Can I send my son to school dressed in a Kilt?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 Mar 2005, 20:26

"A 15-year-old Muslim girl has won the right to wear full Islamic dress at her school in the latest European case pitting the religious rights of minority communities against Western ways of life.

The Court of Appeal upheld Shabina Begum's case against her school's refusal to let her wear a jilbab, which covers the whole body except for hands and face.

Speaking outside court, Begum, of Bangladeshi origin, said she was a victim of what she called a general vilification of Islam since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"As a young woman growing up in post-9/11 Britain, I have witnessed a great deal of bigotry from the media, politicians and legal officials," she said.

"This bigotry resulted from my choice to wear a piece of cloth ... It is amazing that in the so-called free world I have to fight to wear this Islamic dress."

The ruling -- which delighted groups representing the country's 1.6 million Muslims -- contrasted with France's controversial policy on the same issue.

Last year, Paris banned all conspicuous religious clothing or symbols in state schools, including Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.

"There, it was a political decision that was taken to persecute their Muslim minority, whereas in this country the open attitude taken with Islamic practice will reap more benefits," the Muslim Association of Britain said.

"Today's judgment is a welcome slap in the face for the French headscarf ban," it added in a statement.

"HOPE FOR MILLIONS"

Elsewhere in Europe, some German states have barred Muslim teachers in state schools from wearing headscarves.

Belgium plans to ban overt religious symbols for civil servants dealing with the public.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that Turkey, the only majority Muslim country with a secular constitution, could legally ban Islamic headscarves at its universities to defend public order.

The Appeal Court's three-judge panel found that the High Court, in rejecting Begum's case last year, had denied her rights under European human rights legislation.

"The school failed to appreciate that by its action it was infringing on the claimant's Article 9 right to manifest her religion," said Judge Scott Baker.

Begum started at Denbigh High School in Luton in September 2000, and at first wore a shalwar kameez -- consisting of trousers and tunic -- which school rules allowed.

But as her interest in Islam deepened, she returned in September 2002 with a jilbab and was told to go home and change.

"Our belief in our faith is the one thing that makes sense in a world gone mad. A world where Muslim women, from Uzbekistan to Turkey, are feeling the brunt of policies guided by western governments," Begum added in her statement on Wednesday.

"I sincerely hope, therefore, that my small victory -- to gain an education -- brings hope to millions of Muslim women round the world."

The High Court had last year rejected Begum's argument that her education was suffering and her human rights were breached as a result. A judge said she had always had the option of attending school in clothes under school rules.

The school, where 80 percent of pupils are Muslim, said it lost the case on a "technicality" of rights law."

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 02 Mar 2005, 21:05

better question would surely be 'does your son want to go to school dressed in a kilt and does your son also find it morally comprimising not to wear a kilt??'

m.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 02 Mar 2005, 22:38

If they want to live in our country they should abide by our rules just as we have to. I am not racist, I just think that is fair, that's all.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 Mar 2005, 23:50

I dont give a shit what someone wears, as long a sthey still treat me with respect and behave normally. If this girl is religious and wants to wear it out of respect for her faith and all her forefathers and mothers etc, then she should be able to do so without being oppressed with our western thoughts about the islam, and the islamic oppression of women.

If she is going to school, learning to open her mind and grows up ina truly free environement and society, then we should also trust her to make her own decision about what she wants to wear. And respect her decision, even if we cant understand it.

I personally am not religious, so I think all that shit is absolute bullocks, but I do feel that as long as they don't bother me (and them dressing a certain way doesnt bother me, why would it?) and they still treat me with respect etc (as I respect them), the should be allowed to do/say/wear whatever they want...

This is supposed to be a FREE society. Clothing is a personal choice.
I'm sure some people are scared of seeing a walking tent with 2 eyes, but if we would forbid any garments or accessoires that scare us, we can also start forbidding tattoos, piercings, leather motor jackets, long beards, black boots, skinheads etc...

