NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who don't know, a niqab is a full headscarf worn by Muslim women which covers all but their eyes.




A Muslim schoolgirl has lost her High Court challenge to a ban on wearing the niqab full-face veil.

Lawyers for the 12-year-old girl, referred to as X, and her father, had argued that the ban imposed last September by her Buckinghamshire school - which cannot be named for legal reasons - was "irrational".

They said it went against her "legitimate expectation" that she would be allowed to wear the veil and also breached her right to freedom of "thought, conscience and religion" under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The girl began wearing the niqab, which covers all of the face except the eyes, on reaching puberty. At the time, her school said it was not acceptable because teachers believed it would make communication and learning difficult.

Mr Justice Silber rejected the girl's plea for a judicial review. At a recent hearing the judge was told the girl's three elder sisters all attended the same school - two of them under the present headteacher - and all wore the niqab.

X is believed to be the only pupil - currently receiving tuition at home - demanding the right to wear it when being taught by male teachers or when in the presence of other male staff.

About 120 of the school's 1,300-plus pupils are Muslims, and up to 60 of them wear the hijab headscarf.

Following the judgment, the girl's lawyers said that she and her family are "bitterly disappointed" and are considering an appeal.

The school has won the backing of The Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, which stresses that not all Muslims agree with the wearing of the niqab.

Clicky for linky to websitey (http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=3269413)

Hmm. Opinions? Thoughts?

The niqab is not a religious requirement of Islam. So it's not a denial of religious rights. It's just the same as not allowing someone to wear a motorcycle helmet in class.

Plus one of the bombing suspects in Enland was seen escaping the scene disguised in the niqab. Their own people are working against acceptance of this unnnecessary item of clothing.

I wouldn't say it's an attack on civil rights. Only murderers and ninjas go around in Britain with balaclavas - which is what this effectively is.

And yes, the Somali terrorist case is a good example of the problems with this.

The niqab is not a religious requirement of Islam. So it's not a denial of religious rights. It's just the same as not allowing someone to wear a motorcycle helmet in class.
Point. Edited.

Plus one of the bombing suspects in Enland was seen escaping the scene disguised in the niqab. Their own people are working against acceptance of this unnnecessary item of clothing.

One crazy guy uses it, therefore all Muslim girls shouldn't be allowed to wear one?

At the time, her school said it was not acceptable because teachers believed it would make communication and learning difficult.
How true is this complaint?
Never having encountered someone wearing one of these things, I wouldn't know if it interferes with their ability to be heard or see things any more than a scarf would.

How true is this complaint?
Never having encountered someone wearing one of these things, I wouldn't know if it interferes with their ability to be heard or see things any more than a scarf would. It can give off bad vibes (http://rpsboxe.free.fr/art-martiaux/ninja/hr/nj1.gif).

This, by the way, is a niqab:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg

In Arabic it means "mask". Can we wear masks to lessons?

How true is this complaint?
Never having encountered someone wearing one of these things, I wouldn't know if it interferes with their ability to be heard or see things any more than a scarf would.

I have, and it didn't do much. It was fine, had a nice talk, no problems. I never really saw the problem with niqabs, and I was quite annoyed when Jack Straw stirred up the whole debate in his constituency. Opened a hugeass can of worms.

ok, so she wants the right to wear something that would make her virtually unrecognizable. How can the teachers establish it is indeed her who attends lessons and is taking exams, and not someone else pretending to be her?

It can give off bad vibes (http://rpsboxe.free.fr/art-martiaux/ninja/hr/nj1.gif).


Next time I compare a Muslim woman to a ninja, I'll let you know ;)

ok, so she wants the right to wear something that would make her virtually unrecognizable. How can the teachers establish it is indeed her who attends lessons and is taking exams, and not someone else pretending to be her?

What the hell? You'e got it! Muslim girls wear niqabs because that way, they can get out of school and bunk off.


Um....no.

I taught a girl in grade 5 who had horrible burn scars on her face from an accident as an infant. She wore a kerchief under her eyes, and always had a hat on. Oddly enough, communication with this student was not hampered in the slightest. Did she HAVE to wear the kerchief? NO, of course not...but forcing her to take it off would have been a totally pointless exercise, guaranteed to cause her distress.

Yes, I realise that Muslim girls don't cover their faces simply to hide facial deformities. But the girl with the burn scars had no more guaranteed right to her facial covering than I do...and what was the deciding factor was not 'no right, no covering' but...WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS CHILD.

For FUCK'S sake. The girl in the article is 12. And you have educators, who should be models of tolerance, telling her that covering her face is wrong, and what's best for her is actually what is best for the poor teachers that are made uncomfortable.

Disgusting.

being a teenage hampers your communication skills. i don't think choice of headgear is going to have any appreciable effect.

Next time I compare a Muslim woman to a ninja, I'll let you know ;) One day someone will make a video with that theme and stick it on youtube.
I taught a girl in grade 5 who had horrible burn scars on her face from an accident as an infant. Totally irrelevant, unless this particular girl has burn scars. Although the males in the family often seem to treat them as such.
And you have educators, who should be models of tolerance Tolerant, just like the parents who are telling her she shouldn't go to school without covering her evil, sinful skin?

Tolerance means give and take. Headscarves (hijab) are allowed in Britain, but masks aren't. For anyone, Muslim or not.

ok, so she wants the right to wear something that would make her virtually unrecognizable. How can the teachers establish it is indeed her who attends lessons and is taking exams, and not someone else pretending to be her?
We'll have to install retina scanners and bullet proof plating at every classroom door, it is the only way to be sure.

How true is this complaint?
Never having encountered someone wearing one of these things, I wouldn't know if it interferes with their ability to be heard or see things any more than a scarf would.
I've talked to a woman while she was wearing one, I'd just met her and we chatted, exchanged information, a few giggles, actually for someone I'd never seen before and had just happened to sit next to, it was an unusually warm and friendly conversation. I'd suggest of the two of us, she was actually the more communicative (and outgoing - she initiated the conversation). It's just one experiance and I cant make a generalisation, but in my one experiance I didnt percieve any barrier to communication.

In light of the "Burkha Bomber" thing in todays papers, and the difficulties teachers do have in communicating with those who look like Sith Lords, I would suggest that the ruling is just. Were the garment not to obscure her facial features, I would judge otherwise.

One day someone will make a video with that theme and stick it on youtube.

I'd bet a large amount of money that won't happen.

Totally irrelevant, unless this particular girl has burn scars. Although the males in the family often seem to treat them as such.

It isn't totally irrelevant, because the girl had a scarf covering her head. Yet she still had communication skills.

Tolerant, just like the parents who are telling her she shouldn't go to school without covering her evil, sinful skin?

Actually, you find most girls who wear the niqab CHOOSE to. Sometimes the parents attempt to persuade them not to wear it.

What the hell? You'e got it! Muslim girls wear niqabs because that way, they can get out of school and bunk off.


Um....no.



How can you actually identify someone whose face you don't see?

I am against all of this shit, amongst other things because yet again it promotes cultural separation and non integration of certain minorities into the society of the country they live in.

And if you ( and your children) don't want to be integrated in the society of the country you moved to, I have a very fucking simple solution for you: don't move there.

And yes, I am a first generation immigrant.

I'd bet a large amount of money that won't happen. Monkeys at the typewriter…

It isn't totally irrelevant, because the girl had a scarf covering her head. Yet she still had communication skills. She needed to because she was mutilated. I assume this girl is not.

Actually, you find most girls who wear the niqab CHOOSE to. Sometimes the parents attempt to persuade them not to wear it. I find this hard to believe given the domineering nature of Muslim families even in the UK who tend to regulate the women's behaviour a great deal - all the way up to the occasional honour killing.

Quite frankly when they say it's "liberating" it is disgusting, since women all over the world are attacked or even killed for not wearing it.

You can't just wear/do what you like and then say it's a religious obligation. Headscarves and crucifixes are unobtrusive; this isn't.

I see no reason to ban it. There's no interference from a couple millimeters of fabric covering her mouth. I'm sure you won't mind students taking away the "couple millimetres of fabric" from wherever they want, then?

I see no reason to ban it. There's no interference from a couple millimeters of fabric covering her mouth.

Actually, you find most girls who wear the niqab CHOOSE to. Sometimes the parents attempt to persuade them not to wear it.

And most of the people who perform genital female mutilation on young girls are women. Cultural pressure.

If a girl is raised being told that if she doesn't wear the niqab she won't get married/is a slut/is inviting rape/risks to have her face burned with acid/risks to be killed by the morons of her relatives who think an uncovered woman's face dishonours them... what do you think she'll choose?

I don't see what the big fuss is about really.

Yes, she has her religion, but, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly state that the woman MUST cover her face. That's a cultural interpretation. The only thing the Qu'ran really says about this is that both sexes should dress modestly and encourages the use of the hijab; the rest of the scarf variants are cultural, not religious. So, it's not an actual element of her religion.

Further, by allowing her the freedom to wear it, they would be creating a double standard and would be allowing for a loophole to exist because then other pupils who want to 'modify' their dress could use the same argument, and this get away with wearing hoodies and other stuff that may not be normal for schools or conceal the person.

I can see not wanting any pupils with face coverings. It makes it harder for the teacher to associate a face with a name and may create situations that would be unfavourable for both.

It also goes onto say in the article that the hijab isn't a problem and that others do wear it. I think this girl is just being slightly unreasonable. After all, something has to give. If she's permitted to wear her hijab but can't wear the niqab to class, I think it's a fair trade because she's not being denied her religious right to wear religiously acceptable clothing.

This is just as silly as allowing Sikh boys to carry their kirpin in school, which I'm heavily opposed to as I see it as a double standard because you can't even so much as bring anything that looks threatening into school without threat of suspension or expulsion.

There needs to be a level of standards and there needs to be uniform and consistent rules for all students. Religion and culture be damned! If you're in a school that is multi-cultural, something has to give, otherwise there will be people wanting to bring stuff that doesn't belong in the school there.

If you pander one minority, then everyone will start wanting special rules.

The school is a place of learning and sometimes, you can't always have it your way; you have to work with what exists because there are many students with different needs. By giving into minorities, those who aren't part of a visible minority will begin to feel marginalised and it'll make for an uncomfortable situation and double standards.

