Veil row woman may get legal aid

quote:

---

The lawyer representing the Muslim teaching assistant who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil in the classroom says he is hopeful of securing legal aid to continue her fight.

On Thursday, an employment tribunal ruled that 24-year-old Aishah Azmi was not discriminated against or harassed by Headfield Church of England Junior School, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

But the tribunal upheld her claim she had been victimised and awarded her £1,100 for "injury to feelings".

---

On the other hand, my employer can reasonably insist that, during work hours, I refrain from certain items of clothing and that I wear others. (I've worked in cafés that insist on black pants and a white shirt -- fair enough.)

So, I am against prohibiting veils, mismatched socks, funny hats or other distinctive clothing, whether religious clothing or not, at public schools. I can see two exceptions for this: (1) T-shirts or other items of clothing with offensive slogans; (2) gang colours.

Read the above.

Now why does Darth Vader wear a helmet that covers his face? Why do executioners cover their faces?

Hiding your face makes you look scary. Should schoolkids be subjected to this?

Covering one's face is not a requirement of the Islamic faith. It is an expression of religious chauvinism.

Turkey, for example, would not even consider allowing this sort of thing, and of course nobody can play the race card there.

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Having spent time getting to know young British Muslims, I believe that comments like Straw's will be counterproductive. That is because the niqab is a symptom and not a cause of rising tensions. Few young Muslim women in Britain are forced by their families to wear the niqab. British Muslims come predominantly from South Asia, where the prevalent school of Islam, Hanifi, makes no insistence on a woman fully veiling herself. Indeed, only one of the four schools within Sunni Islam, Hanbali, which is followed in Saudi Arabia, requires women to completely cover up.

The young British South-Asian Muslim women who veil Saudi-style are rejecting not just mainstream British society, but their parents' and grandparents' accommodation with its values. Ghulam Rabbani, an imam in East London, told me he was proud to be both British and Muslim but that some "misguided" youngsters in his congregation did not share that view.
....

Frustrated by unemployment rates more than double those of members of other religious groups, put off by stereotyping in the news media, and estranged from British foreign policy, many alienated Muslims have turned to more overt forms of religiosity to express a contrarian identity. Says Murad Qureshi, the only Muslim councilor in London's Assembly: "Girls are choosing to reaffirm their Muslim identity because the community feels a sense of besiegement."

That sense of besiegement, not wardrobe decisions, is fueling the real problem that British politicians should be addressing, which is the creeping fundamentalism and Islamist radicalism of a significant portion of Britain's Islamic youth. In a recent poll, more than a quarter of British Muslims under the age of 24 said that the July 7, 2005, attacks on the London Underground were justified because of British foreign policy. Thousands of young British Muslims have been influenced by fundamentalist organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir and militant groups like Al Muhajiroun.

These are the groups that have persuaded some Muslim girls that it is their religious duty to adopt the niqab. Kemal Helbawy, the influential founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, says that a very different message is coming out of the country's mainstream mosques, where most imams advise their congregations that the hijab is sufficient.

Calls by British politicians for Muslim women to stop wearing the niqab will only enhance the political symbolism of this act and make its practice more widespread. Instead, what is needed is an ambitious program to address the core grievances of Britain's young Muslims, for example by creating economic opportunities and tackling discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
Even other Muslims turn and look at me

Read the above.

Now why does Darth Vader wear a helmet that covers his face? Why do executioners cover their faces?

Hiding your face makes you look scary. Should schoolkids be subjected to this?

Covering one's face is not a requirement of the Islamic faith. It is an expression of religious chauvinism.

Turkey, for example, would not even consider allowing this sort of thing, and of course nobody can play the race card there.

[ 21 October 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]

---

Right, and she certainly isn't required to cover up in front of young children, especially when teaching phonetics. One other point is that she did not wear the veil to the interview, just another cover up I guess.

If a man chose to wear a balaclava to school the feeling would be the same, intimidating and scary to youngers.

The other issue here is that of British Airways suspending a worker for wearing a knecklace with a cross on it while allowing other religious symbols to be worn,e.g. hijabs and turbans - it's the double standards that hurt IMO.
http://tinyurl.com/ugswm

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: scribblet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
Now why does Darth Vader wear a helmet that covers his face?

---

To symbolise the psychic outer mask we wear to protect our scarred, imperfect human selves from view? Or something else.

quote:

---

Why do executioners cover their faces?

---

To avoid retribution from the deceased's loved one's.

You see, it's a matter of interpretation in both cases. Nurses, doctors, superheroes, firefighters, wrestlers, and a host of figures accepted by many people as benign also wear masks for various reasons.

The reason for the hijab is largely privacy. It is extending the notion of "private parts" to include the face and head. To me this is a basic issue of the freedom to have our bodies remain out of the publics gaze, to the degree that is possible.

quote:

---

Covering one's face is not a requirement of the Islamic faith. It is an expression of religious chauvinism.

---

And you portend to declare what is (non-)Islamic?
Are you suggesting Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is not real Islam? And "chauvinism"? How, exactly?

quote:

---

Turkey, for example, would not even consider allowing this sort of thing, and of course nobody can play the race card there.

---

How do you know? And even still, the laws which currently prohibit such behaviour were written in an expressly "anti-Islam" frame or mind. The only manner in which Ataturk could conceive of "modernity" was in a secular "Western" way. Much is changing in Turkey, as it is all over Islamic-dominated parts of the world. There are great efforts to reconcile Islam with the demands of industrial and post-industrial capitalism.

In Turkey, the military is slowly losing it's grip on power, and "secularism" (really a rejection of Islam) doesn't have the same currency it once did. Frankly, it's been up to the military to ensure the "secularism" was not swallowed up by popular will of the people for some time. That is, at many times in history, the popular will to Islam has had to be supressed by force.

Right now, if this problem were to arise in Turkey, the result could be even greater political turmoil than we have seen in France, or England where this is largely an issue of policy directed at minorities, not the majority of the population.

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

If a man chose to wear a balaclava to school the feeling would be the same, intimidating and scary to youngers.

---

My friend Bronson used to wear a balaclava to school. I don't remember being particularly afraid of him...

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

My friend Bronson used to wear a balaclava to school. I don't remember being particularly afraid of him...

Again, this is an issue of cultural programming. A simple explaination of the hijab to the children would probably go a long way to relieving their fear of it. You aren't scared everytime your dentist covers up their face, are you?

---

A hijab doesn't cover the face, no problem with that, it is the full veil we are talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:

A hijab doesn't cover the face, no problem with that, it is the full veil we are talking about.

Except again, the double standards applied when it comes to religious symbols.

---

I realise that. I have seen (and heard) the term hijab used to describe not only the headscarf, but also the veil. Niqab is a specific word for veil but hijab literally means "cover" and is also used in Islamic teaching to describe modesty, privacy and/or morality generally. Exactly what clothing satisfies the call for hijab is a matter of doctrinal debate. So not only is the notion that the veil is not "Islamic" false, it is appropriate to call the veil hijab.

BTW, you haven't addressed my argument in the slightest. Why should children be scared of a veil? Some Quaker and Amish children seem to cope well with females being veiled in their midst. Some sects of Catholic nuns also where veils [though I can attest that nuns do strike fear into many of my Catholic-raised friends ] Veils have been a very common form of female dress at various times in history for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I suspect children can be helped to accept a veil quite easily. Frankly, it seems like it is adults who have greater issue with this acceptance.

