Britain Says Schools Can Ban Muslim Veils

[03cavPA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259870,00.html

Britain Says Schools Can Ban Muslim Veils

Tuesday , March 20, 2007

The British government said Tuesday that schools can ban students from wearing Muslim veils if teachers believe they effect safety, security or pupils' learning. School administrators have the right to ban students from covering their faces under a new uniform policy, but educators should speak with parents before introducing such a ban, the Education Ministry said in a statement.
"Schools should consult parents and the wider community when setting uniform policy," Schools Minister Jim Knight said.
"And while they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence," he said.
The ministry said head teachers had always had the right to set their school's uniform policy. Several recent court cases have challenged schools' decisions to ban some forms of Islamic dress.
Britain's highest appeals court ruled a year ago that a school acted properly in refusing to allow a student to wear a jilbab — a long, flowing gown covering all her body except her hands and face. The school said the clothing item was not permitted under school policy.
The issue of face-covering veils has sparked a debate over religious tolerance and cultural assimilation in Britain, which is home to 1.6 million Muslims.

I think you Brits who called us out for picking on the Imams might have some 'splainin' to do.

[drunken monkey]

that headline's wording is a bit misleading.

the thing that they're questioning, is the suitability for the full face veil in a school environment where seeing+gauging a student's reaction is part of the teaching process.
bear in mind that this is a ruling giving the school discretion in how to deal with it if it turns out to be a problem; not exactly the same as nervous people pointing fingers.

to be honest, I can't remember the exact details of the jilbab ruling except that there were just as many, if not more, islamic voices saying that it's a fair ruling as there were opposed to it, especially if you take into consideration how much deviation from the normal school uniform they are allowed already.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

The British government said Tuesday that schools can ban students from wearing Muslim veils if teachers believe they effect safety, security or pupils' learning.

I think that you will find that they can ban anything in schools if they can make a case for one or more of those criteria.When I was a kid, we had no uniform per se, but disruptive pupils who chose to come to school wearing pink mohawks and bondage trousers got sent home and told to stop acting the jackass.

As for the current situation, I'd find it hard to make a veil fit any of those criteria. Presumably, if muslim girls are devout enough to wear veils to school, they are devout enough to behave like muslim girls.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

the thing that they're questioning, is the suitability for the full face veil in a school environment where seeing+gauging a student's reaction is part of the teaching process.
bear in mind that this is a ruling giving the school discretion in how to deal with it if it turns out to be a problem; not exactly the same as nervous people pointing fingers.

How could it turn out to be a problem? What's so bad about wearing a veil? It's part of their religion.

From the article:

"And while they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements of individual pupils, the needs of safety, security and effective learning in the school must always take precedence," he said.

Now it's unsafe to wear a veil? What's wrong with those educators? What are they afraid of? It's an article of religious garb, for crying out loud.

Originally Posted by taranaki

As for the current situation, I'd find it hard to make a veil fit any of those criteria. Presumably, if muslim girls are devout enough to wear veils to school, they are devout enough to behave like muslim girls.

Shit, I might even agree with 'naki on that one.

[drunken monkey]

The wearing of the veil by muslim girls is often a personal choice in the uk and not one that is forced by the family or even the mosque. This is not the issue of course but it is part of the discussion; you do not need to wear a veil to follow Islam and it is not "law" to wear one.

teachers perspective:
wearing a veil prvents the teacher from being able to read the faces and therefore judge reactions of the student. They can't therefore tell if the student is paying attention or looks to be needing help. It prevents the teacher from doing their job.
Of course, this is a case by case situation, which is why I said if problems arise.

the safety and security aspect is also for the student.
wearing a veil marks you out as a target, especially if other muslim girls don't wear the veil and you do. If a group of adults can point fingers at a small group of imams praying then imagine what a school of kids would do to a girl wearing a veil.
The UK, in parts is still rather racist. In these parts, wearing a veil can be dangerous outside of school as well. Again, this is a case by case thing which is why I pointed out originally that this is a ruling that allows a school to ban the veil if it turns out to be a problem. It is not saying that schools have to ban veils.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

How could it turn out to be a problem? What's so bad about wearing a veil? It's part of their religion.