Now, mind you, I'm only talking about a school environment here, where I'm used to a policy where we all have to follow the same rules and we don't get subject to special treatment. Special treatment for minorities can create resentment. Not necessarily toward the minorities but toward the authority who gave the treatment.

Mind you, I have no problem with minorities, be them Muslim or otherwise; I do have a problem with special treatment just because the person belongs to a minority.

I used to believe that the Niqaab hampers communication, but following talks with women wearing the Niqaab I no longer consider this to be the case. I found that one can have a normal conversation with a woman wearing the Niqaab because all emotional expressions are visible through the eyes. Consequently I now believe that banning the niqaab is an unnecessary infringement of civil liberties.

What is the niqab? Earlier in the thread it was stated it wasn't religious, so what's its purpose?

I don't see what the big fuss is about really.

Yes, she has her religion, but, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly state that the woman MUST cover her face. That's a cultural interpretation. The only thing the Qu'ran really says about this is that both sexes should dress modestly and encourages the use of the hijab; the rest of the scarf variants are cultural, not religious. So, it's not an actual element of her religion.
[...]

You can not take a prescriptive stance on the religion of others based on your own narrow interpretation of Islam. Different people have different ways to express their religion, which is perfectly acceptable.

What's a kirpin? Blade. Normally spelt kirpan.

http://www.commonfolkusingcommonsense.com/images/stuff/kirpan.jpg

I don't see what the big fuss is about really.

Yes, she has her religion, but, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly state that the woman MUST cover her face. That's a cultural interpretation. The only thing the Qu'ran really says about this is that both sexes should dress modestly and encourages the use of the hijab; the rest of the scarf variants are cultural, not religious. So, it's not an actual element of her religion.

Further, by allowing her the freedom to wear it, they would be creating a double standard and would be allowing for a loophole to exist because then other pupils who want to 'modify' their dress could use the same argument, and this get away with wearing hoodies and other stuff that may not be normal for schools or conceal the person.

I can see not wanting any pupils with face coverings. It makes it harder for the teacher to associate a face with a name and may create situations that would be unfavourable for both.

It also goes onto say in the article that the hijab isn't a problem and that others do wear it. I think this girl is just being slightly unreasonable. After all, something has to give. If she's permitted to wear her hijab but can't wear the niqab to class, I think it's a fair trade because she's not being denied her religious right to wear religiously acceptable clothing.

This is just as silly as allowing Sikh boys to carry their kirpin in school, which I'm heavily opposed to as I see it as a double standard because you can't even so much as bring anything that looks threatening into school without threat of suspension or expulsion.

There needs to be a level of standards and there needs to be uniform and consistent rules for all students. Religion and culture be damned! If you're in a school that is multi-cultural, something has to give, otherwise there will be people wanting to bring stuff that doesn't belong in the school there.

If you pander one minority, then everyone will start wanting special rules.

The school is a place of learning and sometimes, you can't always have it your way; you have to work with what exists because there are many students with different needs. By giving into minorities, those who aren't part of a visible minority will begin to feel marginalised and it'll make for an uncomfortable situation and double standards.

Now, mind you, I'm only talking about a school environment here, where I'm used to a policy where we all have to follow the same rules and we don't get subject to special treatment. Special treatment for minorities can create resentment. Not necessarily toward the minorities but toward the authority who gave the treatment.

What's a kirpin?

What's a kirpin?

somekind of ceremonial sword thing.

ok, so she wants the right to wear something that would make her virtually unrecognizable. How can the teachers establish it is indeed her who attends lessons and is taking exams, and not someone else pretending to be her?

You can't recognize someone you know by her eyes? What is wrong with you that you've got such poor communication skills?


I taught a girl in grade 5 who had horrible burn scars on her face from an accident as an infant. She wore a kerchief under her eyes, and always had a hat on. Oddly enough, communication with this student was not hampered in the slightest. Did she HAVE to wear the kerchief? NO, of course not...but forcing her to take it off would have been a totally pointless exercise, guaranteed to cause her distress.

Precisely. And a girl who believes that the niqab is necessary for modesty is going to feel no less distressed than the young girl you taught was. We can all look at the niqab and say, "It's unnecessary!" and believe it to be so. But it won't change the fact that some girls and women believe it is necessary, and would feel violated if forced to remove it.

For FUCK'S sake. The girl in the article is 12. And you have educators, who should be models of tolerance, telling her that covering her face is wrong, and what's best for her is actually what is best for the poor teachers that are made uncomfortable.

Disgusting.

Indeed.


How can you actually identify someone whose face you don't see?

Their faces are not completely covered. How do you identify someone you know who is bundled up against the cold?

I am against all of this shit, amongst other things because yet again it promotes cultural separation and non integration of certain minorities into the society of the country they live in.

You aren't talking about integration - which requires efforts from both sides and has nothing to do with the mode of dress. You are talking about assimilation - becoming just like you. And no immigrant should be required to give up their own identity and assimilate.

This only "promotes cultural separation" because of people like you, who refuse to accept someone who dresses differently.

What is the niqab? Earlier in the thread it was stated it wasn't religious, so what's its purpose?

It is and isn't religious. Essentially, it is no more religious than her other clothing would be. Islam dictates modest dress. Of course, different people have different takes on what "modest" entails. Some are fine with general Western dress, so long as it isn't too skimpy. Some go with 3/4 to long sleeved shirts with high necks and long pants or skirts that aren't clingy. Some feel that the hair and neck should also be covered. Some feel that much of the face should be covered.

Of course, a given individual's take on modesty will be the one that determines her level of comfort in a given set of clothing. I would feel immodest in a mini-skirt and a tube top, and I would be horrified if I were required to wear it to school. Likewise, those who feel that a hijab (headscarf) or niqab (veil) are necessary for modesty would feel extremely uncomfortable if they were not allowed to wear it. Wouldn't make for much of a conducive learning environment, now would it?

Monkeys at the typewriter…

Well, no. Come on. No one's retarded enough to compare Muslim women in a niqab to ninjas, unless they have the IQ of an unripe melon.

She needed to because she was mutilated. I assume this girl is not.
So? The girl didn't NEED to cover her wounds. But she did out of choice. These girls don't NEED to cover their faces, but they choose to, because Britain is a free country, and you should be able to do whatever the hell you want, within reason. And this is in reason.

I find this hard to believe given the domineering nature of Muslim families even in the UK who tend to regulate the women's behaviour a great deal - all the way up to the occasional honour killing.

Yep, that's right, all Muslim families are fundamentalists. They hate civil freedoms, and wish to regulate women, because Allah forbid they show their skin.
If you would like to provide evidence of a few cases of honour killings in Britain, then please, be my guest. If not, you fail.

Quite frankly when they say it's "liberating" it is disgusting, since women all over the world are attacked or even killed for not wearing it.
Women all over the world? What planet do you live on? Ok, so a minister in Pakistan was killed for not wearing a niqab, granted. But that is an isolated case, it was down to one man, and it's hardly the same as a 12 year old girl wearing a niqab in school. Again, provide sources for a few more cases of people being killed for not wearing niqabs.

You can't just wear/do what you like and then say it's a religious obligation. Headscarves and crucifixes are unobtrusive; this isn't.

Oh come on, this is hardly obtrusive. Girl wearing niqab? Bit of fabric in front of her face? Hardly particuarly hampering.

I'm sure you won't mind students taking away the "couple millimetres of fabric" from wherever they want, then?

How is that even close to being relevant?

How true is this complaint?
Never having encountered someone wearing one of these things, I wouldn't know if it interferes with their ability to be heard or see things any more than a scarf would.

It does interfer with communication. I agree there is no religous reason to wear it, it is like baning people from wearing masks in the classroom.

I can't see the problem.

I used to believe that the Niqaab hampers communication, but following talks with women wearing the Niqaab I no longer consider this to be the case. I found that one can have a normal conversation with a woman wearing the Niqaab because all emotional expressions are visible through the eyes. Consequently I now believe that banning the niqaab is an unnecessary infringement of civil liberties.

In light of the position of Islam within the west, and the roles to which the Niqab has been put, civili liberties are irrelevant. And if you so much as mention human rights, I will find your house, make a huge candle, wrap it in barbed wire, and insert it up your anus.:)

You can not take a prescriptive stance on the religion of others based on your own narrow interpretation of Islam. Different people have different ways to express their religion, which is perfectly acceptable.

The Qu'ran says to be modest, thus allowing for interpretation; the cultures make their own interpretation, hence, why you see different styles of the scarves (niqab, burka, chador...)

Hijab and variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Sartorial_hijab)

They do use the Qu'ran, but it boils down to how the culture interprets the passages that encourage modesty.

What's a kirpin?
A ceremonial dagger, carried sheathed. But, as it's considered a weapon, it was banned in Canadian schools, until there was a court ruling saying that it could be carried despite being considered a weapon.

And most of the people who perform genital female mutilation on young girls are women. Cultural pressure.

Sources, proof? Anything at all?

If a girl is raised being told that if she doesn't wear the niqab she won't get married/is a slut/is inviting rape/risks to have her face burned with acid/risks to be killed by the morons of her relatives who think an uncovered woman's face dishonours them... what do you think she'll choose?

I'm serious, this is wrong. You'll find the majority of Muslims in this country are NOT FUNDAMENTALISTS and don't enjoy honour killings, or anything of the sort.

Yes, she has her religion, but, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it explicitly state that the woman MUST cover her face. That's a cultural interpretation. The only thing the Qu'ran really says about this is that both sexes should dress modestly and encourages the use of the hijab; the rest of the scarf variants are cultural, not religious. So, it's not an actual element of her religion.

Who are you to determine her religion? If she interprets the Qur'an as requiring the niqab, then her religion requires her to wear the niqab. The fact that others interpret it differently is irrelevant.

Jehovah's Witnesses interpret a passage in the Bible about imbibing blood to mean that they cannot accept blood transfusions. I interpret it as banning people from drinking blood. Thus, denial of blood transfusions is not part of my religion, but it is part of theirs. And I would never advocate forcing them to accept a transfusion. Would you?

Further, by allowing her the freedom to wear it, they would be creating a double standard and would be allowing for a loophole to exist because then other pupils who want to 'modify' their dress could use the same argument, and this get away with wearing hoodies and other stuff that may not be normal for schools or conceal the person.

Oh noes! Hoodies!