On your second point, you may or may not have a case, but it's irrelevent and an attempt to change the subject to Christian victimhood, IMO.
What an airline does about crosses and what the British government does about Muslims wearing veils are two different things...

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

The issue is also being discussed in Belgium and Holland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
[QB]I disagree, doesn't matter who's setting the dress code, private or public, all people should be treated equally.

---

Of course. But that's a different question than "how, specifically, are we going to deal with veils in the classroom."

quote:

---

France, doesn't allow any religious symbols, including the hijab, the Jewish skullcap, and a Christian cross. Why should the British gov't allow overt religious symbolism?

---

I know many British who would accept any law as long as it was expressly the opposite of what The French do. All kidding aside, why is the French solution the only solution? Moreover, the French solution (as I recall) was based in the notion of French secular Sameness - that is French people are to be "French" first and foremost. Moreover, by their view, public schools are part of the state and must therefore strictly adhere to secularity in doctrine and practice. Your argument is that veils scare children. That's a very different position.

quote:

---

My dentist doesn't scare me when he wears a mouth mask as I know it is for hygenic purposes, he'd scare me if he wore a full faced balacava.

---

If you saw your dentist put on a balaclava to go out in the cold you'd run for the hills? You're a wuss, or need some therapy...

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

My argument is not simply that the children were scared, she is teaching phonetics, the kids need to see her mouth. And, as I might add, so do the hearing impaired, which is also an issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
If my dentist put on a balaclava while working on my teeth, I'd be a mite worried, not if I met him outside in the winter.

---

My dentist wears a mask. I hope yours does too, for hygenic reasons. Next time, I'll have to ask her if she's some sort of terrorist.

quote:

---

Muslims being demonised, says Livingstone

James Sturcke
Tuesday October 24, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today said the row over whether Muslims should wear veils had parallels with the hounding of Jews in Nazi Germany.
Speaking at the launch of the first ever report into Muslims living in London, Mr Livingstone said much of the ongoing debate about Muslim dress implied the community "was somehow at fault" for being at the centre of the storm.

Mr Livingstone said the "vast amount of verbiage" about the issue had been "quite breathtaking" and that very little was said about barriers the community faces in Britain, such as the "systematic pattern of discrimination against Muslims in employment".

"It is quite clear that the problems we have in Britain are not because Muslims wish to be separate ... I think the entire debate has been totally lopsided as though Muslims were somehow at fault for this," Mr Livingstone said.

---

quote:

---

The study, compiled from a range of data, said that one in 12 Londoners was Muslim. Only 15% of Muslim women aged over 25 were employed full time, compared to 37% of women in the general population.

It also found that Muslims are disproportionately victims of religiously aggravated crime.

It made a number of recommendations, including the improving of monitoring and research, the investigation of forms of discrimination and improving the representation of Muslims in local, regional and national government.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the "groundbreaking" report documented the needs of the Muslim community and identified policy initiatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

My dentist wears a mask. I hope yours does too, for hygenic reasons. Next time, I'll have to ask her if she's some sort of terrorist.

Except that she's white, and that's really your issue, isn't it?

---

The full Burkha is a powerful religious symbol, why should any overt religious symbols in a state school be allowed.

Not only the Burkha is really a strong psych. re-inforcement of a belief system, it is firmly asserting a religious identity and belief for all to see, up front and in your face.

One of its most pernicious effects is its reinforcement of the power of Muslim men over the women, and how the women have to comply with a whole slate of demands and enforcements. Worse, in the classroom it becomes a form of religious indoctrination, of young malleable minds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
The full Burkha is a powerful religious symbol, why should any overt religious symbols in a state school be allowed.

---

Just so we're clear, we aren't discussing the burkha in this case. A burkha covers the entire face and body, including the eyes.

quote:

---

Not only the Burkha is really a strong psych. re-inforcement of a belief system, it is firmly asserting a religious identity and belief for all to see, up front and in your face.

---

Precisely. What's wrong with "asserting a religious identity for all to see, up front and in your face"? I don't see the problem. I see a bigger problem with a dominant, nominally "secular" culture, which is so afraid of it's own shadow, and so uncommitted to actual tolerance of The Other outside of bold platitudes, that we need to stop anyone from doing anything that might actually be "Other".

And frankly, jeans and a T-shirt, or a suit and tie are also "a strong psych. re-inforcement of a belief system" it's just that we're so steeped in post-industrial capitalism that we don't see it as a cultural form among others.

quote:

---

One of its most pernicious effects is its reinforcement of the power of Muslim men over the women, and how the women have to comply with a whole slate of demands and enforcements.

---

Apparently (it's in one of the articles linked above) many of the British women who are choosing to wear the veil are doing so out of step with the requirements of the brand of Islam thier friends and neighbours espouse. Far from being forced into their position, they are choosing it.

quote:

---

Worse, in the classroom it becomes a form of religious indoctrination, of young malleable minds.

---

Wait - on the one hand you're saying it frightens young children but on the other that it is so powerful and seductive that young minds will be permanently warped into religious dementia. Which is it? Funny, I don't feel more compelled to be a nun when nuns walk by in habit, nor do men with heads shaved wearing robes and doing a lot of sitting-down and shutting-up make me want to run to the feet of the Dalai Lama and become a Buddhist (though I will admit that those guys have some cool beans philosophy going on)

Why not this: it can become a symbol for indoctrination into a culture of tolerance, where the teacher explains that she believes in certain things and that these things require her to cover her face from strangers, but that doesn't mean the kids have to do the same, only treat everyone with respect. This makes her different, but harmlessly so. Remember that old ditty, "don't judge a book by its cover?"

quote:

---

All people are entitled to ask for tolerance and consideration but there are limits within their host countries to what they can and should be asking for.

---

Host country? She's a citizen entitled to all the same rights as any other citizen. That's what "naturalisation" means. Your second point is no point at all because it is precisely what the limits are that we are discussing.

[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:

Bullsh.t...but hey, its a great way to stop a debate . Try not to read things into a post that are not there, I think its calleds Creative Thinking 101.

The full Burkha is a powerful religious symbol, why should any overt religious symbols in a state school be allowed.

Not only the Burkha is really a strong psych. re-inforcement of a belief system, it is firmly asserting a religious identity and belief for all to see, up front and in your face.

One of its most pernicious effects is its reinforcement of the power of Muslim men over the women, and how the women have to comply with a whole slate of demands and enforcements. Worse, in the classroom it becomes a form of religious indoctrination, of young malleable minds.

All people are entitled to ask for tolerance and consideration but there are limits within their host countries to what they can and should be asking for.

---

Not that it matters, but this is about the veil, not the burkha. People wear veils in every city in Canada (at least every city I've been to), and it's not an issue.

How do you feel about Catholics wearing the cross on a necklace in public? On TV? What about Orthodox Jews with big sideburns?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Not that it matters, but this is about the veil, not the burkha. People wear veils in every city in Canada (at least every city I've been to), and it's not an issue.

How do you feel about Catholics wearing the cross on a necklace in public? On TV? What about Orthodox Jews with big sideburns?

