Girl wins right to wear muslim dress in school.

[Kaylee]

To broaden the issue-

Muslim traditional dress for women involves covering them from head to toe; those are the implications of the religion and not adhering to them may cause severe problems to the child from her family. (I cite the recent increase in the UK of honour killings against young women who have left or violated Islamic tradition).

I consider making up bizarre rules about what women can and cannot wear to be oppressive.

Does any religion have the right to oppress people within it, who may or may not be able to escape from it?

I was pondering on this the other day- even tolerant Islam (to pick it as a convenient example) believes in the absolute word of Allah, id est exactly what is written in the Koran.

This includes, as above, the requirement for women to be covered utterly to avoid tempting men (sic) and the death penalty for homosexuals.

Obviously most Islamic followers (in the UK) tend to be more lenient, but then again there are those who are not. The priest (I forget his name) who recently paid a visit to Ken Livingstone is a pretty sharp example.

Religion in the end is a belief- do these beliefs constitute a right, and where do they stand in respect to other people? Is the belief of a schoolgirl more important than the rules of the school?

Is the belief of a Sikh to be able to carry a ceremonial dagger more important than British laws against carrying dangerous weapons?

Is the belief of the Religious Right Christian movement Christian Voice that homosexuality is a sin enough to allow them to carry out violent protestations against gay people?

I have absolutely no idea. It would take an obviously infinitely greater mind than myself to decide where the line should be drawn between a right to a personal belief and the right to exercise it.

[Best First]

or you could go back to the simpe question does it hurt anyone and use that as a guiding principle or petty muc everything.

[Kaylee]

Doesn't denying someone a choice, with or without their consent, constitute (psychological) harm? i.e. deciding what someone should or should not wear based upon their birth gender?

It certainly sounds discriminatory if nothing else, to my mind.

[Metal Vendetta]

It's like the Spanish Inquisition though...if you're saving someone's soul from eternal damnation then it doesn't matter how much you hurt them in this life Yay logic!

Or, define "hurt". Does my (or Jerry Springer the Opera's) saying that Jesus is a bit gay hurt anyone? Offend, sure...but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Kaylee]

Or, define "hurt".

Exceedingly good question.

[Denyer]

Does any religion have the right to oppress people within it, who may or may not be able to escape from it?

Exhibit A for why I have no respect for religion as an institution, and consider some practises of some religions should be prosecuted as child abuse. Bollocks to political correctness.

Short examples that spring to mind are ritual killing and circumcision. It isn't possible to bring people back from the dead, therefore you don't. It isn't possible to reattach severed body parts, therefore you don't do it to kids.

If religion justifies killing or violence, fine—we make it our religion to reactively kill those who make the first act of violence.

It would take an obviously infinitely greater mind than myself to decide where the line should be drawn between a right to a personal belief and the right to exercise it.

The line is where it affects the safety of others.

[Best First]

Doesn't denying someone a choice, with or without their consent, constitute (psychological) harm? i.e. deciding what someone should or should not wear based upon their birth gender?

It certainly sounds discriminatory if nothing else, to my mind.

but is she forced into it? Seems like her choice to me - certainlyin th euk she cannot be forced into a faith as such.

and i admit defining harm is difficult - but the principle remians valid does it not - ergo lets start with the obvious (big knife) and work backwards eh?

[Kaylee]

The line is where it affects the safety of others.

That's certainly a good candidate, it doesn't have as much subjectivity as harm does.

Should intimidation also have a place though? Religions can be shockingly intimidating... or would that constitute breaching someone's psychological safety by making them feel threatened?

[Best First]

The line is where it affects the safety of others.

That's certainly a good candidate, it doesn't have as much subjectivity as harm does.

i'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could work just as much ambiguity into it...

its the same point i was trying to make, anyway.

[Denyer]

Should intimidation also have a place though?

Implicit and explicit threat of violence, yes.

"If you do this we will do what our religion demands" is threat of violence if what a religion makes written proscription is death or violence, and should be prosecuted as such. 'Following' a religion can be threat of violence.

There are currently major problems with blind eyes being turned to religiously-motivated violence.

[Kaylee]

The line is where it affects the safety of others.

That's certainly a good candidate, it doesn't have as much subjectivity as harm does.

i'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could work just as much ambiguity into it...

its the same point i was trying to make, anyway.

