Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Islamic Veils [split from BBC, CNN...]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Islamic Veils [split from BBC, CNN...]

    Veil teacher 'should be sacked'
    A Muslim teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove her veil in class should be sacked, a local government minister has said.
    There are dress codes for teachers that should be followed regardless of a persons race, gender or religion. If I worshipped Satan you certainly wouldn't catch me wearing my ritualistic apparel to work. The rules for the custodians (teachers) of children should be constant "right across the board"
    But Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor.
    Obviously the veil can be removed if the individual in question deems the situation serious enough to do so.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...rd/6050392.stm

  • #2
    Originally posted by voilodian ghagnasdiak
    Obviously the veil can be removed if the individual in question deems the situation serious enough to do so.
    As I understand it, the ordinance only requires the veil to be worn when men are present - though as VG points out, she removed it for her interview. I don't know what the situation is like at the school in this specific case, but it's very uncommon (in my experience) for Primary Schools (ages 4-7) to have any male teachers in them. (Often the janitor will be a man.)

    But that's not really the point because she's actually teaching young children not adults, and therefore I utterly fail to see what possibly justification there can be for keeping the veil on in front of children. It seems to me that everything is being discussed in absolute terms - she must not wear the veil, she will wear the veil - rather than reaching some compromise - i.e. she won't wear it in the classroom when teaching, she may wear it outside the classroom when men are present. I mean, how hard can it be?

    I don't buy the argument that because the children haven't complained to her she doesn't have a case to answer. Children at that age - and I speak from a personal case here - don't know they can complain about a teacher's 'behaviour', they accept it because they don't know any different.

    I just feel that this is a case being made for its own sake rather like the case of Denbigh High School and the Jilbab. I predict the next dress issue in the UK will involve someone who wants to wear the complete burqa (wherein the entire face is covered).

    To give my comments some context, I believe the French decision to ban the wearing of headscarfs in schools was wrong, but I tend towards the view that strict enforcement of the hibab is anti-women - whatever some (Islamic) women themselves may believe - just as I'm sure in the pre-anti-slavery period in the US there were probably some slaves who accepted that slavery was acceptable.

    But I'm interested in what others think about the matter.
    _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
    _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
    _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
    _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe the French decision to ban the wearing of headscarfs in schools was wrong
      the rule exists also in Turkey .... and has been valided by the European court of Strasbourg.

      The problem was that the whole affair came from a programmed offensive by islamists. there were tolerance and compromises but this was thrown down when hundreds of children " wanted " to wear head scarves.

      After the law was passed, the problem stopped !

      But never it has been envisaged to authorize a teacher or a woman working in public service to wear headscarves while working.

      To be precise :

      I would tolerate head scarves if women were free to wear ot not the veil .

      But the veil is the symbol of inferiority of women, of their slavery .....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by David Mosley

        But I'm interested in what others think about the matter.
        The veil and the burka are instruments for repressing women.
        Last edited by Jerry Cornelius; 10-16-2006, 05:11 PM.
        "Jerry Cornelius was based, for instance, on a young man I used to see around Notting Hill where there was also a greengrocer called Cornelius of London."

        --Michael Moorcock

        Comment


        • #5
          [Time for another split.]

          This particular story has been blown out of all proportion by the media: Clearly the woman was disingenuous at her interview and so her employers are fully justified in terminating her contract. If you go through life veiled, you should expect some avenues of opportunity not to be open to you.

          If you have long hair and work with food, you are expected to tie it up. If you refuse, you lose your job. This is exactly the same principle.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johneffay
            [Time for another split.]

            This particular story has been blown out of all proportion by the media: Clearly the woman was disingenuous at her interview and so her employers are fully justified in terminating her contract. If you go through life veiled, you should expect some avenues of opportunity not to be open to you.

            If you have long hair and work with food, you are expected to tie it up. If you refuse, you lose your job. This is exactly the same principle.
            Agreed. She was effectively skewered over her dishonesty on BBC news. When confronted with the question "did you wear a veil during your interview and was a man present then?" she blanked the interviewer, then pretended she didn't understand the question, then asked if she had to answer every question put to her, then said she didn't want to comment on that topic, and then finally admitted that there had been a man present and she hadn't been wearing a veil. Later in the interview she added that she hadn't been expecting him to be there and had been caught off guard. Don't believe her, myself. I fully support the right of muslim women to wear veils, headscarves and all the rest of it, but this young lady was taking the piss.
            The name that can be named is not the true name.