PS: It's not my fault you hate muslims.

---

I don't care what people wear in public, we are talking about a public institution and whether or not it is reasonable for a teacher of phonetics to young children, should wear the veil (not talking about the burkha, strictly covering their face).

This is about someone making a public and overt religious/political statement, and we know other religions, well maybe only Christians, would not be able to wear a large cross or whatever to make such a statement. But I'm glad that you all seem to agree that its okay for all religions to do this.

Veils are a barrier, segregationist and create a closed society where divisions are strengthened.

quote:

---

This is about someone making a public and overt religious/political statement, and we know other religions, well maybe only Christians, would not be able to wear a large cross or whatever to make such a statement. But I'm glad that you all seem to agree that its okay for all religions to do this.

---

quote:

---

People’s Assembly will challenge Islamophobia

by Chris Nineham, Stop the War Coalition national officer

The Stop the War Coalition has called a People’s Assembly on Islamophobia and the “war on terror” on Saturday 18 November. The Muslim community is facing a racist onslaught from politicians and the media.

A huge number of people want to respond to this. The assembly will be our chance to stand up and be counted. It’s also a chance to make the link between attacks on Muslims and the wider “war on terror”.

The reason why the government, Tory leader David Cameron and the media are demonising Muslims is because of the disastrous situation in Iraq.

It is no coincidence that Jack Straw and others chose this moment to open up this onslaught. The warmongers on both sides of the Atlantic are facing defeat - their wars are unravelling.

---

quote:

---

Socialist Worker sez:
The reason why the government, Tory leader David Cameron and the media are demonising Muslims is because of the disastrous situation in Iraq.

---

There's an interesting article here from a Hindu point of view.
http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/14/stories/2006031403570800.htm

It is one thing to demand the democratic right in an open and free society to practise one's faith, but to want to have a parallel religious legal system is quite another.
-snip-
But there are larger issues at stake here — issues to do with a Muslim mindset that refuses to detach itself from centuries-old ideas of progress, freedom, justice, and the role of religion in society. To oppose the demand for Sharia laws is not an attack on Islam. It is not even to suggest that these laws were not progressive in relation to the period when they were conceived. But the world has changed, and even some of the most progressive notions of that time have now become obsolete, and this applies as much to Islamic formulations as those prescribed by other faiths.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Complete bullshit. Evangelical christians wear WWJD bracelets, crosses, and bumper sticker their cars. They are readily identifiable. And I wouldn't stop them if they wanted to wear giant foam crosses on their heads or dress in white robes and sandals. It's not my business, so long as they aren't actively, violently trying to evangelise me or my family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
[QB]

I don't care what people wear in public, we are talking about a public institution

---

STOP! Huh?

quote:

---

...whether or not it is reasonable for a teacher of phonetics to young children, should wear the veil...

---

This is a question of pragmatic concern. One might make the argument that a veil is a hinderance to a job teaching phonetics to children, particularly those who are hearing-impaired. But you aren't doing that. You seem to be stuck on this:

quote:

---

This is about someone making a public and overt religious/political statement, and we know other religions, well maybe only Christians, would not be able to wear a large cross or whatever to make such a statement.

---

On the first point, I don't think you've made your case that there is something inherently dangerous in overt displays of religiosity. In fact, your argument has a tinge of envy or jealousy in it. This is why you keep grinding an axe about Christians not being allowed to do the same thing. Part of the far right's (victimhood) crusade against (supposed) anti-Christian liberal values. And I find it a little odd that on the one hand you are trying to enforce a rigorous secularity but keep returning to this same trope about Christian victimhood. I still say the question is irrelevent.

quote:

---

Veils are a barrier, segregationist and create a closed society where divisions are strengthened.

---

Reductio ad absurdem: all clothing is a barrier - it shuts us off from each other, divides us and keeps us apart. From a more moderate position I think that much of this can be reduced to a question of what are "private parts". We already have a range of acceptable opinion on this - some people (male and female) see no problem with toplessness in public. Toronto has a law permitting this in spite of a great amount of opposition to it, and in spite of the fact that it is rarely honoured - i.e. women are not running around topless everywhere (I'm sure the merits of that are hotly contested in many quarters). Still others choose to cover up virtually all their exposed skin. This may be for a million different reasons, some of them religious, but not always. No damage is done to society by allowing varying forms of expression AND "repression" (for lack of a better term).

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
[QB]Tolerance is a two way street.
-snip-

---

From a veil in a classroom to seperate Sharia-based courts. Dare I say this tangent is akin to monkeys tossing shit upon retreat...

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Tolerance is a two way street.

---

If this means that everyone should be tolerant of others, it is correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

From a veil in a classroom to seperate Sharia-based courts. Dare I say this tangent is akin to monkeys tossing shit upon retreat...

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

---

Western culture generally accept women without facial coverings, we do not require them to cover their faces, and rightly so. The more repressive Muslim cultures tells women to cover their faces, and in our society it engenders mistrust. Generally to us, facial coverings such as the veil is a sign that something is being hidden. Respect for following the culture and standards of the society you live is part of tolerance being a two way street.

More to the point it is a manifestation of a repressive male dominated society, in many cases (if not most) it is not a choice; something which women in the western world have fought against for a long time. We should be defending a woman's rights and freedoms.

What is interesting is how some people here are defending the use of the veil rather than fighting against marginalizing muslim females, this practice is completely out of step witht he most bascc concepts of gender equality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:

Western culture generally accept women without facial coverings, we do not require them to cover their faces, and rightly so. The more repressive Muslim cultures tells women to cover their faces, and in our society it engenders mistrust. Generally to us, facial coverings such as the veil is a sign that something is being hidden. Respect for following the culture and standards of the society you live is part of tolerance being a two way street.

---

Get over it. Don't be such a fucking knob.

quote:

---

And you portend to declare what is (non-)Islamic?
Are you suggesting Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is not real Islam? And "chauvinism"? How, exactly?

---

No, I don't claim to declare what is Islamic. The Koran does.

And you're damn right I'm suggesting that the extremist sect which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia is not the real Islam. It has about as much to do with real Islam as Pat Robertson has to do with real Christianity.

And of course, the Wahabbis claim to be the sole proponents of "real Islam" while everyone else has it wrong. I have always felt that if you claim that your sect, and your sect alone, is the proper expression of your religion, it is in fact everyone else who has it right and you who have it wrong. That's chauvinism.

And to the moderator: I was not trying to imply that people who cover their faces always have evil motives, just that this is a very old cultural stereotype in Western societies.

And with respect to the UK, I agree with the posting that says that the turn to fundamentalism is largely due to the perception that the community is under attack. This is the same sort of thing that has happened in Chechnia and to a lesser extent Bosnia, which were previously quite secular.

[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

A mother of six was killed in California, shot in the head as she walked to her kids’ school, with a toddler in hand. The likely motive is hate; she was wearing the hijab, something many of our fellow Americans have been conditioned to hate. Allah!

---

You may not like "multicult," scribblet, but babble is supposed to be a place where people who live cultures other than the mainstream, or people from the mainstream who embrace other cultures are welcome. I think you've pretty much worn out your "freebie" for-the-sake-of-argument bigoted talk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay, well, I've had just about enough of scribblet's anti-Muslim arguments against wearing the veil. It's called religious freedom, and you don't get to make derogatory statements about people from other cultures because of the way they dress.