There's no real need to work ambiguity into it I don't think as in the end law will always be subjective to the person, their circumstances and the views of the people prosecuting them.

And as an additional factor, which I find generally pretty shabby, increasingly in our and especially American courts your guilt or innocence has less to do with what you did then it does with how good your lawyer is.

Stuart-

I can't advocate violence but I certainly see where you are coming from. There was an article in The Times supplement last week on the troubles which the Netherlands are facing- three assassinations in two years, in a country which hasn't had any political assassinations for 200 years. They had turned a blind eye to various extremists who plotted more or less openly and then struck. The government had essentially grown their own crop of Al Queda-esque terrorists.

[Yaya]

I can't blame the girl and her family for trying. I mean, people live their lives by many creeds and doctrines, some established, some contemporary.

According to Islam, in fact, if an entity, such as a country, restricts a Muslim's right to practice their religion as they are instructed to, then that Muslim must leave that entity and go to a place where they can practice freely. I think the girl's family, in all likelihood, was trying to see if their request could be accomodated, and if not, then their next likely move would probably have been to leave to a school that allows them to practice their religion without restriction.

So like I said, can't blame her or her family for trying to see if they could be accomodated.

[Predabot]

That sounds rather sensible Yaya. Heh, I believe that is the end of the acctual story, 'innit?

[Best First]

That's certainly a good candidate, it doesn't have as much subjectivity as harm does.

i'm sure there are plenty of people out there who could work just as much ambiguity into it...

its the same point i was trying to make, anyway.

There's no real need to work ambiguity into it

wasn't suggesting there was, just that people would.

[Dead Head]

honour killings against young women

This includes, as above, the requirement for women to be covered utterly to avoid tempting men (sic) and the death penalty for homosexuals.

Obviously most Islamic followers (in the UK) tend to be more lenient, but then again there are those who are not.

'Honour killings'. Being outside of religion, I find that term bewildering. I see no honour in murdering daughters.

Most Islamic followers (in the UK) appear to be 'lenient' merely as they have to defer to the law of the state, British law. Ultimately, the preferred law would of course be Holy Shariah Law, like other Muslim nations. There's no really no Christendom any more, but there absolutely is an Ummah.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

What harm does it do?

What harm does someone wearing say nike trainers and a bermuda shirt do to a school that has dress code?

to anyone? none at all...

same situation, same question. difference?

[wideload]

What harm does it do?

What harm does someone wearing say nike trainers and a bermuda shirt do to a school that has dress code?

to anyone? none at all...

same situation, same question. difference?

I think it does do harm. The whole point of the uniform is to make equality and conformity among the students. It creates a bad atmosphere when some students show up in expensive clothes the others cant afford. This can be a big problem at private schools and can distract from the learning.

[Jetfire]

What harm does it do?

What harm does someone wearing say nike trainers and a bermuda shirt do to a school that has dress code?

to anyone? none at all...

same situation, same question. difference?

It does indeed harm. The question of uniform is partly learning to obey rules and demostrating the all pupils are equal in education.Yes it is conformaty but without a strong degree of conformity civilisation falls down.

The point wideload is quite accurate.

Also, i believ in the evening standard a article pointed out Denyers well made point. Thsi article was written by a female muslim. The child is simply being used as political football for someone elses beliefs.
Her brother has been highlighted as being part of a group that represent the worst of Islam, that the whole world should conform to Islamic beliefs and that adgenda should be pushed no matter what. Considering in 99.9% of people their own identy is generally developed in later years (at 13 a person hasen't even fully developed at their feelings) there is little real substance to the arguement she was proctcting her idenity as the school aready let headscarfs be worn.

Most Muslims I know have really dispared at this.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

if anoyne wants to read - i was refering to BF comment of 'what harm does it do' if the girl wears her robe, and i thought, none at all in theory.
then i thought, what harm does it do if everyone just flaunts thier uniforms aswell.

essentially it doesnt work at that lvl.

[Nosecone]

On a slight tandom to this how badly do you think this girl is gonna get teased at school for wearing something different than school uniform - Whilst everyone here may think that we are an enlightened people tollerent to all most 13 yr olds I know (myself included when I was one) are not like that and will in fact use any little difference from the rest of teh school to pick on someone - "bully" as you might call it.

School Uniform helps stop this, It levels the playing field so that poorer families or those with no fashion sense don't get picked on for wearing the wrong clothes.

