It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Straw infuriates muslim women

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

he felt much more comfortable dealing with people with their faces uncovered.



He was being honest.

A LOT of people are uncomfortable dealing with others who hide their faces OR their eyes. Muslim women don't usually wear full coverings and hide their eyes, but most people want to be able to see the face of the person they are speaking with or having business dealings with.

It's human nature. You look into a persons eyes and at their face when you are speaking with them. It is also human nature to not trust someone when they hide their eyes or face from sight.

Jack Straw said nothing wrong. He voiced a natural human social response about those who hide their faces/eyes. This feeling isn't new. It's been around 'forever'. When i was growing up I heard my parents say that you couldn't trust anyone who hid their eyes or their face. My husband heard the same thing while he was growing up.

When people want to be considered trustworthy in personal dealings and in business they will look the other person in the eye and you will see their entire face. They will act as a person without anything to hide. This is part of Western society and culture. I guess the muslim women will have to learn to be TOLERANT of how Westerners feel and of western societys standards.

edited for spelling

[edit on 10/10/2006 by FlyersFan]




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Since we are discussing Straw's comments and the whole veil-not trustworthy thing ...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Terror suspect used burka/veil to avoid capture.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Since we are discussing Straw's comments and the whole veil-not trustworthy thing ...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Terror suspect used burka/veil to avoid capture.



Just like many non-muslims use scarves and hoods.


JAK

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I thought this might be of interest regarding this story:

    Cross row stokes Christian anger

    British Airways has asked a Christian member of staff to conceal her cross necklace because it contravenes the company's uniform policy. But has it added to a sense of unease among Christians?
Jak

[edit on 15/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I tell you what, the Church of England is going to end up becoming like the American Christian right within afew years. They have already attacked the Government for it ignoring the Church.

This idea by Labour that we can tell people what to wear and how they pratice their religion is going to back-fire, "PC politics" is getting very stupid now. Christmas is going to be very interesting this year, i remember Skynews were VERY strong on Christianity during Easter and ran numerous specials each day.

And if the Government is planning to seperate Church and State, expect choas.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
This idea by Labour that we can tell people what to wear and how they pratice their religion is going to back-fire


- "Labour" haven't told anyone what to do.

JS did not "tell" anyone what to wear either.

JS raised an issue some people (including many Muslims) believe he was perfectly right to raise.


"PC politics" is getting very stupid now.


- This has nothing to do with "PC".

It has everything to do with accurate communication
(which one might have thought was in everyone's interest and a fundamental element of 'freedom' - cos if you can't be understood properly your speech or expression can't be especially 'free' then, can it?).


Christmas is going to be very interesting this year


- Naaaa. It won't.

It'll be the usual stupid handful of stories of someone somewhere acting stupidly and parts of our media pretending that we're all soon to be forced to act just as stupidly.


i remember Skynews were VERY strong on Christianity during Easter and ran numerous specials each day.


- Oh there's no doubt some would love to try and import that craziness here but then they've been trying that for years in places here.
With little success thankfully.

......and no matter what tack Sky take they are still very much a tiny audience channel in the UK.


And if the Government is planning to seperate Church and State, expect choas.


- Why?

I don't disagree some would turn purple and splutter at the thought but then again when I lived in England I knew several very 'high Church' people who thought a 'dis-establishment' would be just what the C of E needed.

The 'low Church' would be probably even less interested.

Nevertheless I think it's probably not far from the case that if it did happen the majority of the nation wouldn't care less.

Maybe Charles 3rd will become 'defender of all faiths' and there will be a formal separation.
Personally I'd be happy to see the current farce ended.
I can see no sane reason why any specific (minority) religious dogma should play a role in formulating the laws of this country.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
What do you expect people argue over religious ideas, the veil is no exception. They do it, it happens. The problem people outside their religion is the women don't really have a choice, unless the men of the family feel differently about parts of the Quran.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Seems that no one can agree of this issue of muslim Women wearing the Veil:

Ministers disagreeing with one another of this issue in the Gov,


Phil Woolas told the Sunday Mirror that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she can't do her job".

Meanwhile, Labour MP for Dewsbury Shahid Malik said the volume of Muslim stories was having a corrosive impact.


Now a Shadow Minister from the tories, are criticising muslims - saying this could lead to apartied within the UK.



His comments were supported by shadow home secretary David Davis who, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, questioned whether a form of "voluntary apartheid" was being inadvertently encouraged.


Source

Also It seems that Muslim Medical Students, have also been banned from wearing veils in certains areas of Hospitals.




THE backlash against the veil grew yesterday as it was banned from hospitals.