You may not like "multicult," scribblet, but babble is supposed to be a place where people who live cultures other than the mainstream, or people from the mainstream who embrace other cultures are welcome. I think you've pretty much worn out your "freebie" for-the-sake-of-argument bigoted talk.

Any more derogatory remarks about observant Muslims and the way they dress, and I'll be locking your account. You really don't fit the mandate of this forum, scribblet. You're on thin ice.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6086374.stm
Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said women who did not wear a hijab (head dress) were like "uncovered meat"
What about blatent discrimination against women?
MOGADISHU, Somalia — An Islamic court banned women from swimming at the main beach in the capital to keep women from mingling with men, an official said Friday.

"We stopped women from swimming because it is against the teaching of Islam for women to mingle with men, especially while they are swimming," said Sheikh Farah Ali Hussein, chair of a northern Mogadishu Islamic court.

[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: scribblet ]

quote:

---

It all died down when people got used to it.

---

I've deliberately stayed out of this thread, as the blatant and not-so-blatant Islamophobia is offensive for me to read on babble. If I wanted to read scribblet's crap there are multitude places I could go.

quote:

---

I assume you mean when white people got used to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:

No, I don't claim to declare what is Islamic. The Koran does.

---

This is a literalist "fundamentalist" reading par excellance. This would make much of "Islam" "Un-Islamic" - Shi'as in particular.

In fact, the Islamic tradition admits all kinds of non-Quranic material into the corpus of it's theology and social rules. Everything from the life and sayings of Muhammed to jurisprudential interpretation, called fiqh. The Quran does not have clear instructions on every aspect of human existence, so rules of interpretation were developed (ijtihad) in order to deal with various aspects of life not spoken about directly.

The Jafari fiqh on which the Shi'a base their conduct is open to interpretation and implementation by the most learned among them. This is the basis upon which the clerics of Iran (incl. the Ayatollahs) rule. Similar Islamic thought is found in the area around Basra, in Iraq - i.e. the now infamous Al-Sadr having The Big Say-So.

quote:

---

I have always felt that if you claim that your sect, and your sect alone, is the proper expression of your religion, it is in fact everyone else who has it right and you who have it wrong. That's chauvinism.

---

And yet you claim to know what is and isn't Islamic, and are certain that Wahibbism definitely doesn't qualify. I imagine this is based on your extensive knowledge of Islamic theology and jurisprudence.

quote:

---

And to the moderator: I was not trying to imply that people who cover their faces always have evil motives, just that this is a very old cultural stereotype in Western societies.

---

I've often enjoyed shunning cultural stereotypes. You?

[ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
[QB]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6086374.stm
Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

---

quote:

---

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

And this arguement would be unusual in "western" culture, how? A Canadian court judge more or made this point, in a court, not ten years ago. I can't remember the specific case, but I do remember the incident clearly.

---

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [headscarf], no problem would have occurred," he added. "
He has been suspended for 3 months.

Maybe it was more in line with the Oslo professor who said
"Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

Should they (women )dress more modestly out of respect for other cultures ?

BTW don't forget that an opinion only belongs to whoever voices it; freedom of speech means we can voice an opinion with withthout external coercion and pressure to conform. Dialogue is great but does not begin until something is said that is not necessarily what one wants to hear.

As an agnostic, I am definitely not the one to cast aspersions on religious fanaticism but I will say that for the most part,without religious fanaticism there would be fewer wars. However, I do believe fully in the right of all people to voice an opinion, even those dastardly 'whacky fundies' After all, if we abused their beliefs that would also come under the heading of intolerance towards another's beliefs.

cheers

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: scribblet ]

But that thinking is very much part of our Aryan way of life, actually, and you don't really have to go very far to find Joe Average Canuck saying that, "she had it coming by dressing like a whore." So, yes, this stand of yours comes across like pure xenophobic rot.

And it is rot.

As in rotten, and foul, and sick, and exactly the kind of low level bigotry that enabled Hitler to build his little movement. It depresses me to see that there is no progress and year after year we have to fight this same old stupid struggle over and over again. This knee jerk paranoia about people dressing and acting differently and eating different foods, just because some people are narrow minded and scared.

Does this mean I am calling you narrow minded and scared?

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

A true democrat would assert the right of all people to assert their free will, and free expression however they chose, as long as such does not violate the personal well being of others in a clearly demostratable fashion.

And by "demonstratable" I don't mean some farm house psycho-analytic jibber-jabber.

If it is the case that students are going to live in a society were people are allowed to wear whatever they want, and that that society permits women to wear veils, then there is absolutely no reason that students should not be exposed to the occassional teacher who veils herself. The opposite position asserts that she actually does not have the completely free right to wear a veil, and also demonstrates to students that society disapproves of her choice.

In fact your postion promotes bigotry, by establishing clearly that traditional Musilm dress of some Arab and Asian cultural groups is socially unacceptable.

We really are in the dark ages, here, are we not?

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I take it you may be unfamiliar with the well-established legal doctrine of reasonable accommodation in Canada. It is applied on a case-by-case basis and has been covered in ample detail in much recent jurisprudence.

It has worked quite well so far in balancing the rights of all involved in disputes that may arise when different cultural values or practices conflict.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission has developed significant expertise in the issue.

Religious accommodation material

As well, the research division of the Library of Parliament has produced a background paper on the topic that outlines quite well the different policy options.

Religious symbols in the public sphere

It may help to read on the legal and policy background of these often complex issues before reaching for the style of polarizing invective that seems all too common here.

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

Being asserted in law certainly does not make something democratic, a priori. Laws are often not democratic, some aren't even legal.

For instance, I point you to the 1933 "enabling act" in Germany. It was neither moral, nor legal, nor democratic.

???????

I think this conversation is definitely over.

You should be careful here, if I were to miscontrue your intention as badly as you have mine, I would be able to say that it seems like you are saying that the 1933 "Rnabling Act" was defending minority rights.

Ha!

In short, it was not you that I was calling a bigot. Back to your stone age ideas:

In reverse, this principle is the same one by which some majority Muslim nations assert the right to force women to wear the Burqua and the Hijab, regardless of their religous affliction, because such stands outside the socially accepted norm. Rightly we call this an infringement of rights and say that it is not democratic.

But here, in this bastion of forward thinking liberalism this same principle is being espoused in the name of defending society against such ideas, by saying no less that we have a right to determine how women dress.

Reasonable accomodation indicates that there is a limit set on the individual right of expression. As you have said. You will be "reasonable" and allow Muslim women to wear Hijab, but not the veil in a professional school setting. There is a clear limit on their rights. It is not protecting the rights of minorities, but asserting a superior right to determine the extent to which a persons can express their rights in a matter which is clearly in the realm of personal choice, religious belief and free expression.

In essence the fact that you think that these choices, beliefs and expressions need to be "reasonably accomodated" indicates that these rights are actually being abridged. Otherwise the word "resonable" would not even appear in the phrase.

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
start spouting off about how this way of thinking is not in keeping with our 'Aryan' way of life or some such rot.