*snip*

You don't need "special treatment" to allow a person to dress in what they feel is modest. Even if niqabs were universally allowed, I highly doubt there'd be many people wearing them.

So if they allow this for muslim girls. What is to stop them from dissallowing a girl to come to school dressed with only her underwear or bathing suit on a hot spring day? No logical reason. You either infringe on everyone or none. There is a tradition dress, and tamperring with it by allowing/dissallowing new things only brings a whole new level of chaos and lawsuits for schools.

The niqab is not a religious requirement of Islam. So it's not a denial of religious rights. It's just the same as not allowing someone to wear a motorcycle helmet in class.

Have to say I agree. Schools do have the right to determine what students may and may not wear when it doesn't violate religious requirements. Since it doesn't, I certainly have no problem with the school's decision. I personally believe though that the school shouldn't make an issue out of this and just let her wear the nigab but its their choice.

You can't recognize someone you know by her eyes? What is wrong with you that you've got such poor communication skills?

Not necessarily. I might not recognise that person from a relative of hers that has similar features.



Precisely. And a girl who believes that the niqab is necessary for modesty is going to feel no less distressed than the young girl you taught was. We can all look at the niqab and say, "It's unnecessary!" and believe it to be so. But it won't change the fact that some girls and women believe it is necessary, and would feel violated if forced to remove it.

and instead of looking at the oppression behind that belief, we enable it. Great. What next, are we allowing those who believe that throwing acid on woman's faces is fare game to walk free because that is their custom?



You aren't talking about integration - which requires efforts from both sides and has nothing to do with the mode of dress. You are talking about assimilation - becoming just like you. And no immigrant should be required to give up their own identity and assimilate.

I am talking about integration- as in respecting the laws of the land where they moved to. Remember the Muslims asking Jack Straw "How do you dare come to a Muslim area and say this?" ... I do.

This is yet another small step towards cultural separatism, and I disagree with it.

Yes, integration requires efforts from both sides. Not one side making full allowances and the other doing nothing but demanding.

This only "promotes cultural separation" because of people like you, who refuse to accept someone who dresses differently.

I am more than willing to accept someone that dresses differently as I do not adhere to the mainstream code of dressage myself.
HOWEVER, I do expect everyone to obey the same rules.

If in a work environment I am required to wear a suit while someone else is alowed to get away with wearing what they feel is comfortable under the guise that it is "religious", am I not being discriminated against?

Well, no. Come on. No one's retarded enough to compare Muslim women in a niqab to ninjas, unless they have the IQ of an unripe melon. Youtube. Come on.

So? The girl didn't NEED to cover her wounds. But she did out of choice. These girls don't NEED to cover their faces, but they choose to, because Britain is a free country, and you should be able to do whatever the hell you want, within reason. And this is in reason. No it is not. If someone decided to come to school wearing a Guy Fawkes mask then they'd be told to stuff it. And quite rightly.

Yep, that's right, all Muslim families are fundamentalists. They hate civil freedoms, and wish to regulate women, because Allah forbid they show their skin.
If you would like to provide evidence of a few cases of honour killings in Britain, then please, be my guest. If not, you fail. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p06s02-woeu.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonor_2.shtml
"Police believe there may be as many as 12 honour killings in the UK every year."

Women all over the world? What planet do you live on? Ok, so a minister in Pakistan was killed for not wearing a niqab, granted. But that is an isolated case, it was down to one man, and it's hardly the same as a 12 year old girl wearing a niqab in school. Again, provide sources for a few more cases of people being killed for not wearing niqabs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1410061.stm
I do believe there have been a few cases in Indonesia as well.

Oh come on, this is hardly obtrusive. Girl wearing niqab? Bit of fabric in front of her face? Hardly particuarly hampering. Covering your face in British society means murderers, terrorists, and paramilitias. It hardly helps integration.

How is that even close to being relevant? Can't interfere with their civil liberties!

You'll find the majority of Muslims in this country are NOT FUNDAMENTALISTS I'd agree - but the phrase "significant minority" is pertinent.

Sources, proof? Anything at all?

start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation


I'm serious, this is wrong. You'll find the majority of Muslims in this country are NOT FUNDAMENTALISTS and don't enjoy honour killings, or anything of the sort.

wouldn't that depend on how you define "fundamentalist"?

The Qu'ran says to be modest, thus allowing for interpretation; the cultures make their own interpretation, hence, why you see different styles of the scarves (niqab, burka, chador...)

Hijab and variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#Sartorial_hijab)

They do use the Qu'ran, but it boils down to how the culture interprets the passages that encourage modesty.


Islam is not only based on the Qur'an. For there are five sources: the Qur’an, the Sunna (the life of the prophet in the Hadith) the Qiyas (analogy) and the Ijma’ (consensus)

Sadly, the Niqab is becoming more popular, due to the growing importance of the Hanbali school of thought as propagated by Saudi Arabia. Especially a subset of the Hanbali school that calls itself salafism.

In light of the position of Islam within the west, and the roles to which the Niqab has been put, civili liberties are irrelevant. And if you so much as mention human rights, I will find your house, make a huge candle, wrap it in barbed wire, and insert it up your anus.:)

I will talk of human rights concerning this issue and you can not stop me :)

It does interfer with communication. I agree there is no religous reason to wear it, it is like baning people from wearing masks in the classroom.

I can't see the problem.

You determine other people's religious views? How wonderfully arrogant of you.


So if they allow this for muslim girls. What is to stop them from dissallowing a girl to come to school dressed with only her underwear or bathing suit on a hot spring day? No logical reason. You either infringe on everyone or none. There is a tradition dress, and tamperring with it by allowing/dissallowing new things only brings a whole new level of chaos and lawsuits for schools.

It's quite simple really. They require a minimum amount of dress. Most schools already do. The high school I went to, for instance, required shorts or skirts to be within a certain distance of the knee and did not allow sleeveless shirts or bared midriffs.


In light of the position of Islam within the west, and the roles to which the Niqab has been put, civili liberties are irrelevant.

Civil liberties are never irrelevant.


Have to say I agree. Schools do have the right to determine what students may and may not wear when it doesn't violate religious requirements. Since it doesn't, I certainly have no problem with the school's decision. I personally believe though that the school shouldn't make an issue out of this and just let her wear the nigab but its their choice.

Now the school dictates the students' religious beliefs?


Not necessarily. I might not recognise that person from a relative of hers that has similar features.

You would if you knew her at all - which her teachers should.

and instead of looking at the oppression behind that belief, we enable it. Great. What next, are we allowing those who believe that throwing acid on woman's faces is fare game to walk free because that is their custom?

Nice strawman you built there. No, throwing acid on women's faces is not "fare game to walk free" because that causes harm to another person. We aren't talking about causing harm to another person, though, are we? We are talking about the way a girl or woman chooses to dress.

If a girl is forced to wear niqab, I think we can all agree that it is wrong. But if she chooses to wear it, and we deny her that right, we are no better than those who would force her to wear it. We cannot remove oppression by participating in it ourselves.

I am talking about integration- as in respecting the laws of the land where they moved to. Remember the Muslims asking Jack Straw "How do you dare come to a Muslim area and say this?" ... I do.

Do the laws of the land ban niqabs? If so, what interest does the government have in doing so?

This is yet another small step towards cultural separatism, and I disagree with it.

These girls quite obviously don't want cultural separatism. If they did, they wouldn't be going to a school with boys and girls who did not adhere to their religious beliefs. They wish to keep their own identities, while living within the rest of the larger culture.

You are the one basically saying, "If they want to follow this particular custom of dress, they should just go away." YOU are the one advocating cultural separatism.

Yes, integration requires efforts from both sides. Not one side making full allowances and the other doing nothing but demanding.

Do they demand that you (or your wife/sister/daughter) wear the niqab? Do they demand that you follow their customs? If not, there is no "allowance" here. They are simply expecting the same rights afforded to others. Would you agree with a law that required girls to come to school in mini skirts and tube tops? Why or why not?

The expectation of being allowed to dress in a modest manner is not a special request or an "allowance". We allow everyone to dress in what they consider a modest manner. We would all be horrified by a law that required a young girl to bare her breasts, would we not?


I am more than willing to accept someone that dresses differently as I do not adhere to the mainstream code of dressage myself.

....unless their mode of dress includes the niqab, apparently.

HOWEVER, I do expect everyone to obey the same rules.

Indeed.

If in a work environment I am required to wear a suit while someone else is alowed to get away with wearing what they feel is comfortable under the guise that it is "religious", am I not being discriminated against?

Are they wearing equally formal dress?

Civil liberties are never irrelevant.

Vital to repeat over and over and over :)

You would if you knew her at all - which her teachers should.

because a teacher who sees a coupla hundred kids a day needs to be able to recognise each and everyone of them by only one facial feature.

Nice strawman you built there. No, throwing acid on women's faces is not "fare game to walk free" because that causes harm to another person. We aren't talking about causing harm to another person, though, are we? We are talking about the way a girl or woman chooses to dress.

How do you define "harm"?

If a girl is forced to wear niqab, I think we can all agree that it is wrong. But if she chooses to wear it, and we deny her that right, we are no better than those who would force her to wear it. We cannot remove oppression by participating in it ourselves.

How do you define oppression?


These girls quite obviously don't want cultural separatism. If they did, they wouldn't be going to a school with boys and girls who did not adhere to their religious beliefs. They wish to keep their own identities, while living within the rest of the larger culture.

see above. There is a huge difference between one wants to do and one can afford to do. Not everyone can afford going to a private school.

You are the one basically saying, "If they want to follow this particular custom of dress, they should just go away." YOU are the one advocating cultural separatism.

Strawman... pot, meet kettle.





Do they demand that you (or your wife/sister/daughter) wear the niqab? Do they demand that you follow their customs? If not, there is no "allowance" here. They are simply expecting the same rights afforded to others.

aside from the Muslim coworkers complaining that my way of dressing is not according to Shariah? How about the one Muslim colleague who complained that me wearing my hair uncovered offends him?



Are they wearing equally formal dress?

No.

Now the school dictates the students' religious beliefs?

The niqab has a place in Islam? Sounds like just cultural baggage to me.

It's quite simple really. They require a minimum amount of dress. Most schools already do. The high school I went to, for instance, required shorts or skirts to be within a certain distance of the knee and did not allow sleeveless shirts or bared midriffs.

