Schoolgirl wins Muslim gown case
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: TheDave
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4310545.stm
basically a girl refused to wear school uniform (tunic and trousers) to wear a jilbab (full length gown). religious advisors say that muslim rules say she can wear the uniform.
she says: yadda yadda yadda 9/11 yadda yadda racist yadda yadda free country yadda yadda yadda.
i say: it's nothing to do with racism, sexism or any kind of prejudice. school uniform rules should be followed. (remember muslim advisors said the current uniform is fine). this is just a case of a teenage girl making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss (like teenagers do)
Posted by: Arm
School uniforms are gay. Get rid of 'em once and for all. :01:
Posted by: Busyman
I must agree with Dave. Wear the fucking uniform or don't come to school.
I wish all schools had uniforms. Usually the only people pissed about it is the children that are still in school.
School isn't a fashion show. It's a place of learning.
Posted by: Snee
Yup, I have to agree too, if the uniform is approved according to the advisors I can't understand how she could win anything.
However since it is approved, I'd like to see some non-muslim english kids customizing their uniforms to fit their particular creed or ethnicity.
They should wear enormous crosses or something. Just as a protest, like.
Posted by: vidcc
If the school has uniforms it should apply to all, however girls should be allowed the choice of long trousers instead of skirts. That way the modesty issue should be "covered"
Posted by: Arm
I wish all schools had uniforms. Usually the only people pissed about it is the children that are still in school.
School isn't a fashion show. It's a place of learning.
Nah ill be opposed to school uniforms until I die. And no, I'm not in school anymore. If work dress code is casual (in offices I mean) then why shouldnt the schools be? :unsure:
Posted by: Busyman
Nah ill be opposed to school uniforms until I die. And no, I'm not in school anymore. If work dress code is casual (in offices I mean) then why shouldnt the schools be? :unsure:
Schools are a place of learning.
There is already enough distractions. Wtf to wear shouldn't be one of them.
I've already said the pro to school uniforms. What's the con?
Posted by: DanB
Work dress code in offices here is normally shirt & tie at the very least
Posted by: bigboab
Work dress code in offices here is normally shirt & tie at the very least
Dont forget the trousers etc. :)
Posted by: DanB
Dont forget the trousers etc. :)
boom boom
:helpsmili
Posted by: ilw
I alternate between not giving a damn and getting pretty pissed off that they are reportedly thinking of suing the school.
AFAIK the changing from the uniform allowed by the school to the jilbab doesn't seem to cover any more of her or really serve any purpose other than it was just her preference, which doesn't strike me as coming under the human rights act.
Also the next logical step is allowing covering of the face isn't it? surely thats gonna make things a wee bit hard on the teacher, or are name badges the way forward?
Posted by: Biggles
Some people sadly just look for issues
The school headmaster is in fact a Muslim and he said she was being a pain.
The carefully prepared and eloquent speeches smack of political/religious activism. In short she is the very thing that give people the 9/11 willies.
I have no problem with headscarf thing - in fact, it can look very attractive. (The ones that look like Daleks just look daft). However, as someone who has an affinity for old Celtic beliefs I know I could not go to a strict Muslim country and do anything Pagan in public - so I wouldn't, I have no desire to offend.
However, people who want their cake and eat it do my head in.
Posted by: bigboab
I would make the school uniform Muslim for everyone. Just to see what, if any, reaction came from the Muslim community.
Does anyone know where I can acquire a new wooden spoon. This one is getting a bit worn. :(
Posted by: lynx
I would make the school uniform Muslim for everyone. Just to see what, if any, reaction came from the Muslim community.
Does anyone know where I can acquire a new wooden spoon. This one is getting a bit worn. :(You know very well some people couldn't resist customising those flowing robes.
You know - white, pointy hood etc. :devil:
Posted by: bigboab
You know very well some people couldn't resist customising those flowing robes.
You know - white, pointy hood etc. :devil:
I was just hoping they would come back into fashion.
:rolleyes:
Posted by: Biggles
I was just hoping they would come back into fashion.