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Hmmm, where did I say any of that, your words, not mine, maybe goes to your real deep dark thoughts on the issue. No one has mentioned Ayran or anything similar. Different foods, not mentioned, but I love different foods.... I actually cook a mean curry and roti.

Course, now that Hitler is mentioned doesn't Godwins law kick in, you know "if you mention
Hitler or Nazis in a post, the conversation automatically ends"

Methinks you are transferring your own impulses onto me.

Most of us who actually have legal experience are not in the habit of equating in the same sentence or thought the names Hitler, Human Rights Commission, the Library of Parliament, and the Supreme Court of Canada (the latter having provided detailed constitutional principles to define what is reasonable accommodation in specific cases).

Having now been re-educated by someone who does not need to read reports about actual court cases or research any actual issues, I will happily spend this weekend tossing out my obviously useless caselaw reporters, starting of course with the Supreme Court Reports, and then proceeding on to my collection of human rights commission investigations, written as I now realize by some of Canada's worst racial and religious bigots.

This is becoming quite silly. I believe I am supposed to add a funny smiley face here to indicate this is all ironic and there are no hard feelings:

Have a pleasant day. My colleagues and I have some minorities to oppress.

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

A good lawyer, would have been able to clearly see that I was not comparing the supreme court of canada or any of those lovely institutions which you seem to hold in such high regard (after all they are the true source of your self esteem, are they not, otherwise why would you need to refer to your association with them in debate) to Adolph Hitler.

(After you get your pants back on perhaps you could review?) Hey! I didn't make you bend over!

I was simply rejecting the notion that just because something was written into law that it was, moral or democratic or even legal. The 1933 Enabling Act is a perfect example of a law which conforms to none of those requisites.

I was being a little more subtle then you seem capable of discerning.

Funny how you shit your pants when I suggested that it was possible, even in the institutions which sanctify your beatification, that they may not be entirely "democratic," always, and thought I was making you out to be a Nazi.

You might be that banal but you clearly aint that shrewd.

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

It is that simple. And I will continue to know it no matter how many times any particular statuate uses the ubiquitous and oh so conveniently flexible phrase "reasonable," when asserting that it has a right to define cultural norms.

I know it just like I know that Islamic societies insisting that all women must wear Hijab when working in public institutions are being undemocratic. Saying that the state should say that they can not wear Hijab is the equal opposite, and just as undeomcratic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minus Habens:
How does one sign off of Babble? Anyone know how?

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

---

quote:

---

The judge stated in court that had the woman not been dressed provocatively she might not have been raped. This was in the 1990's, not the 1890's. The logic is exactly the same, as that of the Mullah you are refering too. Yet when Muslim people make similar assertions, you get your knickers tied in a knot, and start spouting off about how this way of thinking is not in keeping with our 'Aryan' way of life or some such rot, or some such rot.
But that thinking is very much part of our Aryan way of life, actually, and you don't really have to go very far to find Joe Average Canuck saying that, "she had it coming by dressing like a whore." So, yes, this stand of yours comes across like pure xenophobic rot.

---

So,Cueball,is it your position that if women dress provocatively,they are legitimate targets of gang rape due to either the religious interpretation of the koran by certain fundamentalists or the societal norm of certain westerners who consider the victim had it coming for "dressing like a whore"?

While I understand and agree with your argument regarding the dual standard of western and muslim interpretations of the same issue,you appear to be agreeing that a woman who does not dress and behave in a modest manner deserves to be raped.

quote:

---

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked.

The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.

Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault.

"Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added.

Sheikh Hilali's critics have previously accused him of praising suicide bombers and claiming the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 were "God's work against oppressors".

---

Why do feminists not condemn this" blame the victim " methodology? I can read a sermon in his words that is directed to modesty no different than the words of a christian sermon but both can be taken to condone rape.

I don't have any problems with personal choice of apparel or affectations except perhaps facial piercings.My concern with facial piercings is not so much the right to do so as it is why anyone is dumb enough to want to.

When the turban issue evolved,my opinion was that society did not have a problem with turban wearers in the trenches of WW1 who died in their thousands alongside non-turban wearing colonial cannon-fodder so why could turban wearers not join in the veteran's activities in the Legions wearing the same turban?

As far as Sheik Hilali is concerned,are his words considered in the same context by his intended audience as by the media who picked up on his words? Or are they deliberately taken in an inflammatory manner?

quote:

---

In a statement released on Thursday, Sheikh Hilali said he had been quoting another, unnamed, source and did not mean his words to condone rape.

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
So,Cueball,is it your position that if women dress provocatively,they are legitimate targets of gang rape due to either the religious interpretation of the koran by certain fundamentalists or the societal norm of certain westerners who consider the victim had it coming for "dressing like a whore"?

While I understand and agree with your argument regarding the dual standard of western and muslim interpretations of the same issue,you appear to be agreeing that a woman who does not dress and behave in a modest manner deserves to be raped.

---

I really kind of hope that you don't think I am that stupid.

To put it latterally, I think it follows that someone who has posted a series of posts asserting strongly that women have a right to wear "whatever they want," veiled or unveiled without their rights being impugned by morons, on principle, would also argue that women have a right to wear, "whatever they want," tramp-like or not tramp-like, without having their rights impugned by morons, on principle.

Doncha think?

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

So,Cueball,is it your position that if women dress provocatively,they are legitimate targets of gang rape due to either the religious interpretation of the koran by certain fundamentalists or the societal norm of certain westerners who consider the victim had it coming for "dressing like a whore"?

While I understand and agree with your argument regarding the dual standard of western and muslim interpretations of the same issue,you appear to be agreeing that a woman who does not dress and behave in a modest manner deserves to be raped.

---

What the hell? He didn't say that anywhere - there's no way you could interpret his comments to mean that unless you are deliberately distorting them in order to attribute such nasty views to him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I really kind of hope that you don't think I am that stupid.

---

No,Just asking for clarification.

quote:

---

To put it latterally, I think it follows that someone who has posted a series of posts asserting strongly that women have a right to wear "whatever they want," veiled or unveiled without their rights being impugned by morons, on principle, would also argue that women have a right to wear, "whatever they want," tramp-like or not tramp-like, without having their rights impugned by morons, on principle.

---

Fair enough. I take this to mean that women have the right to wear headcoverings for whatever reason without being harassed or raped or to wear "tramp-like" clothing without being harassed or raped.

quote:

---

[QB]
Doncha think?

---

Yes,I agree.In defense of my inquiry,you tend to a certain pc wordiness when in full flight that is hard to interpret. I'd change my name to dogbert but Spector beat me to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

Yes,I agree.In defense of my inquiry,you tend to a certain pc wordiness when in full flight that is hard to interpret.

---

Khruscheov-like loquaciousness I know.

Here are some smaples:

quote:

---

“If you start throwing hedgehogs under me, I shall throw a couple of porcupines under you.”

---

quote:

---

“There are still some people who think that we have Stalin to thank for all our progress, who quake before Stalin's dirty underdrawers, who stand at attention and salute them.”

---

quote:

---

“I'll step on your corns any time I want.”

---

quote:

---

“The USA and USSR will only agree when shrimps learn to fly.”

---

And last but not least:

quote:

---

“Life is short; live it up.”

---

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=132248®ion=7

Read Sheik Hilaly's comments

The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert.

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation."