From the article:

Now it's unsafe to wear a veil? What's wrong with those educators? What are they afraid of? It's an article of religious garb, for crying out loud.

If there's a troublemaker, it would hinder identification. A veil can hide more than just the face.

opcorn:

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

the safety and security aspect is also for the student.
wearing a veil marks you out as a target, especially if other muslim girls don't wear the veil and you do. If a group of adults can point fingers at a small group of imams praying then imagine what a school of kids would do to a girl wearing a veil.

ah, so you will admit that there are times when it actually IS a good idea to curb some aspects of a religious practice for common good, even if the object of that policy doesn't see it that way? These sanctions can be beneficial, even if it interferes with "freedom of speech and religion"?

I suppose it might all depend upon whom it is that decides that such controls are necessary, huh?

opcorn:

[taranaki]

here's a similar story......

School wants 10-year-old's facial piercings removed
NZPA | Friday, 23 March 2007


A Napier mother has been asked to remove her 10-year-old old son's facial piercings because of "safety issues".


Shaquille Rollinson got the piercings through his right eyebrow and his lower lip two years ago, with his mother Donna's permission, because they were "cool".

Ms Rollinson said she was "shocked" to receive a call from suburban Onekawa Primary School's principal last week condemning her son Shaquille's piercings.

"He lectured me, and basically told me he shouldn't have been allowed to get it, and I should be a more responsible parent," she told Hawke's Bay Today.

She said neither she nor Shaquille knew the school frowned on piercings as it did not have a uniform or dress code, and there were no clauses about piercings in the school policy.

Ms Rollinson conceded it was unusual for a child to have facial piercings, but Shaquille "saved and saved" to get his and looked after them very carefully.

She said the school was "over-reacting" and there were "plenty" of pupils with belly-button piercings who were not singled out.

"This is primary school. Shaquille's there to learn, not cause trouble. As long as he covers it up, it shouldn't have anything to do with his education."

Principal Wayne Keats said 10-year-olds were prone to playing rough and the school was concerned Shaquille's piercings could cause him an injury.

He also had concerns about the "appropriateness" of the piercings at school.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dailynews/4001988a7694.html

The bottom line of the article is the most telling."appropriateness" ???????? The school authorities simply want the right to dictate terms under which children may receive an education at their school.They want the right to over-ride the wishes of the children's legal guardians simply because they are too narrow-minded to cope with the job if a kid turns up wearing a veil or a piercing.

This is not the 1950's. We no longer marginalise minorities until they fit into our way of doing things. If teachers cannot cope with the changing expectations of those parents who want to comply with the legal requirements of education while retaining the individual rights of their children, then maybe they should look for a more suitable job.Somewhere that they can be relieved of the responsibility of making judgement calls.Parking warden, janitor, ticket collector....that sort of thing.


Kids go to school to be taught. If you are going to hamper their education on the basis that you lack the skills to accept them as raw materials in whatever form they take, you are effectively teaching them that your school is little more than a cookie-cutter McEducation facility. An average teacher can impart information and motivate a well-behaved class. An exceptional one can impart information and motivate pupils without first removing their individual identities.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

ah, so you will admit that there are times when it actually IS a good idea to curb some aspects of a religious practice for common good, even if the object of that policy doesn't see it that way? These sanctions can be beneficial, even if it interferes with "freedom of speech and religion"?

I suppose it might all depend upon whom it is that decides that such controls are necessary, huh?

opcorn:

depends on what is being asked.
wearing of veil isn't a prescribed practice of islam.
praying 5 times a day is.

but you seem intent on getting a 100% straight line, rigid answer, irrespective of situation.
once again, all this ruling is doing is giving schools the choice to do so if it is deemed neccessary and to b taken in the context of being in a school environment.
you can't really take this ruling made to exist in a controlled environment and apply it to a different environment.

eg. you are allowed to nudge other cars within reason in touring car races - you don't do it on the road.