:rolleyes:
Although it hasn't stopped you wearing it has it? :shifty:
Posted by: bigboab
Although it hasn't stopped you wearing it has it? :shifty:
Nah! Every since the Mujihadin stopped training in Kilmarnock there has been no need for it. They left because the DSS told them they would have to write 10 letters a week, applying for work. They wrote A to J. I thought their reply to the DSS request was brilliant.
:P
Yes, I did count them on my fingers. :rolleyes:
Posted by: Busyman
Sorry but the decision to allow the girl to wear a different uniform is illogical.
She deserved to be kicked out of school.
Uniforms should be uniform or else it's bullshit.
Posted by: Illuminati
Sorry but the decision to allow the girl to wear a different uniform is illogical.
She deserved to be kicked out of school.
Uniforms should be uniform or else it's bullshit.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
The point of uniforms is so everyone is the same, everyone is on the same field in terms of how they have their education. By allowing exceptions like this, it could possibly open the floodgates of others trying to flout the rules on religious or other tedious grounds.
I would have loved to have seen a Westerner have an education in the Middle East and shout publicly that they should be able to show more skin due to their religion. My guess is that such a person would not have received such consideration on the matter.
Posted by: TheDave
I would have loved to have seen a Westerner have an education in the Middle East and shout publicly that they should be able to show more skin due to their religion. My guess is that such a person would not have received such consideration on the matter.
i'd love to see a westerner do it over here
Posted by: bigboab
i'd love to see a westerner do it over here
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted by: brenda
There are also health and safety issues which would mean that female students wearing the jilbab (sp) would not be able to take part in certain lessons (e.g. science - due to the dangerous conbinatin of bunsen burners and flowing material).
Of course this then raises issues of sexism and the oppression of women (being denied an education, etc, etc)
... and before you know it the legal system / media / religion has opened a whole can of worms, and rather than concentrating on the REAL issues that are going on in this world such as thousands of people starving to death every day whilst the corporations of the world bleed us dry, we end up discussing whether a 16 year old CHILD should be able to wear a long dress or not.
There i'll take a breath now.
Posted by: enoughfakefiles
If she`s sixteen won`t she be leaving school in a few months anyway:troublemakers:
Posted by: bigboab
What about the child of naturalists? Do they have an equal right to go to school naked? :whistling
Posted by: Busyman
There are also health and safety issues which would mean that female students wearing the jilbab (sp) would not be able to take part in certain lessons (e.g. science - due to the dangerous conbinatin of bunsen burners and flowing material).
Of course this then raises issues of sexism and the oppression of women (being denied an education, etc, etc)
... and before you know it the legal system / media / religion has opened a whole can of worms, and rather than concentrating on the REAL issues that are going on in this world such as thousands of people starving to death every day whilst the corporations of the world bleed us dry, we end up discussing whether a 16 year old CHILD should be able to wear a long dress or not.
There i'll take a breath now.
If they had told her she had to wear the uniform then this wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by: brenda
If they had told her she had to wear the uniform then this wouldn't be an issue.
They did.
She knew the school rules when she began attendance there 2 years ago, if her regious views were so strong that she felt she could non abide by the rules once she 'became of age' and was 'required' to wear the jilbab, she should have chosen to attend a school that would allow her to wear it - as in fact she does now! rather than costing the tax payer a fortune with this circus she has pointlessly created.
(my wrath is aimed at the situation, not at you Busyman :) )
Posted by: Snee
Sometimes I feel that belonging to a minority gives people an automatic license to misbehave.
Which makes me very jealous.
I remember the things some blokes got away with in school 'cos they weren't born here. They had such fun calling our girls whores and making derogatory statements about us.
The same blokes also threatened a friend of mine 'cos he had a sticker with a flag on it on his car, which they claimed was a racist symbol, and they got away with it.
For a while there, when I was younger, institutions and private citizens would get accused of racism if they showed our flag in public.
What makes me angry is that the people in power let them get away with it, including the accusations, rather than putting a stop to all the silliness. They tip-toed around the issue. And it seems to me that there has long existed a tendency in our society, and in others like it, to turn a blind eye to the bad aspects and misbehavior of those originally from another culture, as the authorities somehow think that they are avoiding discrimination when they are in fact letting some people get away with things that aren't allowed for those of us without minority status.