BTW: you would be one cruel dad if you would send ur kid to school in a sissy-boy skirt...

ICE-angel · Post by **ICE-angel** » 03 Mar 2005, 01:14

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Mar 2005, 01:38

Mordib wrote:better question would surely be 'does your son want to go to school dressed in a kilt and does your son also find it morally comprimising not to wear a kilt??'

It's difficult to photocopy your arse wearing trousers!!

My points is: either have School Uniform or don't. Can't say it's OK for you guys (regardless of who they are or their reasons) to wear what you like, but you lot: ties 'n' blazers.

I was always pretty sloppily dressed when I was at School, but we had to wear some kind of uniform. Not sure I'm in favour of it. Seems little point these days. But if there is a uniform everyone should have to stick by it. If that girl gets to wear a headscarf, my son gets to wear a Kilt.

See problem is: with laws like this you open a can of worms. How can you say someone's religious freedom is more important than another person's personal freedom? Isn't that offensive to basic human rights?

As for the "morally compromising" bit. Anyone buy that? How is covering your hair "morally compromising"? There's nothing in Islam that forces this to be true. It's a misogynistic cultural rule that has nothing to do with religion. And these girls are supposed to be British. Last time I checked there was no UK law which required Muslims to cover their hair and skin. These girls want to be this way because they are sadly brainwashed by repressive males who think women should be seen and not heard. I've met countless Muslim girls who dress as westerners. Does this make them slappers or whores?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Mar 2005, 01:48

Yi-Long wrote:I personally am not religious, so I think all that shit is absolute bullocks, but I do feel that as long as they don't bother me (and them dressing a certain way doesnt bother me, why would it?) and they still treat me with respect etc (as I respect them), the should be allowed to do/say/wear whatever they want...

The dress code doesn't bother me in some respects (I really hate the women who end up looking like Ninjas); it's the hypocrisy of this country that does.

This is supposed to be a FREE society. Clothing is a personal choice.

But not for everyone which was the gist of my argument. Freedom for you guys, but not you over there. You: yes. You: 'fraid not.

but if we would forbid any garments or accessoires that scare us, we can also start forbidding tattoos, piercings, leather motor jackets, long beards, black boots, skinheads etc...

Some of those are banned in British schools which I think proves my theory regarding the hypocrisy. I couldn't have a tattoo on my shoulder showing, but would it make a difference if I said Tattooism is my religion?

BTW: you would be one cruel dad if you would send ur kid to school in a sissy-boy skirt...

That's criticizing my national dress. RACIST! RACIST!

ICE-angel · Post by **ICE-angel** » 03 Mar 2005, 04:15

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 03 Mar 2005, 08:11

Markgway wrote:As for the "morally compromising" bit. Anyone buy that? How is covering your hair "morally compromising"? There's nothing in Islam that forces this to be true. It's a misogynistic cultural rule that has nothing to do with religion. And these girls are supposed to be British. Last time I checked there was no UK law which required Muslims to cover their hair and skin. These girls want to be this way because they are sadly brainwashed by repressive males who think women should be seen and not heard. I've met countless Muslim girls who dress as westerners. Does this make them slappers or whores?

You've highlighted another part of the problem here, the line between religeon and culture is very blurred in this case. is it part of their religeon that says that they have to cover up? by most interpretations accepted in muslim circles the answer is yes. But this arguement is flawed because in different parts of the world there are different interpretations, each inflicting slightly different inequalities on women suggesting that its not so much the will of god as it is the will of man.

And as for the countless women youve met who dress as westerners, with any luck they do so becaue their families have relaxed away from the rules somewhat, the fact is to the devout muslims they actually are sinners (I dont know whether they would use hoar and slapper as descriptions..) of the highest degree.