Muslim medical students were barred from wearing it when they talk to hospital patients.

The move was ordered to "help to aid good communications" between Muslim medical students, their colleagues and patients.


My questions would be oks, ban Muslim medical students from wearing veils in certain areas, should this not also apply to wearing religious symbols?

This is certainly hotten up. Wonder how long this is going to continue before the "Bubble bursts on this issue", before something happens evens.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Just like many non-muslims use scarves and hoods.


Exactly. It's a matter of trust. Western society does not trust people who cover their faces and their eyes. It's just the way it is. Perhaps we are all used to seeing criminals with scarves and hoods ... and those old westerns with train robbers with their scarves across their faces .... whatever ... it's what we are used to ... not trusting those that do not show themselves openly.

[edit on 10/16/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
My questions would be oks, ban Muslim medical students from wearing veils in certain areas, should this not also apply to wearing religious symbols?


- I think the main thing here is to bear in mind that there has been no legal banning at all.

The Gov hasn't "banned" anything.

There has been no law passed banning the veil.

There has been some debate on the issue, with various views expressed and I can see nothing wrong with that.

It is however quite normal, proper and within the competence of various organisation (private and public, commercial and voluntary) to insist on certain standards and types of 'dress', which is what has happened at that school and with those medical students.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Muslim women are not required to wear veils, they are supposed to 'dress modestly'. The word for modest apparently is 'hijab'. Over time, 'hijab', dressing modestly, has been associated with the head scarf and veil.

Clearly, its not asking muslims too much to not walk around in face masks all day. Its hardly equivalent to a state of apartheid.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ya'll should read this. I found it very interesting. It definatley applies to this discussion.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

While she didnt' touch on religious reasons for wearing it, she does talk about what it felt like .. the isolation, etc.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   


The Gov hasn't "banned" anything.

There has been no law passed banning the veil.


It is however quite normal, proper and within the competence of various organisation (private and public, commercial and voluntary) to insist on certain standards and types of 'dress', which is what has happened at that school and with those medical students.


Sminkey? Did I say in my posting that the Government had banned the wearing of a veil?

I am saying that the veil is being banned from certain areas in hospitals, not by the government.


The bar on a full-face veil was ordered at Birmingham University school of medicine. Chiefs decided that Islamic women can cover their faces in lectures and around campus but not in the "clinical environments" of hospital buildings and GPs’ surgeries.


SOURCE

So it would be also proper for the School in question to either discipline/or sack the Female Teacher, who refuses to take her veil off in front of her male colleagues? And what would be the reprocutions if she was to be sacked? Employment Tribunial?, The Courts to decide on these cases.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Quite right and well said Nygdan, there is no Muslim religious requirement for a woman to be totally covered.

I am far from alone (prominent Muslim women have said exactly the same thing recently in the UK) in believing the veil which, like it or not, is all too often a means of repressing women and marking their 'other' status and a believed 'need' to be closed away and separated, totally unacceptable in our liberated, equal opportunity and secular society.

I am not saying it should be legally banned (because ultimately if one chooses to wear a covering from head to foot that is ones' own affair) but I can see no reason why it should just be accepted, with no debate, in public or commercial life.
In other words if you want to work in a school, fine, but if you cover yourself from top to toe then you may not work in a school.
Ditto a bank or a hospital etc etc.

Especially given the current backdrop (re fundamentalist terrorism).
It really does not help matters (in any of our communities).

I could care less whether a handful of Muslim women can be found to come out to support their total veiling (and I'd be very suspicious of the political motives behind such support.......it undoubtedly is now being used more and more as a political statement.
Hugely counter-productively, as is the way with all zealotry, IMO).

'We' need to find ways of communicating and cooperating together better to make sure we can all live the sort of free and respectful life 'we' all seem to claim to want.
Not separating ourselves and hiding behind unnecessary and unhelpful barriers.

(and all of the vicious unnatural fringe nutter zealots who claim 'the answer' is a fascist religious medieval state - whether that be a perverted version of so-called 'Christian' or 'Muslim', or any other faith, can go to hell.)

But generally speaking I find the 'defense' of what is and has been all too often a means of oppressing and repressing women thoroughly distasteful.....and, considering the quarters some of it has come from, quite bizarre too.

I'd also be very wary of the Daily Mail as a source though, that ex-Hitler supporting rag is renowned for outrageous slant and bias here.



[edit on 16-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   


I'd also be very wary of the Daily Mail as a source though, that ex-Hitler supporting rag is renowned for outrageous slant and bias here.


Oh Agrees with ya there, I wouldn't wipe my backside with the Daily Mail
, Prefers Broader Newspapers anyways.