Every time I see something like this I feel despair.
I'm not saying that people should not be allowed their own ethnicity, but I don't think they should be allowed to hide behind it, or gain an advantage because of it.
Posted by: Busyman
They did.
She knew the school rules when she began attendance there 2 years ago, if her regious views were so strong that she felt she could non abide by the rules once she 'became of age' and was 'required' to wear the jilbab, she should have chosen to attend a school that would allow her to wear it - as in fact she does now! rather than costing the tax payer a fortune with this circus she has pointlessly created.
(my wrath is aimed at the situation, not at you Busyman :) )
What I meant was if theyhad told her after she made a stink about it.
They should have said, "Fuck youz, goes somewheres else then!!!"
The school sold out their ideals behind having the UNIFORMS in the first place.
They shouldn't even dem shits they wear 'uniforms' anymore.
Ifyouagreeclothes. :dry:
Posted by: bigboab
I once had an issue with a neighbour regarding right of access . When we changed to wheelie bins our neighbour wanted to take their wheelie bin through our back garden to their garden. Prior to the wheelie bins there was and still is a place for bins at the front of all the houses. The matter went to the local council. They agreed that we were in the right to refuse access. When I said that our neighbours were 'coloured' the reply was 'That is different. There are different laws for coloured people. You will have to allow them access'.
After consulting our lawyer, a six foot fence resolved the issue. I was not being awkward. My wife spends hours and hours in her garden. Pulling a full, or empty wheelie bin across it would have ruined it. This was not a race issue but the Council was making it one. Equality should mean just that equality. The right to do the 'same' as the residents of your adopted country. Not to change those rights to suit 'your' ethnic or religious bias.
:)
Posted by: manker
'That is different. There are different laws for coloured people.'That is completely ridiculous. I'm sure the person that told you that was lying - how would any authority pass a law that gave everyone except white people the right to drag a bin across someone else's back garden :blink:
Posted by: bigboab
That is completely ridiculous. I'm sure the person that told you that was lying - how would any authority pass a law that gave everyone except white people the right to drag a bin across someone else's back garden :blink:
When told that our neighbor was colored. They went and got a different set of rules. Well I think they were rules. I did not see them.
:rolleyes:
Posted by: Busyman
When told that our neighbor was colored. They went and got a different set of rules. Well I think they were rules. I did not see them.
:rolleyes:
I doubt it.
I wish anyone would drag their shit through my yard.
I think a good rule would be to smack them in the face for trespassing.
That way we both get something out of it.
Posted by: lynx
Sounds like positive discrimination to me boab, I agree it is wrong. One rule for all and so forth.Hope you get away with that one, I got slated last year for saying something similar. Still, that was a thread about gays, maybe that's what did it.
Posted by: bigboab
Hope you get away with that one, I got slated last year for saying something similar. Still, that was a thread about gays, maybe that's what did it.
Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink, Say no more. :rolleyes:
Maybe it was somethig to do with your account name. JP or Biggles will explain. :lol: :lol:
Posted by: TheDave
school uniforms for all :01:
Posted by: lynx
school uniforms for all :01:Agreed. :shifty:
Now we want pictures of you in that short gymslip type skirt. :ohmy:
Posted by: SeK612
I don't see a problem allowing people to wear religious clothing in school up to a certain extent. Most schools allow kids to wear simple plain coloured religious clothes if they wish.
Posted by: ilw
I once had an issue with a neighbour regarding right of access . When we changed to wheelie bins our neighbour wanted to take their wheelie bin through our back garden to their garden. Prior to the wheelie bins there was and still is a place for bins at the front of all the houses. The matter went to the local council. They agreed that we were in the right to refuse access. When I said that our neighbours were 'coloured' the reply was 'That is different. There are different laws for coloured people. You will have to allow them access'.
Sorry to be confrontational, but i don't believe that story. It's patently ridiculous. How much of that reply was real and how much was your interpretation of events?
Posted by: bigboab
Sorry to be confrontational, but i don't believe that story. It's patently ridiculous. How much of that reply was real and how much was your interpretation of events?
