" - it is completely alien for any child, no matter what their upbringing is within the UK, to be Confronted with someone wearing the veil/burka. There is no way in hell that a child is going to be able to distinguish any emotion if they can only see the eyes of their teacher. You may well say that 80% is not spoken but I can tell you for one that it's not only the lips that are obscured but also the facial expression - where is the frown, the smile, the wince, the grin, etc, etc.

Where is the funny face with the fingers pulling the lips or nose or ears into a strange shape. Where is the emotion!

Try teaching deaf children to lip read whilst their teacher is wearing a veil and see how far you get. - yeah a cheap point but worth mentioning since I doubt that you can teach deaf children to learn to lip read without them seeing lips. Although that is not to underestimate deaf people - I myself have been told one of the most incedible, amazing true stories of a deaf, blind and mute man (my dad briefly met him) that puts me to shame. However, children do learn to read and write and socialise and interact and become human beings by interpreting all of the clues that human beings conciously or subconciously put out. To deny them 20% of this output is to deny their development. Hell I would hate to miss 20% of what anyone was saying to me "face to face", because I could not then judge waht they were saying to me!

Your logic could almost be akin to saying that children shouldn't bother to learn to read cos 80% of their knowledge comes form the TV or the radio.

By quoting a random guy who was a random (or maybe not) member of the public who quoted a statistic not varifiable you do yourself no favors. You would be better off interacting with children and seeing how they learn and why they learn. It's not rocket science but it does require unveiled face to unveiled face contact. It does require real human basic requirements. It does require children to trust in an adult or teacher. That trust cannot be made whilst the adult or teacher has his or her face covered.

[JPreston]

That my friend is complete and utter twaddle - and yes I did an engineering degree at strathclyde too - I would have expected better from someone who has to think to earn their marks.

....

You two seem to say exactly the same thing - 80% (90%, 95%) of communication is not spoken sound, but facial expressions and body language instead, and it is this 80% that wearing a veil and burkha obscures. Thus only the audible 20% (10%, 5%) is left and this is not enough to teach children.

(Especially teaching English; how do you teach children to make a "th" sound when it is not in their native language and you refuse to show them your teeth and tongue? Just by making increasingly louder "th" sounds from underneath your sheet and shouting at them? )

[chuckskull]

You two seem to say exactly the same thing - 80% (90%, 95%) of communication is not spoken sound, but facial expressions and body language instead, and it is this 80% that wearing a veil and burkha obscures. Thus only the audible 20% (10%, 5%) is left and this is not enough to teach children.

Case and point TBH.

[autopilot]

That my friend is complete and utter twaddle

er, dude, like read what he was saying again. he was actually making the same point as you!

[iranu]

It is not an attack on her faith, she can wear whatever the hell she wants, thats not for me to judge, its about teaching children.

Read it again folks read it again. You cannot teach children to read when weraing the veil therefore YOU DO judge what she wants to wear.

[JPreston]

Maybe I'm missing the point because I don't have an engineering degree from strathclyde university, but that statement means that he is not attacking her faith or dress code on principle, it's that in this situation the children's education takes priority. So because she cannot effectively teach while veiled, she should take it off.

I don't understand the lack of communication here - are you both wearing burkhas?

[Steve B]

how did the engineering degree from strathclyde even come into this?

[TheAnimus]

A very easy example of this, is something the british army preach, they even used the premise in an advert.

Take sun glasses of before talking to someone, don't wear a scary helment (the red berret looks smart and isn't remotely intimidating).

Simple, puts people at ease speeds up communication.

Veils and too some extent headscarfs act as a barrier to communication. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

[ponders]

Just to bring some balance, how many of you has a crush on a teacher back at school ? And when you were supposed to be concentrating your mind wondered off to then innocent thoughts? Ring any bells. i know if my biology teacher hadnt leaned forward eachtime she did the register in the morning, then the rest of the class lets just say would have been more focussed.
Not that anyone minded, why would they ?!
The veil is supposed to ward away advances from men by covering the lips and hair, as these are the focal point for mens attention in most cases, and you can see this by hair dye companies basing their hair colors on youthfull looks (ie young) and make up, by nature. All i can say is that it does the job.

Maybe there was a comprimise on behalf of both parts, but whats the saying 'a good comprimise is when both parties are equally disatisfied'. Its just a shame this has received SO much attention when there are actually real educational problems to look at. this is fodder for the press, filling for the petrol station sandwitch,

[Stewart]

I don't have an engineering degree from strathclyde university, am I allowed to say anything in this thread?

[Steve B]

I don't have an engineering degree from strathclyde university, am I allowed to say anything in this thread?

only if you put ur shoes on ur hands, and sing happy birthday to your feet

[dangel]

I don't have an engineering degree from strathclyde university, am I allowed to say anything in this thread?

I've got one from Cambridge - does that count?

[Stewart]

Well, its no Oxford, but I suppose it will do.