But generally speaking I find the 'defense' of what is and has been all too often a means of oppressing and repressing women thoroughly distasteful.....and, considering the quarters some of it has come from, quite bizarre too.


Has this more to do with Religious bias or Womans Rights to choose what ever they want to wear? Or is this not a taboo anymore to criticisr any other religion in this country about the weay they act or not act.

I ask more questions dont I lol.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The teachers claims, with regards to her claims of discrimination and harrassment has been dismissed by an employment tribunal. But her claim of victimisation has been upheld.


Ms Azmi was today awarded £1,100 for "injury to feelings" after she succeeded in her claim of victimisation.

She was awarded £1,000 and an extra £100 because the respondent failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure.


Now she is consiering, appealing against the decision.

Source

Well seems the school was right in suspending her or removing her from the classroom. But the debate is continuing.

I will Link to another article, I do not want to take up alot of space on here
,

Here are some of her Claims that were rejected by the Tribunal:



Directly discriminated against her on the grounds of her religious belief. - Was Dismissed

Indirectly discriminated against her by applying a provision - Was Dismissed

Subjected her to detriments - Was Dismissed

Subjected her to a course of conduct - Was Dissmiees

She succeeded only in her final claim, that of victimisation, - Was Up Held


Source



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
It's a real 'scatter-gun' of complaint alright.

Interestingly it seems few wish to pick up certain aspects of this case.

As I understand it (having seen her interviewed and what she herself said) this person said she would remove the veil if only children were in the room.
If a male teacher was there she said would refuse to remove it.
Isn't this an example of her sexually discriminating against a man (and effectively denying a male colleague the right to work there with her)?

Her insistence tonight on TV that her wearing of the veil does not hinder her ability to teach young children (ie do her job properly) is an opinion few will ever be receptive to here IMO.

I simply cannot believe anyone (without an underlying agenda) would support the idea that a teacher can communicate fully and properly with young children when covered up completely from head to toe.
It's an obvious and completely ridiculous nonsense to pretend that such an incomplete and reduced means of communication is not only inconsequential but acceptable.
'We' are quite within our rights as a society to insist that publicly funded education be conducted in a manner most likely to lead to the best end results and not accept this artificial constraint and deliberate diminishing of potential.

It's one thing to choose 'God' for yourself but to inflict your religious views & attitudes (her own projection of religious discrimination?) upon children and possibly harm their potential in life is IMO completely outrageous.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   


It's one thing to choose 'God' for yourself but to inflict your religious views & attitudes (her own projection of religious discrimination?) upon children and possibly harm their potential in life is IMO completely outrageous.


Agrees with what ur posting above, I wont quote all ur comments, do not want warned
.

Seemingly when she went for her interview to work at that particular school, she had not started wearing the veil until sometime after she worked there. And supposingly it was a Male HeadTeacher who interviewed her. So How can she claim discrimination.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
It doesn't exactly help her case that the Koran doesn't even call for women to be completely covered anyway.

A few more comments from the politicians today -

But Dewsbury Labour MP Shahid Malik told the BBC: "I would appeal to Mrs Azmi now just to let this thing go. There is no real support for it......

......Mr Malik told BBC Look North the tribunal ruling was "absolutely spot on".
"I have got Muslim parents in my constituency who have said that they wouldn't send their children to a school where the teachers wore veils while they were teaching.

"I just think there is very little support for this, she is very isolated and it would be healthy all round if she just let it go and just accept the tribunal result," he told BBC Radio Leeds."

news.bbc.co.uk...

......and of course Ta daaaaa!!!!!!!
Was anyone not expecting this?

Dave 'let the sunshine win' Cameron has yet to find a passing bandwagon he could resist climbing aboard and adding the sound of his own voice to......
.....as he sits on the fence theatrically agonising over whether to say anything of substance either way in the debate.

Note the "slightly targeted" comment .......er, as he agrees with the school.
Pathetically ludicrous 'empty space' that he is.
-

Too many politicians are "piling in" to the debate on Muslim women who wear full-face veils, the Tory leader says.
David Cameron told ITV1's Frost Tonight he was concerned British Muslims were left feeling "slightly targeted".

But Mr Cameron said he sympathised with the school that suspended a teaching assistant who wore her veil in class.

news.bbc.co.uk...


(Did you get a warning for excessive or needless quoting sj?)



[edit on 20-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   


(Did you get a warning for excessive or needless quoting sj?)


No no not at all,

Have seen on other threads, members overusing other members quotes, an haven them cut down, so I do not want to go down that road.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join