            Comment


            • #7
              the problem is that too often, they have not the choice and to admit she voluntarly unveiled herself in front of men can lead to repraisals.

              A medecine university dean told me in France that he received a young woman hysteric in presence of her family about going veiled. He did not accept she went to her duties veiled in the hopital and some times after, she thanked him privately .......

              Comment


              • #8
                Blair is now poking his nose into a private legal dispute between a worker and her employer. This is populism of the lowest type - Blair honestly believes that the Daily Mail is the barometer of the nation. Well, even if it is, why sink to that level? But Blair has no depths he wouldn't crawl and grovel to.

                What bothers me is ll this talk of "integration". The Islamicists have pushed tolerance too far with their cowardly homicide bombs - but aren't we in danger of becoming their mirror image if we talk in terms of a homogenous culture and set of values we all must subscribe to?

                Blair talks of barriers - but I say an absolute barrier separates me from the likes of him and his revolting hypocrisy. I believe I have been completely disenfranchised by his right-wing pseudo-Trotskyist entryist manouevres in the Labour Party, which he has wrecked totally as an instrument for representing the interests of working people. And he's worried about a woman and a piece of cloth?!

                Since when has sacking someone from their job helped "integrate" them anyway? This really is rubbish. My mind goes back to the Thatcher era when she attacked the "new age travellers" and festival-going community. The "so-called peace convoy" (as the papers insisted on calling them) were trashed in the beanfield on the way to Stonehenge.

                After that, you found a new breed of travellers - verminous scum like the self-proclaimed "Brew Crew" who had two interests in life - battling with the authorities and screwing up everyone else. Genuine idealistic travellers either migrated abroad or else were so demoralised they destroyed themselves with drugs. A few, I guess, must have settled down with mortgages and "integrated".

                I can see something similar happening tot he Muslim community - more violent psychos who want some glory converting and committing atrocities (to the Daily HateMail's secret delight), while the real (i.e. peaceful) Muslims become more and more demoralised and excluded.

                Meanwhile, mainstream society becomes more and more intolerant, freedom of speech and other liberties curtailed, we will all have to walk around with Blair-like rictus grins or else face interrogation as to why our values (faith in God, Queen, and Market) aren't correct.

                Suddenly, this has got to do with much more than what some silly woman did or didn't say at her interview.
                \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mikey_C
                  What bothers me is ll this talk of "integration". The Islamicists have pushed tolerance too far with their cowardly homicide bombs - but aren't we in danger of becoming their mirror image if we talk in terms of a homogenous culture and set of values we all must subscribe to?

                  Suddenly, this has got to do with much more than what some silly woman did or didn't say at her interview.
                  Democratic societies cannot function if a vast majority of people does not share a set of common value, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and of changing religion or not having a religion, personnal security and freedom against the state, freedom of style of life as long as it does not harm others etc ......

                  The problem is not with many muslims who accept these values at least for others, but with islamists for whom these values are blasphems, even if they use the words to protect their extremism.

                  People as Blair and Bush use also these words to kill freedom ....... but that would be another thread.

                  Where you are right is that if we renonce these values we will become as ennemies of democracy.

                  " They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security " Franklin

                  The biggest problem is that most people do not know the fundamentals od freedom and democracy. In France some years ago, the french declaration of human rigths of 1789 was presented to people asking to sign it. Many refused because disagreing with the text who is one of the main legal french text protecting them.

                  WWII lessons are forgotten !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by johneffay
                    Clearly the woman was disingenuous at her interview and so her employers are fully justified in terminating her contract. If you go through life veiled, you should expect some avenues of opportunity not to be open to you.
                    Playing at the Devil's advocate here. I find myself in a corporate environment wherein misrepresentation of reality is used constantly to belay peoples reactions. It's called "expectation managment". My professional experience with sales and marketing people are not dissimiliar. Surely the people she duped have duped others themselves. I'm referring to her employers.

                    I have accepted the probability that the large percentage of those opposed to the veil has more to do with prejudice than worry over children (present company excepted). This prejudice or fear is probably the prime aggravating factor in the wearing of those veils. If the politicians would shut the hell up for once, and the general public would stop gawking, one would expect the sense of security these women get from those veils would be unnecessary and they could be set free from thier slavery and their Neanderthal captors would have to reconsider their ridiculous expectations.