"When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years."

"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it."

"If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?"

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it."

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen."

"Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger in necessity, Satan tells women you‘re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons."

"…The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
Just in case anyone is interested, the controversial comments re: women as meat are here and don't appear to be taken out of context.

---

Who cares what context they are in. The question at hand is "what are we going to do about Muslim (or Amish, or Catholic, or disfigured, or shy, or perhaps fashionable) women who CHOOSE to wear veils in a classroom?"

What Sheik So-n-So thinks about women, rape, provocative dress, and so on, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVENT.

Well, not entirely: your tangents (Christian victimhood, pointing out all those Bad Muslims) are slowly revealing the outline of your visage behind the veil of "women's rights"...

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

..your tangents (Christian victimhood, pointing out all those Bad Muslims) are slowly revealing the outline of your visage behind the veil of "women's rights"... B.L.Zeebub LLD

---

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Just in case anyone is interested, the controversial comments re: women as meat are here and don't appear to be taken out of context.

---

scribblet,taking the words of the Sheik's sermon literally is the same as taking the words of a fire and brimstone preacher railing against lack of female modesty,makeup,singing and dancing,what-have-you,literally.

Taking a comment of roasting in the fires of eternity could be misconstrued as being burned at the stake in another culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
Worth repeating:

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Who cares what context they are in. The question at hand is "what are we going to do about Muslim (or Amish, or Catholic, or disfigured, or shy, or perhaps fashionable) women who CHOOSE to wear veils in a classroom?"

What Sheik So-n-So thinks about women, rape, provocative dress, and so on, is ENTIRELY IRRELEVENT.

Well, not entirely: your tangents (Christian victimhood, pointing out all those Bad Muslims) are slowly revealing the outline of your visage behind the veil of "women's rights"...

[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

---

Sikhs are a good example for this due to the nature of what they require. A ceremonial dagger for example. I would submit that it should be allowed to be worn, after all, a good old Alberta redneck can strap on a hunting knife or carry a pocket knife. But, they might just have to give up the dagger on an airplane.

The turban. Great! No problem. I am even in favor of accomodating the turban when it comes to the RCMP, and they should be allowed to wear it in Legion halls. If they want to work on an industrial construction site with one (meaning a hard hat cannot be worn), then I am afraid they either need to find other work, or if there is demand, have a hard hat manufacturer create one that will work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:

I don't believe it is irrelevant, it speaks to the issue of what the veil actually represents and why they wear it.

---

So when this guy speaks, Muslim women in a different country are mere diodes - incapable of independent thought, incapable of reasoning on their own, perpetually bound to his every edict...

Talk about misogyny. The only problem is that this completely ignores what the women themselves have to say - AND - the evidence presented in this thread that they are choosing the veil in spite of their community as a political statement affirming their very Otherness.

I suggest - lest we become "medieval misogynists" - that we ask these women what it is they think, instead of assuming that they are simply Muslim Borg.

quote:

---

a surrogate state for promoting medieval religious beliefs and concepts.

---

Repeat: we haven't ascertained that what the women wearing the veil believe is "medieval" at all. You've just assumed that on their behalf based on what some guy in Australia has to say. In fact, there is ample evidence IN THIS THREAD to suggest that their behaviour, far from being medieval is a thoroughly post-modern affirmation of ethnic identity against the alienation of "secular" capitalism and against rampant anti-Muslim sentiment present in Britain. We accept this (re)affirmation for other groups, why not Muslims? This sort of thing is found amongst many ethnic groups as the traditional bonds of family and kin are broken and the whithering "nation-state" no longer functions as the lightening rod for group identity.

Also, I take issue with your recurring theme of "surrogacy". You continually (and revealingly) portray this as an issue of cultural warfare, almost of colonisation rather than a basic issue of how we use the rules of equality that underpin our "secular" society to include all comers. There is the hint of a conspiracy of "medieval misogynists" coming to destroy us, setting up a fifth-column (Five Pillars?) amongst us, waiting for the right moment to spring on us and force our wives and sisters and mothers under the burkha....

As evinced by your posts, your "dhikr" to "women's rights" rings hollow.

[ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Essentially, someone returns a broken kettle to their friend. The friend says, "hey, my kettle is broken" and then we go into a long string of (often) mutually exclusive excuses for why we didn't return a broken kettle: "I didn't borrow the kettle from you. I returned it to you in working order. The kettle must have been broken when you gave it to me." Frued saw this inconsistency as confirmation of what we're trying to deny: that, in fact, we returned a broken kettle.

[ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scribblet:
My argument is not simply that the children were scared, she is teaching phonetics, the kids need to see her mouth. And, as I might add, so do the hearing impaired, which is also an issue.

---

I'm teaching phonics to yong children, and I think she should be allowed to wear her veil. I could do my job with my face covered, as long as I was willing to periodically remove it for brief periods of time in the company of children (which she is willing to do).

Yes, the kids need to see someone's mouth to learn some sounds. But that mouth doesn't have to be the teacher's. In fact, it's usually a lot more effective for them to look at a peer's mouth instead of my mouth. I direct them to do that as much as possible. Once in a while, if no one gets it, then they need to see my mouth, and that's when she might need to pull aside the veil briefly. She's willing to do that.

quote:

---

Does he name this type of arguement? I know he was big on coining terms. It would be nice to be able to identify this kind of arguement in future without having to type all the letters in the phrase "multi-tongued snake-like slithering about, preverication and mutually contradictory falsities and outright lies"?

---

Howabout a conservalie arguement Or repugnican reply

[ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Right. I see. That is interesting.

Does he name this type of arguement? I know he was big on coining terms. It would be nice to be able to identify this kind of arguement in future without having to type all the letters in the phrase "multi-tongued snake-like slithering about, preverication and mutually contradictory falsities and outright lies"?

---

"Kettle logic". The concept first appeared in The Interpretation of Dreams.

quote:

---

Originally posted by v michel:

Yes, the kids need to see someone's mouth to learn some sounds. But that mouth doesn't have to be the teacher's. In fact, it's usually a lot more effective for them to look at a peer's mouth instead of my mouth. I direct them to do that as much as possible. Once in a while, if no one gets it, then they need to see my mouth, and that's when she might need to pull aside the veil briefly. She's willing to do that.

---

Right, and here is the issue, why are we searching the very limitus of possibilities where wearing of the veil would pragmatically affect the abilities of a teacher in order to justify legislative imposition upon the personal freedoms of Musmlim women.

Surely such practical considerations can be handled adminstratively, without the intervention of the state?

One might even ask if veiling actually applies, as an Islamic custom with school age children in the confines of a teachers own classroom, which might not even really be a considered a "public" place in the view of many Imams.

She might simply have to insist that no male colleagues enter the room without knocking on the door first, something which is generally considered polite in our society anyway. Or should we legislate that too, some people don't knock as we all know?

[ 29 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Surely such practical considerations can be handled adminstratively, without the intervention of the state?

---

Sorry Cueball, no dice!

I opened this discussion by stating that I was torn on this issue. By reading the way this thread has flowed, I can see that there is a “thin edge of the wedge” migration here.