If you had said I find that difficult to believe the I would have considered you a reasonable person. Instead you have called me a liar. That I resent. You are a moronic imbecile. But I think that is only my opinion.
If you dont want to believe the truth then that is your problem. Why would I 'make up' such a thing. I am not racist. My lawyer said that it was probably not a different set of rules. But guidelines to avoid ethnic confrontation. Why we should have these I dont know. I could quote other instances I have heard, but that would be hearsay.
Posted by: Busyman
If you had said I find that difficult to believe the I would have considered you a reasonable person. Instead you have called me a liar. That I resent. You are a moronic imbecile. But I think that is only my opinion.
If you dont want to believe the truth then that is your problem. Why would I 'make up' such a thing. I am not racist. My lawyer said that it was probably not a different set of rules. But guidelines to avoid ethnic confrontation. Why we should have these I dont know. I could quote other instances I have heard, but that would be hearsay.
Then your lawyer and the legislature that made these "rules" are moronic idiots.
I mean, this an easily defendable thing. There is no way that action taken against your neighbors would be considered 'worng'. :wacko:
I too don't believe this story. It's too ridiculous.
So your neighbors are free to trudge through your yard? Are you free to do the same through theirs?
I also can't believe that you would allow someone to bend you over in such a manner while you just stare in the camara and say.."That's the rules folks".
Maybe it's an American thing but something like this would make news, be appealed or something. I couldn't just sit and watch someone bring their shit through my yard and smile about it. I would literally resort to some street shit, get the person in private and stick a pistol in his mouth or something.
Most things have a simple solution.
Posted by: bigboab
Then your lawyer and the legislature that made these "rules" are moronic idiots.
I mean, this an easily defendable thing. There is no way that action taken against your neighbors would be considered 'worng'. :wacko:
I too don't believe this story. It's too ridiculous.
So your neighbors are free to trudge through your yard? Are you free to do the same through theirs?
I also can't believe that you would allow someone to bend you over in such a manner while you just stare in the camara and say.."That's the rules folks".
Maybe it's an American thing but something like this would make news, be appealed or something. I couldn't just sit and watch someone bring their shit through my yard and smile about it. I would literally resort to some street shit, get the person in private and stick a pistol in his mouth or something.
Most things have a simple solution.
Right lets make some things a bit clearer. I stay in the end house of a block of three. When the houses were built the middle house had 'reasonable' access through the garden at the back of both houses on either side. When the houses were bought from the council under the 'privatization' policy years ago this 'reasonable access' was carried over into the deeds of any new owner. The 'garbage' at that time was stored in an old fashioned bin and kept in a 'cupboard at the front of the house. So when the wheelie bins came into being, access through the back garden did not apply to them. When the wheelie bins appeared the owner of the middle house demanded the right to store their wheelie bin in the back garden This would involve dragging it through our garden twice a week. Is there anything else required to make this any clearer. For goodness sakes. A couple of our countries went to war with the loss of thousands of lives on the back of a pack of lies. I tell the truth and a couple of idiots in here dont believe me. Beggars belief.
:(
Posted by: DanB
Its cos it sounds like a pile of horseshit
Posted by: bigboab
Its cos it sounds like a pile of horseshit
You would know. You post plenty of it. :rolleyes:
Posted by: ilw
I didn't call you a liar, I just thought you'd interpreted a situation and gotten it woefully wrong. If the story is true then i stand by the statement that the situation is ridiculous and the law should be changed.
according to the info you just supplied anybody living in the middle house would have had legal access to your back garden regardless of race.
It sounds like the initial response from the council was when they were unaware that the people in the middle house actually did have the right to go across your property, then at approximately the same time you made them aware that the people next door were 'coloured' they became aware of these peoples legal rights. (or you spoke to someone who actually had a clue about the legal issues)
My only question is how the subject of your neighbours race even came up?
Posted by: bigboab
If you say that you dont believe what I typed then you are calling me a liar.