[Devil's Advocate]Suppose that the girl in question was actually a dedicated naturist, who felt helplessly inhibited when wearing clothes. If it's wrong to enforce a maximum amount of dress because it may cause distress on those who would consider it to be immodest, then why is it any more justifiable to enforce a minimum amount on dress on people who'd feel uncomfortable in it?[/Devil's Advocate]

[Devil's Advocate]Suppose that the girl in question was actually a dedicated naturist, who felt helplessly inhibited when wearing clothes. If it's wrong to enforce a maximum amount of dress because it may cause distress on those who would consider it to be immodest, then why is it any more justifiable to enforce a minimum amount on dress on people who'd feel uncomfortable in it?[/Devil's Advocate]

That would be an interesting debate. I personally see no reason for public decency laws.

That would be an interesting debate. I personally see no reason for public decency laws.

Heh, that's certainly one way round the problem. :p

I just found this interesting (and vaguely relevant) article on the Guardian's education website:

Government dismisses Muslim school guidance document
Press Association
Wednesday February 21, 2007
EducationGuardian.co.uk

The government today dismissed calls from Britain's leading Islamic group for schools to do more to accommodate Muslim pupils who want to wear a headscarf or grow a beard.
The Muslim Council of Britain accused state schools of failing to respect the wishes of Muslim children when organising sex education, changing rooms and religious assemblies.

In new guidance for state schools launched yesterday, the MCB criticised headteachers for refusing to take account of "legitimate and reasonable requests" from parents and pupils.

The MCB urged heads to build prayer rooms and individual changing cubicles and allow girls to wear a headscarf and full-length loose skirt if they wish.

Boys should be allowed to grow beards for religious reasons and pupils should not be told to remove religious amulets, the guidance said.

However, the Department for Education and Skills distanced itself from the document.

A DfES spokesman said: "This is not official guidance and is not endorsed by the government, nor does it have any binding power whatsoever on schools.

"The Department for Education and Skills has no involvement with the document produced by the MCB.

"We have already provided schools with a wealth of official guidance, which makes clear they should take into account, and recognise, the needs and cultural diversity of all their pupils regardless of their background."

The spokesman added: "A good education is one of the best ways of building understanding of the many issues that unite our society.

"It is important that education provides the right ethos which encourages high aspirations, good citizenship and mutual understanding, and that schools recognise the cultural and faith needs of all their pupils."

The guidance was launched as the high court in London backed a school that refused to allow a 12-year-old Muslim girl to wear the niqab full-face veil.

The 72-page MCB guidance document said: "Many schools in England, Scotland and Wales have responded positively to issues related to cultural diversity and to meeting the needs of Muslim pupils.

"However, others have not been receptive of legitimate and reasonable requests made by Muslim parents and pupils in relation to their faith-based aspirations and concerns.

"Many of these issues relate to aspects of schooling such as collective worship, communal changing, swimming, halal meals and sex education.

"It is essential that positive account is taken of the faith dimension of Muslim pupils in education and schooling.

"Unfortunately Muslim pupils are sometimes placed in situations where they feel pressured into acting contrary to their beliefs and conscience and also experience Islamophobic sentiments and comments within schools."

The country's biggest heads' union warned that many of the MCB's demands - such as for individual changing room cubicles for all Muslim pupils - were "undoable".

Now, I don't have a problem with pupil's wearing necklaces under their clothes (as long as they're not in a PE or technology lesson where it'd be a hazard) but building prayer rooms and individual changing cubicles? I think our schools have much better uses for money at the moment.

I definitely agree with the ruling. As has been shown, the religious "issue" is not an issue at all (And even if it was, I would continue to contest it), which only leaves the human rights issue, which is easily dealt with through means of a counter argument, rules about mask wearing or lack of clothing, for example.

This is a pretty simple issue.

because a teacher who sees a coupla hundred kids a day needs to be able to recognise each and everyone of them by only one facial feature.

A teacher should be able to recognize her students, yes. If the student needed to be covered for some other reason, she'd still need to be able to recognize them. Of course, it seems rather unusual for a grade or secondary school teacher to see "a coupla hundred kids a day." That sounds more like university classes to me.

How do you define "harm"?

I don't define it as, "The way you are dressed bothers me, so you harmed me," put it that way. You have to cause measurable physical or emotional harm to someone by committing an action for that action to be banned. A woman who chooses to wear hijab or niqab isn't harming anyone, just as I am not harming anyone when I choose to wear long pants, even during the summer. She dresses as she has deemed appropriate.

How do you define oppression?

How do you define it? Do you, for instance, think that requiring women to go topless in order to obtain an education would be oppression?

see above. There is a huge difference between one wants to do and one can afford to do. Not everyone can afford going to a private school.

And you have evidence that they don't want to be at this school? After all, they are homeschooling this girl while they go through this lawsuit, yet they are fighting for her to be able to attend.

Strawman... pot, meet kettle.

It isn't a strawman. It's pretty much exactly what you've been saying. You think that those who wish to wear niqab should just stay out of "your" country. You've made that quite clear. As such, you are the one advocating cultural separation.

aside from the Muslim coworkers complaining that my way of dressing is not according to Shariah? How about the one Muslim colleague who complained that me wearing my hair uncovered offends him?

So you've met a couple of Muslims who think you should follow their guidelines. Are they pushing to force you to do so, as you are asking for this young girl to be forced to follow yours?

No.

Then yes, it is discrimination. However, allowing them to wear equally formal dress which they found to be more modest than a suit would not be discrimination, so long as you could dress in the same manner if you so chose.


The niqab has a place in Islam? Sounds like just cultural baggage to me.

Who are you to decide. Any given Muslim will look at Islam in a different manner to others - and definitely in a different manner when compared to non-believers. Some Christians, for instance, feel that wearing store-bought clothing is immodest, that they should make their own clothing and it should be as plain as possible. Most Christians do not interpret the text that way. Does this mean that homemade clothing has no place in Christianity? Or does it mean that different Christians view the text and the concept of modesty differently?


[Devil's Advocate]Suppose that the girl in question was actually a dedicated naturist, who felt helplessly inhibited when wearing clothes. If it's wrong to enforce a maximum amount of dress because it may cause distress on those who would consider it to be immodest, then why is it any more justifiable to enforce a minimum amount on dress on people who'd feel uncomfortable in it?[/Devil's Advocate]

Good question. And there's really no good answer for it, save the bare minimum that would be required for sanitary standards. But there is no denying that, in most cases, requiring someone to take off clothing that they feel is necessary is much more distressing than asking them to put on more clothing than they are currently wearing.

If a new restaurant opened up and, upon walking in, all patrons were told to remove their shirts or they would receive no service, you wouldn't see a large number of patrons at that establishment. But when a restaurant requires a minimum standard of dress - perhaps even requiring men to wear a jacket - most patrons will have no problem complying. Within a certain limit, human beings generally don't mind covering more skin than they feel is absolutely necessary, while they are generally extremely uncomfortable if they feel exposed.

Now, I don't have a problem with pupil's wearing necklaces under their clothes (as long as they're not in a PE or technology lesson where it'd be a hazard) but building prayer rooms and individual changing cubicles? I think our schools have much better uses for money at the moment.

Prayer rooms are unnecessary as long as the students do have the opportunity to complete any prayers.

Individual changing cubicles, on the other hand, are just a good idea in general as far as I am concerned. Many young girls are embarrassed about changing in front of others - Muslim or not.

ok, so she wants the right to wear something that would make her virtually unrecognizable. How can the teachers establish it is indeed her who attends lessons and is taking exams, and not someone else pretending to be her?

Well, they could ask her to remove it in front of a female member of staff... she said it was only because of male staff an teachers.

[Devil's Advocate]Suppose that the girl in question was actually a dedicated naturist, who felt helplessly inhibited when wearing clothes. If it's wrong to enforce a maximum amount of dress because it may cause distress on those who would consider it to be immodest, then why is it any more justifiable to enforce a minimum amount on dress on people who'd feel uncomfortable in it?[/Devil's Advocate]
because naturists aren't as organised as islam.

i had been thinking of making a comment about religion in any form doesn't belong in school, cause i also hate the folk who think that wearing a 6" cross is the epitome of style. and i've never seen a principal force the student to take that off. and plus, i live in ontario, which sponsors a catholic school board, so that nullifies just about all religious arguments in our school board.

It's quite simple really. They require a minimum amount of dress. Most schools already do. The high school I went to, for instance, required shorts or skirts to be within a certain distance of the knee and did not allow sleeveless shirts or bared midriffs.

Ah. So it is okay to require a minimum dress, but requiring a maximum is not? This totally makes sense. :rolleyes:


They are simply expecting the same rights afforded to others


And those they get. For instance, they can dress in horrible colours if they like to, or wear headscarfs. And like everybody else, they cannot wear niqabs.

Ah. So it is okay to require a minimum dress, but requiring a maximum is not? This totally makes sense. :rolleyes:

Within the construct of most human society, it does. What you've just pointed out is that it is all rather arbitrary. Why do we require a woman to cover her breasts, while she would not be required to do so within many tribal societies?

But, as I pointed out before, a person is going to be much more affected by being asked to expose themselves in a way they find inappropriate than they are by being asked to wear more than they feel is necessary. If a school requires the midriff to be covered, you aren't going to have anyone who feels violated by the rule, no matter how much they may like their belly button ring. On the other hand, if you were to require them to come to school with no shirt at all, most students would feel so uncomfortable that they would be virtually unable to learn.

Wearing extra clothing generally doesn't make a person feel vulnerable or violated. Being asked to remove clothing they feel is necessary does.

And those they get. For instance, they can dress in horrible colours if they like to, or wear headscarfs. And like everybody else, they cannot wear niqabs.

...which, to them, is like asking your average "Western" girl to come to school topless.

So you've met a couple of Muslims who think you should follow their guidelines. Are they pushing to force you to do so, as you are asking for this young girl to be forced to follow yours?

one of them is my boss. Do I need to explain to you how that works?

I do not want to force this girl to do anything. I just believe, and the document posted above shows, believe that it is a very slippery slope to start allowing fallouts from rules for the sake of religion- any religion.

How long until someone asks to be taught ID because that is what their religion requires? How long until we are asked for segregated classrooms?

We live in a secular society, in which religious considerents of any type should not be afforded any privileges.

Where do you draw the line?