You cannot accommodate for just one religion in the public educational system. (Ultra)religious symbolism and practices need to be kept out of the public educational system. In this case, if the teacher cannot perform her duties and educate the children, as they cannot understand her, then she is not abiding to her end of the societal “In Loco Parentis” contract.

quote:

---

One might even ask if veiling actually applies, as an Islamic custom with school age children in the confines of a teachers own classroom, which might not even really be a considered a "public" place in the view of many Imams.

She might simply have to insist that no male colleagues enter the room without knocking on the door first, something which is generally considered polite in our society anyway. Or should we legislate that too, some people don't knock as we all know?

---

Secondly, when I say, things could be handled adminstratively. By this I am saying that if it was demonstratable that veiling interfered with a specific task, such as language teaching to HSP kids, then a teacher could simply be asked adminstratively to remove the veil when teaching, and to chose.

Again this is not something that has to be legislated.

Thirdly, Muslims who wear the Hijab and the veil do not consider it to be (ultra)religious, but quite normal, and socially appropriate, much in the same way women here used to believe that bra wearing was an absolute, and very normal requirement of social propriety. Many in fact still do.

Your belief that veiling is (ultra) religious is an expression of your cultural bias, most of all.

Its a big step to go from saying that women should not feel compelled to wear bras, to legislating their removal because they are symbolic of female opression and objectification, and might restrict movement, say in an emergency situation where a teacher need absolute freedom of movement in order to ensure the safety of children.

Are you also going to require that female teachers never wear any sort of healed shoe over an inch tall, as that might reduce her ability to effectively operate in an emergency situation. How abou skirts? Will principles be requires to test the skirts of teachers to ensure that there is at least one inch of play in the fabric, in order to facilitate movement in an potential emergency?

It is quite clear that your desire to find reasons, based on minutely possible inconveniences, that in some very specicifc situations might prove pivotal in some specific situations has everything to do with your desire to see the full weight of the law being brought to bear to deal with Muslim practices, which you see as abnormal, but are really just as spurious as any of the exceptions listed above dealing with bras, skirts and high heels, which are socially acceptable to your western norms.

More generally, if you want to live in a scoiety where the state defines what you are and are not allowed to wear as a public official, perhaps I suggest you look into some of this fashionably utilatarian attire developed by CPC in the 1960's for its teachers and students:

It certianly reduces everyone to the same common denominator.

There is a difference between the state specifically condoning or authorizing a specific religious view by requiring that students sing the lords prayer, and allowing teachers and students to practice their own religous beliefs voluntarilly, as part of their inalliable right to free expression.

I am against the former, and for the latter.

What is next no Che t-shirts?

But the essential xenophobic (ne racist) nature of the present debate is captured expressly by your "thin edge of the wedge" arguement. The fact is that people (students and teachers) have been wearing religiously oriented attire in schools for many decades. In other words that was the thin edge of the wedge, but no one seemed to care. It is only when Muslims, in any numbers, began to assert their cultural presence in our schools that people seem to have noticed at all.

In other words there was no alarm at the migration of religious views into schools until Muslims became the issue, as you repeatedly demonstrate. Now quite fairly you wish to ban all religious symbols, fair enough, but it is completely obvious that the uproar becomes a serious issue when Islam is threatening the fundamentally Christian nature of our society, not its secularity.

Finally, and more prectically, your idea, banning all religious symbols, will merely destroy the public school system entirely as parents will absolutely assert their rights by having their children attend religously homogenous private schools, and thus you will actually reduce the exposure of children to secular ideas, and probably more importantly increase ethnic based ignorances because most Muslim children will never meet any Jewish children, and so never have a chance to bond or reach understanding.

[ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

(Ultra)religious symbolism and practices need to be kept out of the public educational system.

---

And how is it that we define "ultra-religious" from simply "lukewarm-religious"?

By virtue of the mass migration patterns on the planet, and our privileged place in the economic order, our children are already exposed daily to more religious and ethnic symbolism than we were. I think the education system should reflect the world we live in. "Secularity" does not necessarily imply a enforcing a lack of religious sentiment in society, but rather that no particular religious sentiment be attached to the authority of government, or required for the distribution of justice and public goods.

quote:

---

Posted by Cueball:
Its a big step to go from saying that women should not feel compelled to wear bras, to legislating their removal because they are symbolic of female oppression and objectification, and might restrict movement, say in an emergency situation where a teacher need absolute freedom of movement in order to ensure the safety of children.

---

I really don’t understand your argument, or should I say rant. My point is to keep religious symbolism and teaching out of the classroom. You seem to want to make allowances for certain ethnic groups and that the public educational institution. I think your leap went way too far and is quite insulting. Nowhere do I mention safety or that women need to ware bras. But you do for some reason, why? Your photo of military and flag waving is also away off base as I did not come even close to your deliberate path of painting me with a totalitarian brush. Actually, I feel my comments are much more liberal than yours.

quote:

---

But the essential xenophobic (ne racist) nature of the present debate is captured expressly by your "thin edge of the wedge" argument. The fact is that people (students and teachers) have been wearing religiously oriented attire in schools for many decades. In other words that was the thin edge of the wedge, but no one seemed to care. It is only when Muslims, in any numbers, began to assert their cultural presence in our schools that people seem to have noticed at all.

---

quote:

---

Finally, and more practically, your idea, banning all religious symbols, will merely destroy the public school system entirely as parents will absolutely assert their rights by having their children attend religiously homogenous private schools, and thus you will actually reduce the exposure of children to secular ideas, and probably more importantly increase ethnic based ignorance because most Muslim children will never meet any Jewish children, and so never have a chance to bond or reach understanding.

---

Once again, this is absolute nonsense and completely against the philosophy of public education. Children don’t know instinctively what religion is. This is something that is taught. Children will play with, learn with and make friends with almost anyone they bond with.

The point about the unsafe clothing issue is quite simple. I can make up all kinds of good reasons why women should not be allowed to wear all kinds of things in schools, such a mini-skirts, which I think are sexually provactive for children, and high heals which constitute a possible safety hazard.

Of course these are silly exceptions, and hardly things that needs to be written into law.

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

In Canada, the complete veiling of the face for a teacher would most likely not meet the legal requirements of reasonableness.

---

A question for niqab detractors: have any of you actually ever met or talked to a woman in a niqab? I'm thinking not, judging from your arguments.

Cueball, will you marry me?

quote:

---

I placed ultra into brackets, then wrote religious...

---

Yeah, so? As for this business about the veil being a religious symbol, I'll ask again, why is this a problem? There is a huge difference between (as Cueball pointed out) enforcing the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and an individual simply following a mode of dress dictated by their beliefs. Again, "secularity" does not necessarily imply a complete lack of individual religious belief or expression, but that any particular doctrine or faith does not attach its authority to the state.

There are religious people in our world. Why are we afraid of their religiosity? Is it catching? If children don't really "get" religion and will bond with anyone, then why the fear that individual beliefs and modes of dress are dangerous? Isn't it more likely that kids just won't give a shit?

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You wouldn't want to marry me. I spend far to much time on the internet.

---

When will we target the clothes and head coverings of Orthodox Jews? Traditional Mennonites? Hippies? Beekeepers? Are we to continue the obsession based on gender, or can it be expanded to both male and female garb?

As I said above, this is an issue of what constitutes "private parts". If you consider your face to be "private", then so be it. It's your face, afterall...