[Kaylee]

Doesn't denying someone a choice, with or without their consent, constitute (psychological) harm? i.e. deciding what someone should or should not wear based upon their birth gender?

It certainly sounds discriminatory if nothing else, to my mind.

but is she forced into it? Seems like her choice to me - certainlyin th euk she cannot be forced into a faith as such.

What about people brought up in strict faith houses, they must surely be under exceedingly strong obligations to fulfil the religious wishes of their parents? I again cite the example of honour killings perpetrated by extreme Islam against such young women.

[Dead Head]

how badly do you think this girl is gonna get teased at school for wearing something different than school uniform

Hardly a consideration, since the school in question is apparently 80% Muslim students, of which the girls wear other approved variants of Islamic dress (as agreed with the school's teacher council).

The only thing the kids might joke with her about is her appearing on television (a celebrity in their midst, so to speak).

I blame 9-11. :emoticon:

[Best First]

without a strong degree of conformity civilisation falls down.

er...

[Señior's Covenant]

er...

...rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal ******* high on drugs.

Oops. Sorry, didn't mean to butt in.

[Nosecone]

how badly do you think this girl is gonna get teased at school for wearing something different than school uniform

Hardly a consideration, since the school in question is apparently 80% Muslim students, of which the girls wear other approved variants of Islamic dress (as agreed with the school's teacher council).

I know of schools that are 100% white british people but if they were allowed to wear Nike trainers and other clothes the kid with the least expensive would get picked on - and what of teh 20% who arn't muslim so wont want to wear religios clothes, maybee they will get picked on for not wearing them. A standard uniform helps stops the cruelty of children

[Denyer]

Hardly a consideration, since the school in question is apparently 80% Muslim students, of which the girls wear other approved variants of Islamic dress (as agreed with the school's teacher council).

There's still competition as far as materials and accessories go. Same in any culture.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I still think its bollox, they should have told her to accept the comprismise already made by the school that all the other Muslims dont have a problem with.

What ****s me off more is that shes been manipulated by someone, and this just causes more devides between cultures.

[Dead Head]

I know of schools that are 100% white british people but if they were allowed to wear Nike trainers and other clothes the kid with the least expensive would get picked on - and what of teh 20% who arn't muslim so wont want to wear religios clothes, maybee they will get picked on for not wearing them. A standard uniform helps stops the cruelty of children

There's still competition as far as materials and accessories go. Same in any culture.

Quite possibly. But to the specific point of being taunted over her stricter Islamic garments, I think it would be mitigated by said proportion of muslim students of similar religious dress.

[Master_Fwiffo]

I know of schools that are 100% white british people but if they were allowed to wear Nike trainers and other clothes the kid with the least expensive would get picked on - and what of teh 20% who arn't muslim so wont want to wear religios clothes, maybee they will get picked on for not wearing them. A standard uniform helps stops the cruelty of children

This is supid-ass reasoning.

Bullies will pick on people *regardless*. I know from experiance.

I *am* upper middle class. I have no shame in that. But I was picked on in school, and it wasn't because of what I wore.

If you standarize the dress code, all you do is shift the target from clothes to something more personal. These brats will make fun of other kids, PERIOD. It *will* happen. Dont screw over everybody, target the bullies and punish them.

All giving a dress code does is shift the target. Then, to add injury to insult, you also remove any hint of individuality the kid may have. And THAT is a far greater sin then any perceived benifit from removing the kids individuality.

[Dead Head]

All this brings up complicated questions of the state, religion, free expression, the individual vs. the masses, idealism vs. practicality, public institutions vs. private institutions, secular rules of law vs. religious rules of law, and the interpretation of liberty. A full and coherent answer to all of this is difficult or impossible to come up with.

Who would agree with:

1. Religion has a place in schools only in so far as the curriculum should teach that there are W, X, Y, Z religions (and of course non-theist systems) and here's what they believe. It has no place in schools, whether private or public, especially whose primary purpose is to indoctrinate one solitary religion into children (i.e. "religious schools"). If at all, unilateral religious indoctrination to kids should be kept in the home and the synagogue/church/mosque/whereever.

2. Outside of the home and private religious buildings of worship, religion should absolutely defer to the middleground that is secularity.

3. Religions do not supercede the State.


Just some further morsels for discussion.