The way they found out that my neighbour was coloured was when they asked their name. They assumed that my neighbour was coloured because they had a Pakistani sounding name. I know that making these assumptions are wrong. But in this case they were right in their assumptions. As I have stated already, the answer was a six foot fence. there is a locked gate in the fence. If my neighbour wants reasonable access then he asks and gets it. Then neighbours in this case have since moved. Please dont ask me why they moved because you wont belive that either. If you really want to know ask and I will PM you.
Posted by: bigboab
Isn't there a back path. Terraced house where I come from have one.
My parents had a similar issue, when the neighbours bought their Council house they decided that other people did not have the right to walk round "their" path to get to the back door. They even built a fence and gate.
My brother checked with the Council and it transpired that you bought the house and back garden, but not the path. That stayed as Council property (for this very reason) so access to the back door was allowed.
Needless to say we started using the back door more frequently (ooer missus).
Bar Stewards.
No there is no back access(ooer). Though I dont know why they did not make one as a right angled path comes almost right up to their back fence. It falls about 4 foot short.
:(
Posted by: ilw
Don't really care if or why they moved.
Let me get a few things straight:
1) Anyone living in the middle property has legal access regardless of race
2) The council initially misled you in this respect
3) If the first 2 are true your lawyer misled you regarding ethnic confrontation guidelines
Are any of those incorrect?
Posted by: bigboab
When they left did they take afence.
Sorry I cant put a Smiley at the start of my typing. Must be something to do with firefox. They took all my posts too. Or was that Rookie?
:lol: :lol:
Posted by: bigboab
Don't really care if or why they moved.
Let me get a few things straight:
1) Anyone living in the middle property has legal access regardless of race
2) The council initially misled you in this respect
3) If the first 2 are true your lawyer misled you regarding ethnic confrontation guidelines
Are any of those incorrect?
1. Yes
2. No not misled me. Probably by calling ethnic guidelines 'Rules' maybe.
3. No he did not. They exist. Seen them at the college where I taught.
I think each place have their own 'unnoficial' rules regarding these things. Frightened of getting sued. Yep its started over here now.
:(
Posted by: ilw
I thought i'd set out a pretty airtight series of points, how can 1 be true and 2 not?
The matter went to the local council. They agreed that we were in the right to refuse access.
And yet by agreeing to point 1 you're saying that you don't have right to refuse access? Hence the council must have got it wrong initially.
And if 1 is true, 3 has to be true as well, ie if access is allowed regardless of race then it has nothing to do with ethnic guidelines
(sorry rereading it 3 wasn't clear, i didn't mean that ethnic confrontation guidelines don't exist i meant that they don't apply in this case)
Posted by: bigboab
I thought i'd set out a pretty airtight series of points, how can 1 be true and 2 not?
And yet by agreeing to point 1 you're saying that you don't have right to refuse access? Hence the council must have got it wrong initially.
And if 1 is true, 3 has to be true as well, ie if access is allowed regardless of race then it has nothing to do with ethnic guidelines
(sorry rereading it 3 wasn't clear, i didn't mean that ethnic confrontation guidelines don't exist i meant that they don't apply in this case)
I think you are missing the main point. They have 'reasonable access'. The wheelie bin did not constitute that.
Posted by: brenda
1. Yes
2. No not misled me. Probably by calling ethnic guidelines 'Rules' maybe.
3. No he did not. They exist. Seen them at the college where I taught.
I think each place have their own 'unnoficial' rules regarding these things. Frightened of getting sued. Yep its started over here now.
:(
I once worked for an insurance brokers who provided domestic customers with car insurance. When running a quote through the system it would come up with a list of offers with the cheapest at the top. However, the was a list called the NNN list. NNN stood for 'no non-nationals', it listed what I can only describe as 'racist' insurance companies. Employees were told that if a customers name did not sound British and the top quote was from a company on the NNN list then we were to ignore the quote and offer the next one down. This is just one example of how sick our society is and why it angers and frustrates me so much.
Posted by: Rat Faced
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4310545.stm
basically a girl refused to wear school uniform (tunic and trousers) to wear a jilbab (full length gown). religious advisors say that muslim rules say she can wear the uniform.
she says: yadda yadda yadda 9/11 yadda yadda racist yadda yadda free country yadda yadda yadda.
i say: it's nothing to do with racism, sexism or any kind of prejudice. school uniform rules should be followed. (remember muslim advisors said the current uniform is fine). this is just a case of a teenage girl making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss (like teenagers do)
Im surprised this went to court.
