Taking the veil

[Nova]

No she is NOT willing to remove her veil whilst assistant-teaching in the classroom.

that is the point.

she is a teaching assistant, not a teacher. the links explain her job position.

I am confused, since some posts above flat out stated "she has agreed to remove her veil while teaching kids."

Personally, I think there are reasons other than security as to why teachers in Western societies should not be veiled.

 

[Nova]

I could not agree more with this. I understand that W.O.V. is sympathetic to what (s)he believes is the persecution of this religion, however I would like to point out that in the U.S. crimes against Muslims are outweighed 7/1 by crimes against Jews. (religious persecution, indeed)

However, religion aside, I don't feel that anyone who is concealing their identity (regardless of religious persuasion) should be allowed in schools. Period.

Indeed, W.O.V. is right to caution us that whenever we start behaving toward people on the basis of the "group identity," we are in slippery territory. Morally and practically: I don't think anyone doubts that if airport screeners start searching only passengers who "look" Muslim or who have Arabic names, then terrorists will begin recruiting those who "look" or "sound" Western.

 

[Karole28]

Indeed, W.O.V. is right to caution us that whenever we start behaving toward people on the basis of the "group identity," we are in slippery territory. Morally and practically: I don't think anyone doubts that if airport screeners start searching only passengers who "look" Muslim or who have Arabic names, then terrorists will begin recruiting those who "look" or "sound" Western.

I do believe they already are. However, it's moot anyway. They're coming across the southern border as fast as they can. If they want in, they'll get in. While the NSA keeps harrassing little old ladies with their knitting needles.

 

[Floh]

I am confused, since some posts above flat out stated "she has agreed to remove her veil while teaching kids."

Personally, I think there are reasons other than security as to why teachers in Western societies should not be veiled.

You won't be confused if you read th links. she insists on keeping her veil on whilst assistant teaching. some posts state she takes it off, but the posters haven't read the links is all.

i'm interested in why other than security you think like you do.

i'm in agreement in the same way i take off my ski mask in cold weather while riding my bike and park up to go into shops.

it's simply an unfriendly and agressive thing to do to wear a face cover while interacting with people when one can help it not to do so.

 

[reb]

karole---LOLOL!!! SO TRUE!!

 

[reb]

if this causes rioting and fighting, then so be it. maybe it's time the gloves come off. if we have teachers allowed to wear burquas in western schools,, what's next? are you prepared to see city officials in burquas, or vote on political candidates who are fundamentalist muslims? what if a mosque was built right next to your child's school? what if you got on a commercial airline and the pilot was a woman in a burqua? hey,, she has every right to be a pilot-- this is america land of the free, land of opportunity for everyone... and we can't discriminate, right? the hard cold fact is... there is a slow but ever-increasing takeover of western culture happening.. are we just going to sit back and accept it because we're too afraid to defend ourselves & our way of life, because we don't want to appear "un-PC" or hurt anyone's sensibilities?? someday we are going to have to make some difficult choices. if it leads to a major war between east & west, then so be it-- because that's been coming for a long time. and may the best man win.

 

[Karole28]

if this causes rioting and fighting, then so be it.

That does appear to be the threat.
However, some officials are hoping to avoid even the threat of violence by premptively bowing to perceived pressure.

 

[reb]

soooooooo... they are 'the religion of peace' and yet,, if they don't get their way, in a wetsern county, then they'll riot?? nice. yeah, that really makes me want to accept them all the more! LOL

 

[Floh]

soooooooo... they are 'the religion of peace' and yet,, if they don't get their way, in a wetsern county, then they'll riot?? nice. yeah, that really makes me want to accept them all the more! LOL

What i would say is the majority of followers of the Koran are peaceful and don't want to infringe on 'western' life. i know my half brother and sister (whom i mentioned earlier in the thread) want to live in peace.

it's just that small, tiny percentage of wacko fundamentalists who want all to bow their way.

IMO.

 

[Maral]

You won't be confused if you read th links. she insists on keeping her veil on whilst assistant teaching. some posts state she takes it off, but the posters haven't read the links is all.

Floh, the following links show that she is willing to remove the veil while teaching the students.