What i'm trying to say is that to these girls that fully believe in their religeon it is morally compromising to not cover up. From an outside perspective we see it as unfair cultural brainwashing, but to them their culture and religeon are one and the same, no matter how daft we think it is it could be truly upsetting for someone in such a situation if they were not allowed to cover up.

m.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 03 Mar 2005, 18:14

ICE-angel wrote:
gasteropod wrote:If they want to live in our country they should abide by our rules just as we have to.
I actually agree with that to an extent (read, "tough luck that eating your neighbours alive is ok back home, mate"), but I wouldn't apply it to such a level as forcing people to dress in a specific way or depriving them of any other individual-specific or culture-specific harmless habits.

Yeah all I mean is that, where we have to abide by dress codes for school, so should foreigners. It's a one rule for all, equality-type thing. Hey, sorry if anything I'm saying sounds a bit harsh or racist, I find it hard to say it any other way lol

ICE-angel · Post by **ICE-angel** » 04 Mar 2005, 00:03

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Mar 2005, 13:56

I'd say no for the same reason someone asked if their 18 year old brother could where the man u shirt to school on Question Time. There is a huge difference between a man u shirt or kilt and a dress that is intrinsic to people's faiths and beliefs. Is there bigotry involved? Definitely no one asks Christians to remove the cross around their neck.

I think what the French government has done and out ruled clothes such as this in school is despicable and is against human rights. I can't believe they got away with it.

Should schools have a dress code? Yes definitely but it doesn't need to be set in stone.

gasteropod wrote:If they want to live in our country they should abide by our rules just as we have to. I am not racist, I just think that is fair, that's all.

Define "our" country? Many of these people are British and European citiziens. Aren't they allowed the same rights? It seems not.

Sorry but that sounds racist.

Yi-Long wrote:I'm sure some people are scared of seeing a walking tent with 2 eyes, but if we would forbid any garments or accessoires that scare us, we can also start forbidding tattoos, piercings, leather motor jackets, long beards, black boots, skinheads etc...

Exactly.

School teachers were ear rings to school. Some are ugly!

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Mar 2005, 14:57

Why in the world should there be school uniform anyways? Over here in Germany there is nothing like this anymore (since maybe 100 years or so). Neither is there school uniform in Holland and France or other parts of the world. Are the students of these countries less likely to be good students? I don't get the whole uniform stuff. Sounds more like army to me where they have to wear a uniform. And why do they have to do so in the army? In my opinion it is the first step of getting used to have no identity. To be the equal of a number. A digit that either gets erased in war or survives. To make stuff like forced death more bearable. Might sound over the top, but if you elaborate on that for some time, you will come to the same conclusion.

So do school uniforms prepare students to be just a number in this big society of nowadays? Hmmm...?

My sister wears a scarf. We never told her to. She started doing so one day and that's ok, not only with us, but to her schoolmates as well. Nobody is wondering about anything. Not even the teachers (well, most of them) because most young people over here are very aware of the fact that every single person is an individual. Wouldn't it be boring if everybody was the same? And I think eradicating or banning school uniforms is the first step to eradicate prejudice which some kids might have towards other cultures. When I was in school in Germany, I had all types of people in my class. I got to learn about some stuff I would never know otherwise. For example that not all skinheads are exactly Nazis. SHARP skins are something completely different. I didn't know that before one of these guys joined our school. From him I leraned about that stuff and now he is a good friend of mine and we go studying Mandarin together.

The most rudiculous thing is in my opinion, that teachers have been banned from wearing scarves. My mother teaches Arabic language and because she is a very good teacher, the school kept her and it is also one of the schools that fights against that law.

You know, on the one hand a lot of people complain about the fact that a lot of Muslim women are forced to stay at home (which indeed and sadly is a minority of families) or not willing to go and work, but on the other hand, employers do not accept a woman with a scarf to work something else than as a cleaning lady. And now they add the first law which bans a huge amount of women from teaching. This is the first step. Next comes women wearing a scarf mustn't work in public places or in official departments etc.

Totally insane in my opinion. I also think that the girl is right about the fact that there has been a general vilification of Islam after 9-11.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Mar 2005, 16:49

bradavon wrote: Define "our" country? Many of these people are British and European citiziens. Aren't they allowed the same rights? It seems not.