Since the Human Rights Act came into force, its been shown again and again that schools have no right to "force" school uniform or haircuts etc, as these break the "Right of Expresion" proviso in that Act.
They can only "Force" rules like this that have a baring on safety, such as "No Jewellry" etc.
Posted by: geezagonk
This isn't about race or religion, it's about respect, respecting the customs of the country you live in. If I lived in the middle east I'd respect their customs. You can't live in 1 country and expect it to honour the customs that you might have come from.
School uniform is a very important thing and should be totally adhered to. I have 2 boys between the ages of 11 and 13 and they always go to school in uniform. I believe that schools that do not enforce the wearing of uniform encourage bullying, I.E. kids whose parents that can't afford the latest sports/designer wear.
Posted by: Busyman
Two very important and overlooked points, so basic as to be given short-shrift, usually.
Uniforms have been proven to focus attention on academics, rather than the current vogue; if no one is displaying their navel, biceps, or other physical accoutrements, books get read, and that is for the better.
But how can my child read properly without the latest "SeanJohnPuffPDiddyDaddyCombs" Wear?
Great post btw.
Posted by: TheDave
me, busyman and j2k4 all agree..... :blink:
Posted by: Busyman
me, busyman and j2k4 all agree..... :blink:
Like neopolitan ice cream mang. ;)
Posted by: bigboab
Just so; though I don't know how you can be sure-
Where have my posts gone? :huh:
CIA? :ph34r: :cool2:
Posted by: Snee
I once worked for an insurance brokers who provided domestic customers with car insurance. When running a quote through the system it would come up with a list of offers with the cheapest at the top. However, the was a list called the NNN list. NNN stood for 'no non-nationals', it listed what I can only describe as 'racist' insurance companies. Employees were told that if a customers name did not sound British and the top quote was from a company on the NNN list then we were to ignore the quote and offer the next one down. This is just one example of how sick our society is and why it angers and frustrates me so much.
Brenda, I've been meaning to respond to this for quite some time but have managed to forget it every time I've been in here up 'til now.
What you describe may well have nothing to do with racism or predjudice, or discrimination for its own sake.
The reason certain companies might choose to only cater to individuals with native-sounding names may be one entirely built on statistics, and carefully considered calculations.
I don't know the particulars in the UK, but I would imagine that it's hard for a company to look for certain information about an individual and still stay within the confines of the law.
However, a lot might be determined from looking at your name alone, since it may be a marker for other properties in an individual, like a foreign origin.
For instance, regarding newly become citizens, I recall hearing about statistics showing that people who have recently achieved citizenship tend to be more mobile than average. Meaning that they may change policy to a local company in a new area and so forth, thus bringing in a statistically lower average revenue.
Many such conclusions might be made about those who haven't been citizens for long, one could for instance imagine that certain data showed them to be more likely to lose their job, or that they were more likely to misunderstand the insurance policy they signed because their english isn't as good, which in turn means that they are more likely to complain about it, and that they may have a better chance of suing a company if it's argued that the contract was written in such a manner that it could not be understood, that they were being discriminated against because of their language, and so forth.
Now, it stands to reason that those with a non-native name are more likely to be new citizens, meaning that this is an easy way for a company to eliminate a high-risk, low-guaranteed-income group, with a minimum of effort.
Of course some people are going to try and take this chance. Looking at this in an objective manner one might quite understand how a company could choose this path to maximize their profits.
Just like some companies who insure ceos of large companies will research the risks involved by looking at personality-traits and health, before determining if they are willing to insure the individual, so do these companies look at the risks involved in insuring members of certain demographical groups.
It may not be right and I certainly don't like it, but it makes sense, for totally different reasons than those that would make a teenage girl cry out "discrimination" even though there really was no reason.
Posted by: j2k4
Quite right, SnnY.
Insurance concerns are totally hidebound by their actuarials.
A regretful fact of that business.