She said she would remove the garment, but not in front of male colleagues.
Link

Aishah Azmi insisted she had always been willing to remove the veil in front of children at Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire - but would not do so while male colleagues were present.
Link

AXED Muslim teacher Aishah Azmi yesterday denied education chiefs' claims that she refused to remove her veil for her pupils.
Speaking for the first time since the Mirror told of her suspension, Mrs Azmi said she only insisted on covering her face for male teachers.
Link

 

[Karole28]

soooooooo... they are 'the religion of peace' and yet,, if they don't get their way, in a wetsern county, then they'll riot?? nice. yeah, that really makes me want to accept them all the more! LOL

Absolutely, not all Muslims are just waiting on a riot. Equate this to the Detroit riots, there is a small margin who just enjoy rioting and any excuse is a good one.

However, appeasing this type of mindset will only ensure more of the behavior you don't want. And, won't (like you said) exactly encourage acceptance of their point of view on much of anything.
We do need to start calling this issue as it stands, and stop dancing around the elephant in the room. He ain't going away via ignorance.

 

[reb]

that's ridiculous. so every time a male colleague walked into the room & tries to have a conversation with her, she would have to quickly put it back on? (i would like to see a man walk in & out of the room over & over-- that woud be pretty funny.) and islamic law forbids her from looking him in the eye, since he's not her husband, right? how is that considered "empowering" for these women...???! that's not empowering, it's nothing short of disturbing. what is she afraid of, and what is her religion telling her to be afraid of? it's very simple-- let's be real here. it's all about prohibiting women from 'flaunting' themselves to strange men- because if they aren't covered and they get leered at, groped or raped, it will be considered their fault. that was a law that maybe made sense in the 1st century, or in countries where women get killed by angry mobs if they are raped by a man (and the law protects that man as having been the "victim" of her temptations). but last time i checked,, THIS IS THE WESTERN WORLD,, AND IT'S THE 21st CENTURY!!!

this is going to do nothing for children in their culture but teach the next generation of men to also see women as second-class citizens. i have no sympathy for these women at all-- they are traitors who only want to bring the status of women back to the dark ages... yes it's 'their choice' to be oppressed if they want, but they shouldn't have the right to express 'their choice' in modern, civilized, western society. ESPECIALLY not in our current political climate, where their dress can literally be a danger to society. period.

that being said-- i don't consider being a porn star, girls gone wild, or britney spears shoving her half-naked body in everyone's face, to be the definition of 'empowerment' either. there i agree with the muslim women, in that it's just a new type of self-imposed slavery.

but whatever happened to 'happy mediums'....???

 

[Karole28]

that being said-- i don't consider being a porn star, girls gone wild, or britney spears shoving her half-naked body in everyone's face, to be the definition of 'empowerment' either. there i agree with the muslim women, in that it's just a new type of self-imposed slavery.

but whatever happened to 'happy mediums'....???

We must have been separated at birth.


Just because women agree to being treated with this way, doesn't make it any more acceptable. It's still a crime, it only makes it a sadder crime.


I'm from the South, and I remember as a child hearing that some slaves had it better staying with their Masters than trying to go for independence.

This is the same argument.

 

[reb]

hhmmmm, maybe we were...!

i agree... i guess the slave argument boils down to; would you rather be poor, struggling and free,, or comfortable, but not free? seems like an easy question in theory,, but i bet a lot of slaves picked the latter for the sake of their children.

the thing that gets me about the woman in this story is, i was assuming she must be from saudi arabia, afghanistan, etc.. then to find out-- she's not!! she is from WALES and picked up that religion and the extreme form of its dress code by CHOICE. but then wants to force it upon western society and a school full of children. i just can't wrap my brain around why you would want to oppress yourself, by choice. OK-- i can, because people do (back to yoru slave analogy). but-- don't insist that everyone accept it and make a legal issue out of it!! i mean,, don't you have any bigger battles to fight...?

this is akin to some young punk applying at a fine dining restaurant, going to the interview looking clean-cut, then showing up to his job with a face full of piercings, and refusing to remove them because all of a sudden it's "part of his religion". they would kick him to the curb in a heartbeat!! which is what they should so with this woman... who obviously doesn't think her teaching career is a priority. if she loves her islamic law so much & being 'told' (by herself- LOL) she has to cover herself in front of men-- then she should go move to a country where they embrace that. in fact, she may not even have a choice-- so there she can practice having no choice by choice (LOL) ...wouldn't she be happier there anyway?