[03cavPA]

But comparisons can be made. It speaks to attitude and intent. You take issue with passengers on a plane who might have reasonable doubt about actions of a group of individuals, using "freedom of religion and speech" to condemn people who may have acted in the interest of the common good. I believe the phrase was "ignorant American passengers."

Yet, you would defend a policy that restricts the wearing of religious garb, for the same reason: in the interest of the common good. It doesn't matter if the veil is required by Islam or not, some wish to wear it in accordance with their conscience as it deals with expressing their faith.

Many muslims have held forth, stating that it's perfectly OK to pray later or earlier, at home or once they arrive at their destination, that it's not mandated in a boisterous manner in a crowded airport.

So, it's good for the Brits to act against an expression of faith, but it's not OK for the Yanks. No big deal; straining at gnats, actually, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Many muslims have held forth, stating that it's perfectly OK to pray later or earlier, at home or once they arrive at their destination, that it's not mandated in a boisterous manner in a crowded airport.

I have to agree with you there.

Anyways, as much as I disagree with banning the Hijab (veils), we (Muslims) must respect the law as covenants as its put to terms.

[Kurtdg19]

I really don't find this as an important issue. When I was in high school, middle-school... we weren't even allowed to wear baseball caps. Although I never really checked into the administrative reason as to why it was deemed inappropriate, hearsay at the time was that it was considered "gang related".
I think the only reason this is getting any attention is due to the current times. A veil is generally viewed as something that Muslim ladies wear, and since their trying to prevent it from being worn, the media is flocking over the issue likes flies on a fresh turd. If it were a white male wearing a baseball cap, you would never hear about it.

[Andydg]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

I really don't find this as an important issue. When I was in high school, middle-school... we weren't even allowed to wear baseball caps. Although I never really checked into the administrative reason as to why it was deemed inappropriate, hearsay at the time was that it was considered "gang related".
I think the only reason this is getting any attention is due to the current times. A veil is generally viewed as something that Muslim ladies wear, and since their trying to prevent it from being worn, the media is flocking over the issue likes flies on a fresh turd. If it were a white male wearing a baseball cap, you would never hear about it.

I was thinking the same thing while reading the article.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

I really don't find this as an important issue. When I was in high school, middle-school... we weren't even allowed to wear baseball caps. Although I never really checked into the administrative reason as to why it was deemed inappropriate, hearsay at the time was that it was considered "gang related".
I think the only reason this is getting any attention is due to the current times. A veil is generally viewed as something that Muslim ladies wear, and since their trying to prevent it from being worn, the media is flocking over the issue likes flies on a fresh turd. If it were a white male wearing a baseball cap, you would never hear about it.

It's not a big deal at all; it's just something to yank drunkenmonkey's chain with. There are many good reasons to control what students wear and do.

Personally, I think the whole "picking on the poor muslims" shtick is a lot of PC hype in the western world. They play the pity card and a lot of us are tired of it.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

It's not a big deal at all; it's just something to yank drunkenmonkey's chain with.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Personally, I think the whole "picking on the poor muslims" shtick is a lot of PC hype in the western world. They play the pity card and a lot of us are tired of it.

this is something that is only assertainable if you look at each situation that is reported.
on the whole I tend to agree with you but i still think it's a little naive or even arrogant of you to say or at least imply that it isn't happening.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

So, it's good for the Brits to act against an expression of faith, but it's not OK for the Yanks. No big deal; straining at gnats, actually, but it's interesting nonetheless.

if you can't see the difference between this ruling, and the finger pointing of the airport situation then there's not much I can say.
could just be that I see praying as being more important than the wearing of the veil. Then again, i'm not muslim so I don't know the importance of each element.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

But comparisons can be made. It speaks to attitude and intent. You take issue with passengers on a plane who might have reasonable doubt about actions of a group of individuals, using "freedom of religion and speech" to condemn people who may have acted in the interest of the common good.

yes, if you ignore the decision making process of the court, then the ruling process of the individual school based on the situation and have school teachers tear off the veils whenever they see one.
that's is what the finger pointing would be if compared and translated to the school environment.