I definitely agree with the ruling. As has been shown, the religious "issue" is not an issue at all (And even if it was, I would continue to contest it), which only leaves the human rights issue, which is easily dealt with through means of a counter argument, rules about mask wearing or lack of clothing, for example.

This is a pretty simple issue.

No, it's not, or a solution would have been found. And human rights are not easily dealt with. You cannot deny someone the freedom for them to wear a niqab, in the same way you can't deny someone the right a pair of gloves or a scarf. I never saw a problem with the niqab, and I don't know. What your suggesting is just throwing away rights like they're nothing, and I seriously detest that.

Firts off, let the girl wear the veil. The School should have security measures in place at the entrance and perhaps in the halls as needed, to help identify people as need be, to prove an adult isn't disguised as a student for example... But unless it's a bank transaction, or a ID factor involved, let them wear the veil and be done with it.

...
Jehovah's Witnesses interpret a passage in the Bible about imbibing blood to mean that they cannot accept blood transfusions. I interpret it as banning people from drinking blood. Thus, denial of blood transfusions is not part of my religion, but it is part of theirs. And I would never advocate forcing them to accept a transfusion. Would you?
...

What if it's a minor of the JW family that needs the blood transfusion? I would (if it were up to me) force the parents to allow the transfusion if their child’s life depended on it... But that quickly gets into tricky waters and could become a tough one I admit that.

Where do you draw the line?

At harm.

Actual physical or psychological harm.

If someone's cultural practices are harmful, physically or psychologically...and not just 'oh, I can't handle your difference', then those practices should not be allowed.

A free society is about CHOICE. What you have been advocating throughout this thread is NO different than requiring that women all work outside of the home, refusing them the choice to be homemakers. The niqab does not harm the girl wearing it, nor does it harm her classmates, or her teachers. In fact, the niqab does not harm anyone. It may make you uncomfortable...but discomfort alone is not enough.

Allowing the niqab does not mean there will be some slippery slope into celebrating and encouraging female genital mutilation. Letting women work outside of the home did not result in the predicted destruction of family and society.

There are common sense restrictions on what we can do, or say, or wear that may impede our choices, this is true. Gang colours may be forbidden in schools because of a history of gang violence. Coming to school in a bikini might be deemed inappropriate...like going to work at your office in a leather collar and lingerie could be. Telling Sikh boys to remove their head coverings in order to fit under a welder's mask might be appropriate for safety reasons...but not 'just because'.

But this? What is the harm? You might say, it is inappropriate...but then we need to balance competing interests. There is a legitimate cultural reason for the covering. Forcing girls to remove it will likely cause them enough distress that their learning will be impaired. They have CHOSEN to wear this symbol of modesty, much as some Christian women wear head coverings. That the covering is more complete is really of no import. The harm that would be done to the girl CHOSING to wear this, by far outweighs whatever doubtful benefit would be gained by your lack of discomfort at seeing her in it.

It's cases like these that make me think uniforms aren't such a bad idea.


Or, like in my nationstate, kids can where whatever the fsck they want, including pajamas.

It's cases like these that make me think uniforms aren't such a bad idea.


Or, like in my nationstate, kids can where whatever the fsck they want, including pajamas. In independent schools, this argument is totally irrelevant as the school can say "WEAR WHAT WE TELLZ J00 2, STFU".

In independent schools, this argument is totally irrelevant as the school can say "WEAR WHAT WE TELLZ J00 2, STFU".

Public schools have uniforms as well.

one of them is my boss. Do I need to explain to you how that works?

Then take it up with the proper authorities or change jobs.

I do not want to force this girl to do anything. I just believe, and the document posted above shows, believe that it is a very slippery slope to start allowing fallouts from rules for the sake of religion- any religion.

(a) "Do this or you get no education," is a pretty clear example of force. Sure, she could choose not to be educated, but is that really a choice she'd want to make?

(b) You don't have to allow "fallouts". You simply make the rules in such a way that allows such things.

How long until someone asks to be taught ID because that is what their religion requires? How long until we are asked for segregated classrooms?

All of these things would have a significant effect on other students because of a religion they do not share. As such, they would be wholly inappropriate.

We live in a secular society, in which religious considerents of any type should not be afforded any privileges.

....nor should they be ostracized because of their religion. She isn't asking for Islam to be taught or enforced in the schools, now is she?


What if it's a minor of the JW family that needs the blood transfusion? I would (if it were up to me) force the parents to allow the transfusion if their child’s life depended on it... But that quickly gets into tricky waters and could become a tough one I admit that.

It is pretty tricky. Personally, I don't think parents should be able to deny medical treatment (or authorize completely elective medical procedures) for their children. However, if the child is old enough to make the request himself, and seems to the medical professionals to be able to make that decision, then it should be respected. For instance, if a 15-year old JW told the doctors himself that he did not wish to receive a blood transplant for religious reasons, no blood transplant should be given.

I think the court made the right decision here. School uniforms are a long established tradition in this country, and I don't think we should have to change the way we do things because we suddenly have a muslim minority living among us. Why should the rest of society bow to their whims?

I think the court made the right decision here. School uniforms are a long established tradition in this country, and I don't think we should have to change the way we do things because we suddenly have a muslim minority living among us. Why should the rest of society bow to their whims?

We aren't changing anything here. We're simply allowing a 12 year old girl wear a niqab, out of choice. If anything, that's keeping things the same - Britain is a free country, where we should allow choice and freedoms. We shouldn't take away people's right to wear what they want, and that's why I partly disagree with uniforms. But on this issue, we aren't "bowing to Muslim whims" - we're letting a small girl wear a niqab. What's up with that? Are people so scared of differences in society?

I think the court made the right decision here. School uniforms are a long established tradition in this country, and I don't think we should have to change the way we do things because we suddenly have a muslim minority living among us. Why should the rest of society bow to their whims?

You don't have to change the way you do things. You don't have to "bow to their whims." No one is trying to make you wear niqab, now are they?

In the US, we allow people to wear all sorts of traditional dress. Does that mean that we are forced to change the way we do things? No, it doesn't. I dress the way I like - just as those who wear something that is traditional in their culture do.

You don't have to change the way you do things. You don't have to "bow to their whims." No one is trying to make you wear niqab, now are they?
It is changing the way we do things. Traditionally we've always gone for school uniforms, and traditionally it's been the same uniforms for everyone. There's no point in having uniforms if you make exemptions every sime somebody decides they dislike one aspect of it.

It is changing the way we do things. Traditionally we've always gone for school uniforms, and traditionally it's been the same uniforms for everyone. There's no point in having uniforms if you make exemptions every sime somebody decides they dislike one aspect of it.

There generally is some leeway even within a uniform system. Girls, for instance, can often wear either skirts or pants. There may be a few interchangeable shirts. A girl who felt, for instance, that the skirt was too short would be able to wear pants instead.

This would be a possibility within the uniform. It wouldn't be an exemption, as the girl would still be required to dress within the uniform. The uniform simply shouldn't outright ban an article of clothing simply because most people don't wear it. Would you agree with a uniform policy that required girls to wear skimpy clothing?

It is changing the way we do things. Traditionally we've always gone for school uniforms, and traditionally it's been the same uniforms for everyone. There's no point in having uniforms if you make exemptions every sime somebody decides they dislike one aspect of it.

No, we're not changing anything. We're simply wanting to let a 12 year old girl to wear a niqab which doesn't harm anyone in any way. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There called "freedoms" and "liberties," and they are very good things, friend.

Can we wear masks to lessons?

I actually have worn masks to school before. Masks make me feel more comfortable around other people and more confident about myself, and the people at the school had no trouble recognizing me or communicating with me while I was wearing the mask. It didn't cover my entire face, but it covered more than half of my face, and it was no problem.

I know that if I were required to show any more skin than the amount that I feel is modest (as I was when I was required to wear a dress for swing choir that came to above the knees and revealed most of the back, and when I had to wear shorts for gym class- both made me feel horribly vulnerable and degraded), I would feel horrible and would be too self-conscious and afraid for my safety (as I was with the dress and the shorts) to focus on any sort of learning. To me, it seems that if she feels that the niqab is an important part of her sense of modesty and security, she should be allowed to wear it, since it doesn't seem like it would impair communication too much.

There generally is some leeway even within a uniform system. Girls, for instance, can often wear either skirts or pants. There may be a few interchangeable shirts. A girl who felt, for instance, that the skirt was too short would be able to wear pants instead.

This would be a possibility within the uniform. It wouldn't be an exemption, as the girl would still be required to dress within the uniform. The uniform simply shouldn't outright ban an article of clothing simply because most people don't wear it. Would you agree with a uniform policy that required girls to wear skimpy clothing?
I wouldn't support that uniform policy, because changing that policy wouldn't be against the cultural norms of the country. Allowing primitive crap like the niqab is against the cultural norms of the country.

No, we're not changing anything. We're simply wanting to let a 12 year old girl to wear a niqab which doesn't harm anyone in any way. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There called "freedoms" and "liberties," and they are very good things, friend.
There have always been limits on freedoms and liberties. I don't see why religious superstition should be a blank cheque to have the rules bent whichever way you like.

There have always been limits on freedoms and liberties. I don't see why religious superstition should be a blank cheque to have the rules bent whichever way you like.

For starters, the niqab isn't religious. It's a version of the hijab, a headscarf which exposes the face. So your religious card is out the window. Secondly, rules are not being bent, but civil freedoms and liberties are being ignored. She should be allowed to wear the niqab because Britain is a FREE COUNTRY, and people seem to forget that fact.

I wouldn't support that uniform policy, because changing that policy wouldn't be against the cultural norms of the country.

You wouldn't be ok with a uniform policy that didn't force girls to dress in a way they feel is immodest?

Allowing primitive crap like the niqab is against the cultural norms of the country.

So you think a young girl should be denied an education unless she's just like you, eh? Wonderful country you have there. I'll be sure to move there right away. :rolleyes:

The school needs to shut the fuck up.

I'm sorry, but there's really no other way to say it.

This religious discrimination flat out. "gets in the way of learning and communication" my ass. Her wearing that has no negative affect on learning what so ever. If anything it would help her focus and learn without worrying if someone was checking her out or something. Stuff like this just makes me sad. I pray that one day this nonsense will stop.