 

[windovervocalcords]

"The veil has become a multi-faceted symbol which resists generalisation. One has to know a great deal about the context in which it is worn, in order to decipher its possible meanings. In situations where it is a sign of oppression, it is more a symptom than a cause of that oppression, and it can distract us from asking what really oppresses women. When George W Bush wanted to bomb Afghanistan, he suddenly became an ardent campaigner for the rights of Afghan women, and those burqa-clad figures have long preoccupied western feminists who may show little concern for the actual living conditions of Muslim women worldwide.
Since the publication of Edward Said's groundbreaking book, Orientalism (1978), scholars at least have become aware of the extent to which the veiled woman is part of the "otherness" which the so-called western man of reason projects onto his eastern counterparts, by depicting the Arab-Islamic world as feminised and irrational. This oriental figure, the subject of many works of literature and art, represents seduction and threat, mystery and challenge, so that it is very difficult to see her humanity clearly through the west's own cultural veils.
Muslims are tolerated providing they demonstrate that they are "moderate", but the communication of values is all one way: there is a suggestion that "we" have nothing to learn from "them", but "they" still have much to learn about "our" British values. But Britain is a multicultural society, and notwithstanding citizenship tests and much rhetoric about the meaning of Britishness, the multiple identities of those who inhabit this small island renders the term "British values" almost meaningless, unless in itself it signifies a capacity for diversity and non-uniformity.
In the world today, Muslims are victims of some of the most intractable and violent conflicts, be they Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghan or Chechen, even if in Afghanistan and Iraq it is now Muslims who are the perpetrators as well as the victims of that violence. On our nightly news broadcasts, images of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq sit side by side with debates about the veil, and it is ingenuous of politicians to try to separate them.
The relationship between Islam and secular democracy need not be one of conflict and confrontation, and Muslims cannot simply be divided between moderates and extremists. The woman with a veiled face represents something too complex to be deciphered simply on appearances alone.

We have to understand who she is, what she believes and values, how she positions herself in the world; and simply removing her veil will not tell us any of those things. Indeed, her bare face may mask interesting and significant differences which, paradoxically, her veil reveals. "

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/veil_islam_4026.jsp

 

[Karole28]

W.O.V. in this particular case, I think the woman is looking for attention (much like the piercing analogy given earlier).
I don't think it has any deeper meaning.


Let me ask you this, would you extend your quest of understanding to David Koresh before judging him and his followers?

 

[windovervocalcords]

W.O.V. in this particular case, I think the woman is looking for attention (much like the piercing analogy given earlier).
I don't think it has any deeper meaning.


Let me ask you this, would you extend your quest of understanding to David Koresh before judging him and his followers?

With all due respect, how on earth do you know the motivation of this woman?

 

[Karole28]

With all due respect, how on earth do you know the motivation of this woman?

Truthfully, I don't. But, I'm familiar with zealots who change (or get) religion later in their lives. And, I also know that since this is not a Koran(nic) law, it's something she's heard somewhere and adopted. (could be her mosque, who knows?) And, since I know she had no qualms attending the interview without it, (thinking a male would not be present, why???) I'm assuming she's using the veil to a) draw sympathetic attention to her opressed religion. and b) to draw attention to herself personally, perhaps to elevate herself in her mosque as a mini-martyr.

Of course, these are my opinions.

Now are you going to answer my Koresh question? I assume you're as horrified as I am about someone being burned alive for their religious beliefs. Correct?
How far does your tolerance extend?

 

[windovervocalcords]

Truthfully, I don't. But, I'm familiar with zealots who change (or get) religion later in their lives. And, I also know that since this is not a Koran(nic) law, it's something she's heard somewhere and adopted. (could be her mosque, who knows?) And, since I know she had no qualms attending the interview without it, (thinking a male would not be present, why???) I'm assuming she's using the veil to a) draw sympathetic attention to her opressed religion. and b) to draw attention to herself personally, perhaps to elevate herself in her mosque as a mini-martyr.

Of course, these are my opinions.

Now are you going to answer my Koresh question? I assume you're as horrified as I am about someone being burned alive for their religious beliefs. Correct?
How far does your tolerance extend?

Yes. It was tragic that Koresh and followers, many of whom were children perished in the fire.

 

[reb]

karole-- you summed the whole thing up with one word: MARTYR.

(or at least, wanna-be martyr.. lol)