Sorry but that sounds racist.

Countries generally have a set of laws, rules and cultural beliefs. We are talking about people who don't want to abide by these UK rules, but instead abide by their country of origin's rules. That is all I mean, and yes I know what I said sounded racist but I didn't know how else to say it lol

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Mar 2005, 16:59

IMO the girl should be entitled to wear the scarf/jihlab (sp?) as it is part of her culture to wear it, its not hurting anyone.

If it isnt in the dress code, tough. The dress code should take account of religious dress.
Maybe you could get bullying and stuff if there ISN'T a uniform (some kids can't afford designer clothes etc), but I agree with LD, it forms part of who you are/your identity.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Mar 2005, 17:12

grim_tales wrote:IMO the girl should be entitled to wear the scarf/jihlab (sp?) as it is part of her culture to wear it, its not hurting anyone. If it isnt in the dress code, tough. The dress code should take account of religious dress.
Maybe you could get bullying and stuff if there ISN'T a uniform (some kids can't afford designer clothes etc), but I agree with LD, it forms part of who you are/your identity.

But why should people who don't have an alternative religion have to abide by a dress code then, that is my point. You can't make exceptions for some and not others, that is called unfair.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Mar 2005, 17:17

True

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Mar 2005, 17:26

gasteropod wrote:You can't make exceptions for some and not others, that is called unfair.

And that's why school uniform is bollocks.

When I lived in Jordan, I went to an English school and we had uniform there. Jordan is full of Muslims and lots of girls in this school wore the scarf over the uniform. All the others didnot intend to wear a scarf, so why is it unfair. I think the scarf should be more of something like a special permit, something others shoukdn't be jealous of.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 06 Mar 2005, 17:51

Yeah the school uniform is bollocks, but it harks back to when schools used to be really strict and formality was a very high priority. It is also to help control everyone and keep people as robots, in my opinion. Have you ever seen The Simpsons when they are made to wear the grey uniform and they all turn like mindless zombies? That is a slightly exaggerated version of reality.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Mar 2005, 18:19

Oh yeah, I remember that episode, The Joy of Sect

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Mar 2005, 22:23

bradavon wrote:I'd say no for the same reason someone asked if their 18 year old brother could where the man u shirt to school on Question Time. There is a huge difference between a man u shirt or kilt and a dress that is intrinsic to people's faiths and beliefs. Is there bigotry involved? Definitely no one asks Christians to remove the cross around their neck.

So you're saying that someone's religious freedom is more important than my personal freedom? Thanks.

I think what the French government has done and out ruled clothes such as this in school is despicable and is against human rights. I can't believe they got away with it.

At least they apply the rule to everyone.

Sorry but that sounds racist.

Typical on this forum. As soon as anyone disagrees with the PC brigade they're deemed racist. Pathetic.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Mar 2005, 22:37

thelostdragon wrote:Why in the world should there be school uniform anyways?

Tradition. But I'm not fussed about it either way. Been years since I was at School and even then I wore trainers which wasn't technically allowed.

My sister wears a scarf. We never told her to. She started doing so one day and that's ok, not only with us, but to her schoolmates as well.

When there's no uniform, no one would bother. It's not really about race, but about the hypocracy of allowing one group to wear what they like, but preventing everyone else from doing the same. Could my sister (I don't have one, mind) wear the same scarf? If yes, then that's fine.

Wouldn't it be boring if everybody was the same?

Absolutely. But there's a difference between BEING different and BEING ALLOWED to be different. Not everyone is given the same freedom of choice. But this recent ruling has virtually decreed that Muslims have MORE right to be different than anyone else.

For example that not all skinheads are exactly Nazis.

Just as well: us whiteys are afraid of male-pattern baldness!!

SHARP skins are something completely different.

What's that? Don't know this term.