Who are you to determine her religion? If she interprets the Qur'an as requiring the niqab, then her religion requires her to wear the niqab. The fact that others interpret it differently is irrelevant.

Jehovah's Witnesses interpret a passage in the Bible about imbibing blood to mean that they cannot accept blood transfusions. I interpret it as banning people from drinking blood. Thus, denial of blood transfusions is not part of my religion, but it is part of theirs. And I would never advocate forcing them to accept a transfusion. Would you?

I never determined her religion. I only said that based upon interpretation from the primary scripture, which I have read snippets from, as well as "Coles' Notes" with more than ample instruction on the nature of the religion from an Muslim friend... blah blah blah...

I made my interpretation as such and find it odd that something that is more cultural than religious, though the reason, being modesty, is a religious motive.

From what I read about the various preferred levels of coverings, it came across as being a cultural aspect and not a religious one, and thus, I see no reason to defend the niqab on religious grounds, since it's cultural and not religious.

And you ask if I would force a JW to take a blood transfusion? I think it's very sad when you have to force parents to ensure that their children don't die because they refuse blood transfusion...

So if they allow this for muslim girls. What is to stop them from dissallowing a girl to come to school dressed with only her underwear or bathing suit on a hot spring day? No logical reason. You either infringe on everyone or none. There is a tradition dress, and tamperring with it by allowing/dissallowing new things only brings a whole new level of chaos and lawsuits for schools.

This is exactly my point. You give them a taste of 'freedom' and suddenly the rules aren't good enough any more. Everyone will want an exception made for them.

The lawsuits would find in favour of the students if there had been a precedent set with one student previously. All it takes is for that student to win on grounds such as religious expression, for the rest to think of ways to get their way.


[Devil's Advocate]Suppose that the girl in question was actually a dedicated naturist, who felt helplessly inhibited when wearing clothes. If it's wrong to enforce a maximum amount of dress because it may cause distress on those who would consider it to be immodest, then why is it any more justifiable to enforce a minimum amount on dress on people who'd feel uncomfortable in it?[/Devil's Advocate]

Another excellent point.

You give into one person, you give into the rest.

While I can see someone protesting any laws limiting their dress, I can sympathise with the schools. They have a system to run and it's hard to run it when people want special treatment or they want to be the exception to the rule, especially when there are uniforms involved.

It's one thing to wear the modest version of a uniform and it's another thing entirely to want to wear something other than it.

I never determined her religion. I only said that based upon interpretation from the primary scripture, which I have read snippets from, as well as "Coles' Notes" with more than ample instruction on the nature of the religion from an Muslim friend... blah blah blah...

In other words, you determined her religion. You took your own interpretation of the text, as well as those of some others, and decided that her personal religion must fall in line.

I made my interpretation as such and find it odd that something that is more cultural than religious, though the reason, being modesty, is a religious motive.

Why do you find it odd? Different Christian groups have different viewpoints on modesty. Different Muslim groups do as well. You and I probably have different viewpoints on modesty. If I were to ask all of my coworkers what entails "modest dress," I'd get very different answers.

From what I read about the various preferred levels of coverings, it came across as being a cultural aspect and not a religious one, and thus, I see no reason to defend the niqab on religious grounds, since it's cultural and not religious.

It is both. The religion requires modesty. The culture and personal viewpoint defines what modesty is.

And you ask if I would force a JW to take a blood transfusion? I think it's very sad when you have to force parents to ensure that their children don't die because they refuse blood transfusion...

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

This is exactly my point. You give them a taste of 'freedom' and suddenly the rules aren't good enough any more. Everyone will want an exception made for them.

What good are the rules if they cause more harm than good?

While I can see someone protesting any laws limiting their dress, I can sympathise with the schools. They have a system to run and it's hard to run it when people want special treatment or they want to be the exception to the rule, especially when there are uniforms involved.

It's one thing to wear the modest version of a uniform and it's another thing entirely to want to wear something other than it.

What does the uniform entail? Why could there not be a "modest version" of the uniform that would allow for niqab?

What does the uniform entail? Why could there not be a "modest version" of the uniform that would allow for niqab?
Why should they? British schools have done fine without allowing the niqab until now. Why should we suddenly change the rules just because of people who move to a modern state but still want to live like they're in 12th century Arabia?

Perhaps rules like this would teach them a valuble lesson that you can't get everything your own way in life.

Why should they? British schools have done fine without allowing the niqab until now. Why should we suddenly change the rules just because of people who move to a modern state but still want to live like they're in 12th century Arabia?

They also did fine without uniforms. Didn't stop them from changing it. ;)

Why should they? British schools have done fine without allowing the niqab until now. Why should we suddenly change the rules just because of people who move to a modern state but still want to live like they're in 12th century Arabia?

Perhaps rules like this would teach them a valuble lesson that you can't get everything your own way in life.

Let's see:
Not letting the girl wear the niqab would make her very uncomforable.
Letting her wear it would do nothing.
Therefore, going with the option that harms less, let her wear it.
Easy logic.

I never determined her religion. I only said that based upon interpretation from the primary scripture, which I have read snippets from, as well as "Coles' Notes" with more than ample instruction on the nature of the religion from an Muslim friend... blah blah blah...

I made my interpretation as such and find it odd that something that is more cultural than religious, though the reason, being modesty, is a religious motive.

From what I read about the various preferred levels of coverings, it came across as being a cultural aspect and not a religious one, and thus, I see no reason to defend the niqab on religious grounds, since it's cultural and not religious.

And you ask if I would force a JW to take a blood transfusion? I think it's very sad when you have to force parents to ensure that their children don't die because they refuse blood transfusion...


A lot of religious prohibitions have been picked up during the life of the religion and don't appear in its holy book.

Take Judaism for example.
You know the "No milk and meat" rule?
The closest thing to that in the OT is "You shall not eat (cook?) a cow in its mother's milk."
Rabbinical interpretation expanded it from being cows in their mother's milk to anything in anything milk. Can't drink lamb in (human) breast milk if I remember right.


This is exactly my point. You give them a taste of 'freedom' and suddenly the rules aren't good enough any more. Everyone will want an exception made for them.

The lawsuits would find in favour of the students if there had been a precedent set with one student previously. All it takes is for that student to win on grounds such as religious expression, for the rest to think of ways to get their way.


More freedom is always better then less freedom if there is no legitimate reason to restrict it.
Do you have one?
No?
All right then, you've lost the argument.



Another excellent point.

You give into one person, you give into the rest.

While I can see someone protesting any laws limiting their dress, I can sympathise with the schools. They have a system to run and it's hard to run it when people want special treatment or they want to be the exception to the rule, especially when there are uniforms involved.

It's one thing to wear the modest version of a uniform and it's another thing entirely to want to wear something other than it.

One (actually three) last questions.
Would you let a Jew wear a yamulke under these same circumstances?
How about a Sikh wearing a turban?
How about the Amish wearing some kind of clothing invented before whenever their cutoff point for technology is?

Let's see:
Not letting the girl wear the niqab would make her very uncomforable.
Letting her wear it would do nothing.
Therefore, going with the option that harms less, let her wear it.
Easy logic.

It's sad when what makes the most sense is rejected out of hand.

Why should they?

Because their decisions should be based on what is in the best interest of the students, not some xenophobic, "ZOMG THEY HAVE TO BE JUST LIKE US OR WE HATE THEM!!!!" mentality.

What does the uniform entail? Why could there not be a "modest version" of the uniform that would allow for niqab?

Well, if you have one uniform which is presented as a 'modest' uniform then that would effectively be calling all the girls who choose to wear the standard uniform 'immodest'. I remember a similar court case not so long ago when a girl wanted to wear the jilbab to school (it later turned out that she'd been put up to it by her brothers but that's beside the point), and a lot of muslim school girls were saying that they hoped she lost, because if she won then they'd feel pressured to dress 'modestly' and wear the jilbab too. To my mind the best thing about school uniforms is that avoids competitions in fashion or piety by making everyone wear the same. I'd be inclined to introduce a standard uniform headscarf/kippa/turban in a plain colour and leave it at that.

Good question. And there's really no good answer for it, save the bare minimum that would be required for sanitary standards. But there is no denying that, in most cases, requiring someone to take off clothing that they feel is necessary is much more distressing than asking them to put on more clothing than they are currently wearing.

If a new restaurant opened up and, upon walking in, all patrons were told to remove their shirts or they would receive no service, you wouldn't see a large number of patrons at that establishment. But when a restaurant requires a minimum standard of dress - perhaps even requiring men to wear a jacket - most patrons will have no problem complying. Within a certain limit, human beings generally don't mind covering more skin than they feel is absolutely necessary, while they are generally extremely uncomfortable if they feel exposed.

Fair point. The problem is that it's not inconceivable that somebody could feel very uncomfortable wearing clothes and our only objection to it would be that it's unusual. Afterall, human beings usually feel much happier living in fixed accomodation than in tents or caravans but a Roma in Britian once overturned a court case on the grounds that he simply couldn't live in a brick house.

Well, if you have one uniform which is presented as a 'modest' uniform then that would effectively be calling all the girls who choose to wear the standard uniform 'immodest'.

I didn't say to present it as such, now did I?

Fair point. The problem is that it's not inconceivable that somebody could feel very uncomfortable wearing clothes and our only objection to it would be that it's unusual. Afterall, human beings usually feel much happier living in fixed accomodation than in tents or caravans but a Roma in Britian once overturned a court case on the grounds that he simply couldn't live in a brick house.

If that situation comes up, we can cross that bridge then, eh?

They also did fine without uniforms. Didn't stop them from changing it. ;)

Although I strongly agree with your point (that tradition shouldn't impede change) I'm afraid I can't agree with the implication that school uniform isn't necessary. School uniform is a wonderful social equaliser, removing visible differences between children from rich and poor families. I was still at school a few years ago and there were several children who were routinely teased on non-uniform days because of their clothes.

I didn't say to present it as such, now did I?

No, but it would still lead to significant social pressure on some girls to choose the more 'modest' option. This is one of the factors which led to a majority of Muslim women in France backing a blanket ban on all headscarves and religious items of clothing in schools (although I regard the law in question as far too strict).

If that situation comes up, we can cross that bridge then, eh?

It'd be nice to be able to do that, but it's extremely dangerous to ignore the long-term effects of precedent. To use an analogy, while I don't have a problem with nativity plays in school in themselves, allowing them would force us to accept Scientology based schooling in the future.