                    I agree that she should not wear the veil in class. Children have to see your face.
                    Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Morgan Kane
                      In France some years ago, the french declaration of human rigths of 1789 was presented to people asking to sign it. Many refused because disagreing with the text who is one of the main legal french text protecting them.
                      Amazing. This sounds like something Jay Leno or Howard Stern would do for one of their shows. They frequently make fun of people and their apparent lack of knowledge.
                      Infinite complexity according to simple rules.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        JC Posted:
                        The veil and the burka are instruments for repressing women.
                        ...And that is something that we don't need taught to our children.
                        I consider a majority of the women from the middle east as being quite beautiful. All women should have the freedom to be able to absorb sunlight and fresh air at will. Any type of face covering can hide a persons true identity and could create a potentially dangerous situation for children to be in. The inability to identify an imposter or undesirable character around kids is a scary thought.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Reinart der Fuchs
                          I have accepted the probability that the large percentage of those opposed to the veil has more to do with prejudice than worry over children (present company excepted). This prejudice or fear is probably the prime aggravating factor in the wearing of those veils. If the politicians would shut the hell up for once, and the general public would stop gawking, one would expect the sense of security these women get from those veils would be unnecessary and they could be set free from thier slavery and their Neanderthal captors would have to reconsider their ridiculous expectations.
                          You misunderstand the meaning of the veil .....

                          An iranian woman made a book : Bas les voiles ! de Chahdortt Djavann.

                          I don't know if he was translated ........

                          In Iran of the Shah, democratic women made protests to obtain the freedom of the veil for the women who wanted to bear it. When islamic revolution came, muslim women refused to protest against the obligation to weart the veil an against opression of women.

                          Coran says that women must cover their hairs and that women and men must respect modesty. He says also that the women of the prophet must be veiled.

                          But the veil has become the symbol of the opression of women in orthodox/integrist countries.

                          Women cannot marry against the wishes of their parents, in saudi arabia cannot travel or sleep in an hotel without a male parent, etc .....

                          In Afghanistan of Talibans, it was worse ...

                          The fight for the veil by islamists is a fight to impose islamic rules in a no muslim country and the oppressive statute of women .... ( stoning ? )

                          As long as a woman has not the choic in beraring the veil or not, i am against the veil every where, ..... not by prejudice but because of his meaning ....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree. Nobody has any problem with nuns 'dressing modestly', viz:



                            (Do you know how difficult it is to Google images of 'nuns' without coming up against a load of po.rn or bondage sites?)

                            But no-one insists they wear veils when they meet other people. I wouldn't find a semi-translucent veil problematic if that was an acceptable compromise for muslim women who wanted to wear a full face veil:



                            (Sorry, it's the best I can find, but you get the idea hopefully.)

                            But if I'm honest I do find this whole covering one's face completely very disturbing:



                            It's one of life's little ironies imo that when foreigners come to Britain they're practically encouraged to retain their cultural identities and customs, some of which the indigenous population will eventually adopt (to the extent that Chicken Tikka Masala is not only one of the most popular dishes in Britain but it's believed to be a British invention). Yet when Westerners go to foreign countries - and I'm thinking particularly of Islamic ones - there seems to be an expectation that they conform to the customs and traditions of that country.

                            This is where the current seismic fault lines seem to be appearing: liberal western democracies are finding that their values are (apparently) threatened by people who don't share those same values.

                            It's interesting that apparently in France the opposite strategy of complete integration - ie you become French first and black, muslim, whatever, etc. second - hasn't been any more successful than Britain's 'policy' of multi-culturalism.

                            Fear is at the heart of all this. On the one hand, fear that by imposing your cultural values on others that you're somehow infringing their human rights or betraying your own liberal values; and on the other, fear of the outsider, the stranger, the unknown. Mike's novel The Shores of Death has some very pertinent points to make about the effects of Fear in the current climate I think.
                            _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                            _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                            _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                            _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              you are right : when a non muslim western woman comes in an islamic country, she must obbey the local codes .......... It proves that the matter is not a religious one.

                              French model of integraztion was effective till the end of the sixties. It was dynamited by unemployement ant social crisi but alos because the french elites do not believe any more in the model.

                              The rise of the ultra right did not help.

                              At the begining of the eighties, french immigrants made protest walks .. " marches pour l' égalité des droits " ( walks for equality of rights ) who were unsuccessfull.

                              Immigrants wanting to benefit from the rights of every citizen, being hurt by rejection and racism, reacted saying, if you want us to be mulsims, we will be .....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X