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

The point about the unsafe clothing issue is quite simple. I can make up all kinds of good reasons why women should not be allowed to wear all kinds of things in schools, such a mini-skirts, which I think are sexually provocative for children, and high heals which constitute a possible safety hazard.

---

Where do you get your information from? Children do not know sexuality. Sexuality is an adolescent and adult thing. Please read Desmond Morris’ books regarding anthropology and sociology. To believe children are sexual or can have sexual feelings is condoning the actions of some sexual predation apologists such as the “Uncovered Meat” writings above. However, I agree that mini-skirts are not proper attire within the workplace as well as other over revealing clothing. Educational institutions should have a content of honour and dignity that adults should respect. The youth have history on their side and always try to push the boundaries. However, respect is also learned.

quote:

---

A question for niqab detractors: have any of you actually ever met or talked to a woman in a niqab? I'm thinking not, judging from your arguments.

---

quote:

---

To believe children are sexual or can have sexual feelings is condoning the actions of some sexual predation apologists such as the “Uncovered Meat” writings above.

---

You seem to be struggling with the difference between children and adults. Here's a hint: women are a-d-u-l-t-s.

Children don't have sexual feelings? Please. Anyone who's seen a three-year-old diddling certain pleasure spots knows this is so. Some pretend otherwise because they wish to be willfully ignorant to reality.

A child's sexual expression has nothing to do with an adult's exploitation thereof. Just as a woman's sexual expression has nothing to do with a man's exploitation thereof.

Rape, assault and sexual exploration: not the same things.

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Sexuality is an adolescent and adult thing. Please read Desmond Morris’ books regarding anthropology and sociology.

---

Well if we're name-dropping, can I mention the dozens of psychologists and psychoanalysts who would completely disagree? Let's start with no less than Freud...

Anyway, I think this is a diversion and an attempt to shift the ground to somewhere where you feel more comfortable (i.e. standing in Desmond Morris' shadow). I'll respond to this, however,

quote:

---

Yes, read the top of the page. If there is a deep dialect or accent, it is very difficult to understand the woman I am speaking with.

---

Here we get to a practical issue. I live and work with hundreds of people who speak English as a second (3rd, 4th, 12th) language. And in spite of the fact that I can look at their faces, I daily have experiences where it is difficult to decipher what is being said. Frankly, with a non-native speaker, the shape of the mouth is often as "incorrect" as the grammar, etc. That's why they have an accent! It's a direct function of the physiology of speaking.

Moreover, our ability to understand the sounds that make speech is primarily aural - otherwise, we could all lip-read from across the room. But we cannot, it takes training. The process of deciphering these aural cues into language is learned very early in childhood (read your Chomsky - the "other" Chomsky with a day job...) and only long exposure to accents and dialects can help a person begin to decipher "English" out of them. A perfect example is my partner, who is British. After much time together, I STILL have moments when the sounds she utters make no sense to my brain at all and I have to ask her to slow down and repeat. Not because of slang or informality, but because she sounds different than what my brain is programmed to call "English". Is it easier when I can see her? Sometimes, but not always.

So, what about teachers? Well, if this young teacher can pronounce words with the accent proper to the place in which she is teaching, I don't see the trouble. As was pointed out above, kids learn as much by imitating their peers as the teacher. Moreover, if it really is an issue, other visual aids could be employed - pictures, videos, etc. - to show the shape of the mouth needed to produce the correct sound. As I recall, these sorts of aids are in use already.

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Morris:

quote:

---

But then men with great talent or power, from Elvis Presley to Bill Clinton, Toulouse-Lautrec to John Prescott, will, it seems, more often than not put their careers or family lives in jeopardy in order to satisfy the primeval hunter’s thrill. It is, sadly, simply a by-product of the human exploratory urge, and one of the prices we - and wives the world over - have to pay for being the most innovative species on the planet.

---

quote:

---

Children don't have sexual feelings? Please. Anyone who's seen a three-year-old diddling certain pleasure spots knows this is so. Some pretend otherwise because they wish to be wilfully ignorant to reality.

---

I have two children, so I know they play with themselves. You are confusing self pleasure with sexuality. Sexuality is used for the purpose of attracting a mate. It is one of the strongest urges in all species on this earth. If you really think a child playing with themselves has the same capacity of understanding (or even feelings) as an adult in these matters, you are..., well I don’t want to get banned.

Freud lived, studied and theorized in a different (sexually repressive, at least on the outside) world than that of today. Do you really believe in the premise that women have “penis envy?” I don’t.

As for Desmond Morris, I guess everything his wrote and all of his theories are to be completely dismissed because he analysed one letter from Einstein. It is interesting that the Laurelin in the Rain article just added commentary without scientific proof to back up the statements. I guess every student studying The Naked Ape and other Morris research should burn their books because Laurelin didn’t like something that Desmond wrote.

quote:

---

What exactly is the debate? Do we believe in allowing people to wear clothes they choose or not? Does freedom mean the right of some to dictate what others must wear?

---

quote:

---

I demand fuck-me boots and mini-skirts because that is what appeals to me! That would be reasonable accomodation. Anyone else?

---

Apologies, I missed this memo. Yes, I will support this as the universal capitalist freedom-loving democratic uniform as long as it is worn by everyone - and by that I mean all genders - and with nothing else added, even in winter, and with weekly body waxing required as part of the routine, including all head and pubic hair.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sans Tache:

In the educational institutions, it is important that the student’s learning is the prime objective. In this case, the teacher could not be understood, thus the needs of the students in more important than the needs of the person. Now, if this woman wants to wear her veil anywhere else or at any other time, I would be one of the first in line to defend her right to do so. This has nothing to do with cultural protectionism but is it strange how these leaps are taken by those who just want to chew someone up and spit them out.

---

Ignoring that you missed the point regarding both Morris and Freud, I notice that you have nothing to say to the notion that supplemental aids (which are already in use) could be used to aid this teacher's lessons and overcome the difficulties presented by her wearing a veil as well as the anecdotal evidence from someone who teaches phonetics about the importance of peer imitation over imitation of the teacher. Never mind that language is learned primarily aurally and not visually, which is why it's called "phonetics" and not "scopics" or "optics" or some other thing.

How do blind children learn to speak?

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Whether or not Freud lived in a more sexually repressive time (which is debatable) or not does not go to the primary observation that many people present psychological symptoms in adulthood which are directly related to sexual experiences in their childhood. By sexual experience I don't necessarily mean physical contact, but also the "deep urges" you speak of colouring the perception of events, if not determining the experience of them altogether.

There is plenty of evidence that children experience libidinal desires by research in both the psychoanalytic AND psychological fields, across a number of time periods.

And now, the Utah State University presents ...

Infant and Childhood Sexuality

A helpful slideshow by D. Kim Openshaw, Ph.D., Department of Family and Human Development.

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
More to the point, B.L. Zeebub, are you prepared to abide by Cueball's fashion statement for freedom? Onwards!

---

That photo? No sign of a mini skirt OR fuck-me boots!

Rejecting your own demands right off the top? What kinda kooky demand are you going to make next? Now that you've proven your inconsistency (although definitely proving you spend a lot of time on the internet ). The proposal still stands. Hell, if I used that as a screening device I'd never get any.