Let's see:
Not letting the girl wear the niqab would make her very uncomforable.
Letting her wear it would do nothing.
Therefore, going with the option that harms less, let her wear it.
Easy logic.

I would like to point out that you have only considered what she feels comfortable with, and not what would be most appropriate for the class. I'm afraid it's a simple matter of escalation really; if you bend for one person, eventually another will come along with a sillyer (sp?) reason for not having a dress code and, before you know it, the uniform's gone (or at least degraded) and then you have real discrimination--where everyone can happily be themselves at school, until everyone picks on them for exactly what they choose to dress like.

Sad but true, Children are frakkers.

I would like to point out that you have only considered what she feels comfortable with, and not what would be most appropriate for the class. I'm afraid it's a simple matter of escalation really; if you bend for one person, eventually another will come along with a sillyer (sp?) reason for not having a dress code and, before you know it, the uniform's gone (or at least degraded) and then you have real discrimination--where everyone can happily be themselves at school, until everyone picks on them for exactly what they choose to dress like.

Sad but true, Children are frakkers.

I feel there should be a little leeway, although obviously a line must be drawn somewhere. As I've already said, I'm inclined to let each school set an official headscarf, kippa, and turban, and let anyone who wants to wear that. Failing that, maybe it'd be possible to design some kind of headgear which would not only fulfill the requirements of all the main religions, but would also serve as a hat for other students.

More freedom is always better then less freedom if there is no legitimate reason to restrict it.
Do you have one?
No?
All right then, you've lost the argument.

I never objected to general freedom.

I'm arguing from the point of view that the school has the duty to create a environment that is best for the majority of the students, even if it means someone can't wear religious clothing, especially where the student has a school uniform. In most cases, from what I've read, most schools in England have uniforms, so, I see no reason to make an exception to the rule for anyone.

Most work places would allow for the hijab (unless it's in France), and there would be no problem, especially if it happens to match the uniform. But, I can see why places of employment would not want people to cover their faces, just as they may turn patrons away for the same reason. If you can't see the face clearly, you can't identify them.

If the school wants to have a policy that requires no student to have a covered face, then it's their right. They want to create an environment of security, and some may feel that an obscured face (there are a number of ways in this can happen, without the help of a niqab).

In fact, many schools curb freedom. In my high school, it wasn't uncommon to have to remove your cap in class. Of course, one could make the argument that this restricts freedom, but no one is going to stick up for the right to wear a cap because it's not necessarily a religious symbol.

Schools generally have a responsibility for creating an academic environment for everyone, and that sometimes means a school uniform or strict dress code, wherein no one is allowed to wear anything beyond what is permitted.

I happen to have multiple ear piercings (10), and with a school uniform, I would have been required to remove them. In fact, when I was working at Tim Hortens, I had to remove all but two of my earring studs because I had to comply with the uniform.

I could have argued that I have a religious right to wear them, but it would be shot down because I have unique beliefs and they don't fall into a main stream belief system. Further, because it's a place of work, I have to obey the rules because that's the way the real world works.

In the ideal world, we wouldn't have to change anything about ourselves. In fact, we could dress as we want and no one would be allowed to say anything, irrelevant of where we happen to be at the time. However, the sad fact is that we live in a world where we can't always get what we want.

I used to think it was fine to want to dress in whatever you want, and I still do, but I now believe that there are rules and if we want to survive to change those rules, we have to comply today to change them tomorrow. It means having to suck it up and work to change the rules while working in the current frame work.

One (actually three) last questions.
Would you let a Jew wear a yamulke under these same circumstances?
How about a Sikh wearing a turban?
How about the Amish wearing some kind of clothing invented before whenever their cutoff point for technology is?

If the school had a strict uniform policy, but those items didn't violate it, then it wouldn't be anything to object to.

The Yarmulke doesn't obscure the face, nor does the Sikh turban or any Amish clothing. Though, there is ways around the Amish clothing in a school where a uniform is necessary. If they are worried about safety, and being modest, they allow the girls to wear long skirts that don't compromise the safety of the student.

I'm surprised you didn't ask about the Sikh kirpan. After all, once a Sikh boy comes of age, he begins to carry it. It was permitted in Canadian schools, despite being considered a weapon. Would you say that they should be allowed to carry the kirpan, which is a ceremonial dagger?

Although I strongly agree with your point (that tradition shouldn't impede change) I'm afraid I can't agree with the implication that school uniform isn't necessary. School uniform is a wonderful social equaliser, removing visible differences between children from rich and poor families. I was still at school a few years ago and there were several children who were routinely teased on non-uniform days because of their clothes.

Children will be teased about something no matter what you do. Meanwhile, if you didn't have specific "non-uniform days" and students dressed as they pleased consistently, you might not have seen teasing on this issue. It was likely the novelty of it that caused it. I've never been at a school with a uniform, and I've never seen poorer students mocked for their clothing. Some students wore designer clothing, some of us shopped at Wal-Mart, and none of us gave a shit about it.

No, but it would still lead to significant social pressure on some girls to choose the more 'modest' option. This is one of the factors which led to a majority of Muslim women in France backing a blanket ban on all headscarves and religious items of clothing in schools (although I regard the law in question as far too strict).

If pants and skirts are both allowed, and some girls wear skirts, there may be significant pressure for all the girls to wear skirts, whether they want to or not (or vice versa), but it doesn't change the fact that both options should be allowed to maximize the comfort of the students.

Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to do away with uniforms period.

It'd be nice to be able to do that, but it's extremely dangerous to ignore the long-term effects of precedent. To use an analogy, while I don't have a problem with nativity plays in school in themselves, allowing them would force us to accept Scientology based schooling in the future.

How does a nativity play equate to religious schooling? If the school drama club puts on a showing of "Grease", does that equate to sex ed?


I'm arguing from the point of view that the school has the duty to create a environment that is best for the majority of the students, even if it means someone can't wear religious clothing, especially where the student has a school uniform. In most cases, from what I've read, most schools in England have uniforms, so, I see no reason to make an exception to the rule for anyone.

How does making this child so uncomfortable that she most likely cannot learn (or forcing her out of the school altogether) going to help any of the other students?

Most work places would allow for the hijab (unless it's in France), and there would be no problem, especially if it happens to match the uniform. But, I can see why places of employment would not want people to cover their faces, just as they may turn patrons away for the same reason. If you can't see the face clearly, you can't identify them.

This isn't a workplace. It is a school.


In fact, many schools curb freedom. In my high school, it wasn't uncommon to have to remove your cap in class. Of course, one could make the argument that this restricts freedom, but no one is going to stick up for the right to wear a cap because it's not necessarily a religious symbol.

No one (to my knowledge) thinks a cap is necessary for modesty, either, do they? Someone isn't going to feel exposed and vulnerable because they can't advertise their favorite sports team at school.

How does making this child so uncomfortable that she most likely cannot learn (or forcing her out of the school altogether) going to help any of the other students?

Fine then... point to the place in any article about this case that says how not having her face covered makes her unable to learn.

By that logic, I can say that I can't learn with my shoes on. Yes, I know it's a stupid example, but my comfort level means I don't have anything on my feet. Plus in my religion, which celebrates Saint Octopus Day, being bare foot inside is heavily encouraged as it is highly liberating.

But you're going to tell me that I can't because my feet might smell and other reasons. But, then if you're going to allow one person their own level of comfort, you have to allow other people.

This isn't a workplace. It is a school.

You're right, work is not school and vice versa. However, it is the only time I had to wear a uniform so I used it as an example.

Either way, you have a uniform or dress code. You have to follow it or face the consequences of your choice. These exist so that everyone follows the same standards.

No one (to my knowledge) thinks a cap is necessary for modesty, either, do they? Someone isn't going to feel exposed and vulnerable because they can't advertise their favorite sports team at school.

But, once again, comfort level. I hate being hatless on a bad hair day, and I hate having to do anything with my hair in the morning, so I wear a hat.

I wear it when I don't do my hair, but, then I'm expected to remove it for the national anthem... but, why should I? I have my comfort level to worry about. How does me wearing a hat change the environment around me? It doesn't harm anyone...

being a teenage hampers your communication skills. i don't think choice of headgear is going to have any appreciable effect.

Hey! I resent that! ;)

Fine then... point to the place in any article about this case that says how not having her face covered makes her unable to learn.

How well do you think your average "Western" girl would be able to learn if she couldn't come to class unless she took her shirt off?

By that logic, I can say that I can't learn with my shoes on. Yes, I know it's a stupid example, but my comfort level means I don't have anything on my feet.

Do you feel exposed and vulnerable with your shoes on? That doesn't really make sense, now does it? I think a rational person can discern a reasonable claim from one being made facetiously - like yours.

But you're going to tell me that I can't because my feet might smell and other reasons. But, then if you're going to allow one person their own level of comfort, you have to allow other people.

No, you don't. The source and strength of discomfort must be taken into account. For this girl, removing the niqab in front of male students or teachers would likely be akin to me being told that I must remove my shirt in front of male students and teachers. I would feel so exposed and vulnerable, that I truly would be unable to focus on my learning.

You're right, work is not school and vice versa. However, it is the only time I had to wear a uniform so I used it as an example.

Either way, you have a uniform or dress code. You have to follow it or face the consequences of your choice. These exist so that everyone follows the same standards.

And the difference is that the work dress code is in place to protect the interests of the employer. The school dress code, if it is to exist at all, must be in place to protect the interests of the students. If the dress code itself becomes an obstacle to learning, it must be altered or discarded.

But, once again, comfort level. I hate being hatless on a bad hair day, and I hate having to do anything with my hair in the morning, so I wear a hat.

Hating it and feeling immodest are two very different things.

How would you feel if you were told that you couldn't receive an education unless you went without pants/skirt/etc.?
How does that compare to being told you can't wear a cap or that you have to wear shoes?

How well do you think your average "Western" girl would be able to learn if she couldn't come to class unless she took her shirt off?

I don't know, I'm not your average western girl. :p I'm a moderately psychotic woman. :D

Do you feel exposed and vulnerable with your shoes on? That doesn't really make sense, now does it? I think a rational person can discern a reasonable claim from one being made facetiously - like yours.

Actually, yes I do. I detest both shoes and socks, and prefer sandals if I can't have bare feet. To me, it makes damn good sense. The feet are natural and shouldn't be concealed. It's an afront to my religion. In my religion bare feet are expected.