Totally insane in my opinion. I also think that the girl is right about the fact that there has been a general vilification of Islam after 9-11.

There's been an equal amount of defending of it (at least in the U.K). The uniform ruling is the most recent example.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Mar 2005, 22:51

Why dont the schools that think these scarfs look too different from the normal school-uniforms etc, just make scarfs in the school colours which the islamic girls that want to wear scarfs, would have to buy!?
There. Problem solved.

I also feel that the whole school-uniform thing is kinda BS, btw. School shouldnt dictate one's personal freedom to wear whatever you want to wear. School is here to educate us. Nothing more nothing less.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Mar 2005, 23:12

LD what and who is a SHARP skin???

Personally I would be against students in college, university or the like having to wear a school uniform (which they do in Thailand for example) but a 5 year old kid who has no identity of his own yet anyway then yes I think it's right they should wear a uniform. Why? Because it adds to a level of discipline. In a school and I mean a school specifically you need a level of authority, school uniforms add to this.

I don't know about you but when I go to work in a shirt and trousers instead of jeans I feel more inclined to work. Interesting they have no school uniform in Germany, Holland and France.

Markgway wrote:So you're saying that someone's religious freedom is more important than my personal freedom? Thanks.

Nope. Where did I say that? I didn't. I said there is a big difference between wearing a kilt because it's a laugh and fun compared to someone's faiths and beliefs. Just like people should be allowed to wear the cross.

At least they apply the rule to everyone.

So that makes it okay then?

Typical on this forum. As soon as anyone disagrees with the PC brigade they're deemed racist. Pathetic.

When was I part of your so called PC brigade? How am I being part of said parade saying someone has made a racist comment?

There is a difference between being PC and racist. I work in the police force where political correctness has gone far to far to the extreme.

You're no longer allowed to say black board for example or nitty gritty because nitty gritty was originally a slave term. The fact it no longer remotely is seems to be irrelevant.

Markgway wrote:But this recent ruling has virtually decreed that Muslims have MORE right to be different than anyone else.

That's very much exaggerated.

Although I agree it's inevitable a mostly white European government is going to be more careful to ethnic minorities. For the same reason women can get away with male sexist jokes far more than men can (which really annoys me btw).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Mar 2005, 02:27

bradavon wrote:but a 5 year old kid who has no identity of his own yet anyway then yes I think it's right they should wear a uniform. Why? Because it adds to a level of discipline. In a school and I mean a school specifically you need a level of authority, school uniforms add to this.

You could argue that if a society is strong on and supportive of education (unlike the UK) uniform wouldn't be necessary for any age group. Discipline and conformity are two different things.

Markgway wrote:Nope. Where did I say that? I didn't. I said there is a big difference between wearing a kilt because it's a laugh and fun compared to someone's faiths and beliefs. Just like people should be allowed to wear the cross.

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? Or is it OK to oppress Scots, but not Muslims. Point is: freedom for one, freedom for all or it isn't worth anything. To me religion (of any kind) is of no higher authority than personal freedom and should have no legal bearing. But the court verdict has turned that upside down and has opened a can of worms that will cause even greater problems in future. And this is the opinion of many quoted leading British Muslims, not just me.

So that makes it okay then?

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.

There is a difference between being PC and racist.

Certainly, but you practically accused a forum member of racism for offering his opinion without prejudice. What gives you the right to level that kind of accusation because seomone doesn't agree with your Liberal (and they unquestionably are) attitudes. In its own round about the houses way PC can be just as dangerous as racism in the long term. But because people are afraid to talk about it: no one dares put that point across.

You're no longer allowed to say black board for example or nitty gritty because nitty gritty was originally a slave term. The fact it no longer remotely is seems to be irrelevant.

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.

Although I agree it's inevitable a mostly white European government is going to be more careful to ethnic minorities. For the same reason women can get away with male sexist jokes far more than men can (which really annoys me btw).

This joke's for LD: Where in the Middle East would you find a dumb blonde with massive tits?