But there's a difference - a kilt is traditional Scots male dress yes, but its' not religious, not something you "have" to put on as part of your race or religion, and you have a choice Were Scots ever forced to wear kilts? 
First of all, a dumb blonde with her tits almost falling out of her shirt is more provocative than a woman wearing a scarf in my opinion, don't you think so, too? I mean a woman who wears a scarf does it, because she believes it is a law of God's. I can't believe a "dumb blond" is showing lots of skin because she thinks she is obliged to do so or because she believes that otherwise she will be punished in her after-life.Markgway wrote:This joke's for LD: Where in the Middle East would you find a dumb blonde with massive tits?
Which isn't true... there's no law in Islam which requires these specific garments. It's purely a matter of choice. Dressing modestly (as decreed) and covering up completely aren't the same thing. This case has been manipulated by Islamic extremists to cause friction where there was none. The majority of the school's pupils are Muslim and had no problem with the existing uniform. And again I ask: Is religious freedom more important than "tradition" or personal freedom. No one seems to answer.grim_tales wrote:I hear what you're saying Mark, freedom for all.The girl has no choice.
The answer was Jordan. But I don't suppose you've heard of her in Germany? And yes on an obvious level. But provocation takes many forms.thelostdragon wrote:First of all, a dumb blonde with her tits almost falling out of her shirt is more provocative than a woman wearing a scarf in my opinion, don't you think so, too?
Again, this is my fault for the joke which you clearly didn't get. But to answer: in the UK a law of God is not a law of the land. As a secular country we shouldn't distinguish between religious law or reasoning and non-religious.I mean a woman who wears a scarf does it, because she believes it is a law of God's. I can't believe a "dumb blond" is showing lots of skin because she thinks she is obliged to do so or because she believes that otherwise she will be punished in her after-life.
Progression??Man, you should go to Lebanon for example. Lots of Russian foreigners live there and their ladies walk around like they wouldn't even do in Russia because it's too cold there to do so. There are even Russian prostitutes in Lebanon. Great, huh?
) I'm sorry 
Fair point then. I've met my fair share of Scotts and I never got the impression it's anything more than a laugh now a days. You're right if it is that important then yes it should be allowed. The big difference is we may moan it's not fair but I'm willing to bet no Scott would go to court over it, as the person we're discussing has.Markgway wrote:Maybe to you, an ENGLISHman, a Kilt is a laugh, but many Scots take in seriously. Are their feelings not to be taken into account?
I happen to agree but if you have religious beliefs at a young age (which may or may not be affected by your parents beliefs) it seems unfair to me to quash these while you're at school.I happen to think there's no place for religion in schools at all. It's a private matter and should be kept for home. Once someone is an adult they can make their own choices.
The most ridiculous thing is the section of society (in this case black people) who are supposed to be offended by this term aren't even offended.Stupidity. Do these muppets not realise that doing this in minorities names (when they want no part of it) causes additional friction. Everytime an act of PC hits the fan a minority pays the price. But the liberals don't care as long as they're seen to be doing the "right" thing.
Yep but it goes back to what I said about non-Europeans fighting all the way to court. It's one thing to moan but if you're really not happy about it then prove it.Markgway wrote:I remember at our School Muslim girls were allowed to wear trousers, but not white girls. Racist?
Interesting. I'm wondering why someone would go to so much trouble over what is to me just a hair cut.thelostdragon wrote:[And about SHARP Skins. SHARP stands for "SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice". I won't go too far off topic, but here is a link with a bit of their history. http://www.skullyrecords.com/sharp.htm
I'm sorry but i don't understand that at all. IMO segregation based on race is appalling (look at how blacks were treated early this century in America). Thats really strange that he should SUPPORT segregation, I bet if a white person said that Trevor Phillips would codemn him.
The pupils are disruptive because they are disruptive, not disruptive because they are of a certain race/group. 
I doubt most Scots would care that much... I don't. Never worn a Kilt in my life, just used to make an example. But my point about the freedom is valid.bradavon wrote:Fair point then. I've meat my fair share of Scotts and I never got the impression it's anything more than a laugh now a days. You're right if it is that important then yes it should be allowed. The big difference is we may moan it's not fair but I'm willing to bet no Scott would go to court over it, as the person we're discussing has.
You not English? Sorry, I assumed. And I think there was a need to mention your "Englishness" to show how what's important to one culture isn't to another, but that every culture/person has the freedom to choose. As a non-Scot as soon as I mentioned Kilt you thought it was funny. But If I said I thought Jihab's were funny you'd call me racist. See the inconsistancy?There was no need to add my "Englishness" into the equation as that's not a completely accurate statement anyway.
It's not quashing them to ask children to keep their religious beliefs in check during school hours. I doubt any God will strike someone down for wearing an approved school uniform. Bear in mind that Britain is already highly tolerant to religious dresscode. All I'm arguing for is that the same tolerance be afforded to everyone.I happen to agree but if you have religious beliefs at a young age (which may or may not be affected by your parents beliefs) it seems unfair to me to quash these while you're at school.
Exactly. The number of times I've read quotes from Muslim representatives complaining about white liberals acting in their name without consultation must be into triple figures within the last few years. Let Muslims speak for themselves or are the liberal elite frightened of what they might say?The most ridiculous thing is the section of society (in this case black people) who are supposed to be offended by this term aren't even offended.
You're right. That'll never happen. Whites are sometimes to passe about these things. They'll either accept rules or break them but never actually challenge them. More fool us. Although our girls in school did eventually win the right to wear trousers.Markgway wrote:Yep but it goes back to what I said about non-Europeans fighting all the way to court. It's one thing to moan but if you're really not happy about it then prove it.
Trevor Phillips is an idiot. Practically every statement he makes is useless. I wouldn't pay any attention to his peculiar views. Segregating black pupils? Why don't we just go back to the days when the niggers sat at the back of the bus? Are these people determined to split races apart? Undoing all the good work of the Civil Rights movement. In the 60's they had Martin Luther King. Now we have a Trevor Philips. WTF happened???grim_tales wrote:Branching out a little, I heard a report that said Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Commission for Racial Equality said that black pupils should be taught seperately in class from white pupils as they are not getting good GCSE's, and this would help them concentrate better, or something like that.
Right idea, wrong reason. It's been suggested cautiously that the reason Black males do so poorly at school is a lack of discipline and male role models (ie. fathers). The percentage of Black kids without Dads compared to the positively nuclear Asians is alarming. Mothers often cannot cope and fail to steer their children away from gang culture and the frankly detremental hip-hop attitude of live fast, take drugs, commit drive-bys and bling 'til you drop.bradavon wrote: It's a fact (or so I think it is) that white pupils and not just in the UK do better at school than black pupils but yes I agree separating them won't make much difference. It's more to do with the fact (again or so I believe) that black kids are generally brought up worse off than white kids. In a mainly white society!
Name a Black Politician without looking it up. That's why? Nothing to do with any form of racism. But a general malaise on the part of Black males who have no social ambition. It's tragic and something needs to be done. But segregation is a fool's answer.Why has there never been a black prime minister, for example!
Why should the other pupils be allowed to have that hair while the girl is excluded? 