And don't call it facetious because this is part of my religion, even if you haven't heard of it. It's The Way of the Animeaux (TWA).

No, you don't. The source and strength of discomfort must be taken into account. For this girl, removing the niqab in front of male students or teachers would likely be akin to me being told that I must remove my shirt in front of male students and teachers. I would feel so exposed and vulnerable, that I truly would be unable to focus on my learning.

Then what the hell kind of school did you pick? Stripper Academy? :p

From what I read in the article, it doesn't seem she would be removing in front of them, but not donning it at all, so she would be exposed equally to the female students and teachers as well.

If she is distracted by that, there is more to this case that we know. After all, everyone has discomfort that they have to tolerate in this world. There are times when we have little choice in the matter.

If she is discomforted by not being able to cover her face, maybe there is something happening in her home that forced her to think like that.

And the difference is that the work dress code is in place to protect the interests of the employer. The school dress code, if it is to exist at all, must be in place to protect the interests of the students. If the dress code itself becomes an obstacle to learning, it must be altered or discarded.

I believe the school uniform isn't to protect the students so much as it is to help the teachers and protect the interests of the school. By having a uniform there is no need to debate levels of acceptable dress and if someone doesn't comply, there is one set of rules for that, which apply to anyone else. It doesn't protect the students. It reduces distraction.

Hating it and feeling immodest are two very different things.

How would you feel if you were told that you couldn't receive an education unless you went without pants/skirt/etc.?

Obviously then that is not the school for me.

You pick the school, you accept the rules. If you don't like the rules, you find another school. There are schools that have more flexible rules than others.

I don't know, I'm not your average western girl. :p I'm a moderately psychotic woman. :D

Not being able to put yourself in someone's shoes is a bit part of the reason for your problem with this.

Actually, yes I do.

You feel exposed and vulnerable when not exposed? Seriously, could you at least *try* and come up with something that makes any sense at all?

Then what the hell kind of school did you pick? Stripper Academy? :p

You are trying to be facetious, but you're ignoring the fact that, to her, the two are probably near equivalent.

From what I read in the article, it doesn't seem she would be removing in front of them, but not donning it at all, so she would be exposed equally to the female students and teachers as well.

Ok, so I don't have to remove my shirt, I have to not wear it at all. That's even worse. Now I have to be seen shirtless by all the men and women on the way to school.

If she is distracted by that, there is more to this case that we know. After all, everyone has discomfort that they have to tolerate in this world. There are times when we have little choice in the matter.

When are we forced to dress immodestly - to feel exposed and vulnerable - just to get an education? Should we be?

If she is discomforted by not being able to cover her face, maybe there is something happening in her home that forced her to think like that.

Maybe. Maybe not. Does the fact that her viewpoint on modesty is different from yours mean that she was forced into it? Were you forced into your viewpoints in the home?

I believe the school uniform isn't to protect the students so much as it is to help the teachers and protect the interests of the school. By having a uniform there is no need to debate levels of acceptable dress and if someone doesn't comply, there is one set of rules for that, which apply to anyone else. It doesn't protect the students. It reduces distraction.

If it doesn't protect the students, there is no reason for it. The interests of the school are the students. If the school has any other interests, it shouldn't be a school.

Obviously then that is not the school for me.

You pick the school, you accept the rules. If you don't like the rules, you find another school. There are schools that have more flexible rules than others.

You can't just pick any school, you know. There are limits, often monetary, that determine what schools you can and cannot attend. Public schools should be open and accessible to anyone. No one should be forced to find and pay for a private school simply to receive a good education.

Meanwhile, this suggestion just causes the cultural separation that everyone has been ranting about. You're basically saying, "Don't want to be just like us? Fine then, form your own little group and don't be a part of ours." You're basically saying that you don't want all people within your society to have the opportunity to be a part of it. How wonderfully xenophobic of you.

Not being able to put yourself in someone's shoes is a bit part of the reason for your problem with this.

I don't want to put myself in someone else's shoes because I hate shoes. Now, you see, you're trying to make me experience extreme discomfort.

You feel exposed and vulnerable when not exposed? Seriously, could you at least *try* and come up with something that makes any sense at all?

How dare you insult my religious needs. They may seem silly to you, but they aren't to me. My feet have the moral right to not be covered with socks and shoes.

You are trying to be facetious, but you're ignoring the fact that, to her, the two are probably near equivalent.

I fail to see how being topless is the same as not wearing a veil.

Ok, so I don't have to remove my shirt, I have to not wear it at all. That's even worse. Now I have to be seen shirtless by all the men and women on the way to school.

Given that this is a school uniform, the others would have the same uniform standards to comply with.

When are we forced to dress immodestly - to feel exposed and vulnerable - just to get an education? Should we be?

And what is exactly immodest anyway?

Maybe. Maybe not. Does the fact that her viewpoint on modesty is different from yours mean that she was forced into it? Were you forced into your viewpoints in the home?

Whether most of us believe it or not, our views and beliefs are forcefully defined by the house, whether indoctrined so we believe the same bullshit our parents bought into, or we were so oppose that we deliberately adapted opposite beliefs simply out of spite. Either way, we are forced into our beliefs in some cases.

If it doesn't protect the students, there is no reason for it. The interests of the school are the students. If the school has any other interests, it shouldn't be a school.

It protects the interest of the school because there is one uniform to be worn by all students and not some ambiguous 'dress code'. With a strict uniform, the school leaves no squirming room for those who like to bend the rules when it comes to dress codes.

You can't just pick any school, you know. There are limits, often monetary, that determine what schools you can and cannot attend. Public schools should be open and accessible to anyone. No one should be forced to find and pay for a private school simply to receive a good education.

Not all school boards have extreme restrictions on what schools you can do to. In most cases, they call for the parents to sign up at the closest one, though some might take the one that's not necessarily close to home, but it's easier to drive the child there.

With high school, I know that at least with my school board, the students were able to pick between one of four possible schools in the area. If they applied to the board, they could go to an out-of-zone school. I knew many cases where the students came from far to come to my school, which was restricted to those in zone and those who auditioned to get in.

There is often choice involved and when it comes to schools, it's the parents who make the choice.

Meanwhile, this suggestion just causes the cultural separation that everyone has been ranting about. You're basically saying, "Don't want to be just like us? Fine then, form your own little group and don't be a part of ours." You're basically saying that you don't want all people within your society to have the opportunity to be a part of it. How wonderfully xenophobic of you.

I'm saying that there are rules when you're in a school. There are rules on how we can dress.

Some schools have mandatory uniforms, others have strict dress codes and others, mainly public schools have loose dress codes, if any.

Now, if the girl was in an obvious public school, where there was a basic dress code, there would be no problem, but when you get into schools with uniforms, when the school starts to bend the rules for one student, then others will want them bent for them. It doesn't matter what their ethnic or religious background is. If there is leeway given to one, you have to consider other peoples' needs.

I'm simply saying that sometimes we have rules we hate, and as much as I didn't like the idea of a mandatory uniform (the school board contemplated making uniforms mandatory for all public schools at one point in Ottawa), the rules are there for a reason.

I don't care if this girl wanted to wear a bed sheet to school. But, if the school has a uniform rule for clothes and they were allowing the hijab, but drawing the line at the niqab, I don't see how that is a bad thing. They've given a little, but kept their policies in line so others don't feel slighted.

Now, I'll admit, I don't like the veil, but for a reason that has nothing to do with anything other than my hearing decifit.

I have a hearing disorder and I sometimes rely on watching the mouth to pick up the verbal cues that I miss. When I don't have that, I feel awkward and I find that the few I have spoken to who wore something like this were hard for me with my hearing deficit to understand.

Don't call me xenophobic because I don't hear right and I prefer to read lips while listening.

Other than that, I have no conflict with it. It's their choice if they want to be dressed like that.

I am only defending the school's right to have strict uniform policies and to enforce them. If it was a case where there is no uniform, I'd side with the girl.

Their own people are working against acceptance of this unnnecessary item of clothing.

It's necessary to them.

The niqab has a place in Islam? Sounds like just cultural baggage to me.

Communion has a place in Catholicism? Sounds like just cultural baggage to me.

I fail to see how being topless is the same as not wearing a veil.

Being topless would be my idea of immodesty (as would wearing very revealing clothing) - a point at which I would feel exposed, vulnerable, and would be unable to concentrate. Being without the veil would be her idea of immodesty - and would likely invoke similar feelings. In order to make a comparison, you have to go with a proper comparison.

Given that this is a school uniform, the others would have the same uniform standards to comply with.

And the fact that many young girls would feel horribly vulnerable and exposed would make that a bad uniform choice don't you think?

And what is exactly immodest anyway?

That's a subjective question.

Whether most of us believe it or not, our views and beliefs are forcefully defined by the house, whether indoctrined so we believe the same bullshit our parents bought into, or we were so oppose that we deliberately adapted opposite beliefs simply out of spite. Either way, we are forced into our beliefs in some cases.

Or some of us just ended up with different beliefs than our parents by .... you know, actually thinking about it.

It protects the interest of the school because there is one uniform to be worn by all students and not some ambiguous 'dress code'. With a strict uniform, the school leaves no squirming room for those who like to bend the rules when it comes to dress codes.

What interest of the students is served by the school having to worry about whether or not the proper uniform is being worn?

Not all school boards have extreme restrictions on what schools you can do to. In most cases, they call for the parents to sign up at the closest one, though some might take the one that's not necessarily close to home, but it's easier to drive the child there.

With high school, I know that at least with my school board, the students were able to pick between one of four possible schools in the area. If they applied to the board, they could go to an out-of-zone school. I knew many cases where the students came from far to come to my school, which was restricted to those in zone and those who auditioned to get in.

There is often choice involved and when it comes to schools, it's the parents who make the choice.

And is this girl guaranteed a school that she can go to without being forced to dress, in her mind, inappropriately?

I'm saying that there are rules when you're in a school. There are rules on how we can dress.

Unless those rules can be shown to be in the best interest of the students, they should not exist.

I am only defending the school's right to have strict uniform policies and to enforce them. If it was a case where there is no uniform, I'd side with the girl.

If the school cannot show that the uniform they have chosen is in the student's best interest, they are not serving the purpose of a school by instituting it.