[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Well, maybe because somebody with sideburns is still identifiable, someone with a veil isn’t.
Here in the Netherlands we have a little thing called the identification obligation, everybody is required to supply police officers with a valid identification.
How on earth can they check to see if you are the same person if you wear a veil, or worse a Burkha?
This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, no matter how much you want it to.
Oh, and since this is the pit, you PC-loving piece of meat !!
[/QUOTE]
I guess the reason would be that the Prime Minister of the UK has said this is about integration, not about ability to work (maybe because some muckity muck also forbade women with veils from seeing him), not about the police being able to idetify people on the streets, the stated rationale was integration.
Mayeb we should get away from the focus on the ability to teach while wearing a veil, which I find a little specious (my teachers tended to say everything while facing the chalkboard). Maybe we could focus on the concept of defending some muckity muck who won’t see you if you are wearing a veil.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
maybe because some muckity muck also forbade women with veils from seeing him
[/QUOTE]
Can I clarify: the “muckity muck” (?) in question is Jack Straw, a very senior member of Parliament, Leader of the House, former Foreign Secretary and fomer Home Secretary, who was very careful to say that he politely requests that veiled women to remove their veils when he has a constituency face-to-face - and doesn’t insist on their removal. He also said that he feels the veil itself is not conducive to integration but he is not prescriptive in any way. Both points of view I agree with.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
So you believe that your own choices are stupid? Remember, this exchange began because you were defending eleanor’s position that veiling is stupid but Muslim women do it for some reason other than 1. their own free will, 2. someone else’s will, or 3. stupidity. She insists it is none of those reasons, and so do you, apparently.
[/QUOTE]
I am saying that their choice needn’t be forced and they needn’t be stupid to make it. That’s all. A choice can be stupid without being forced or only made by a stupid person. Non-stupid non-coerced people can make stupid choices. Non-coerced people can make stupid choices without being stupid. Some of my choices are stupid. If I continue with this discussion, that’s stupid. I am not forced to continue. I’m not stupid. (Okay, not completely stupid.)
And I most specifically said I wasn’t speaking for anyone else, so do not attribute someone else’s argument to me, or my argument to someone else.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Can I clarify: the “muckity muck” (?) in question is Jack Straw, a very senior member of Parliament, Leader of the House, former Foreign Secretary and fomer Home Secretary, who was very careful to say that he politely requests that veiled women to remove their veils when he has a constituency face-to-face - and doesn’t insist on their removal. He also said that he feels the veil itself is not conducive to integration but he is not prescriptive in any way. Both points of view I agree with.
[/QUOTE]
See, that’s what I needed to hear. I just didn’t have the facts. Does he also ask Jews to take off their yamulkas or is there something special about veils?
[QUOTE=col_10022]
See, that’s what I needed to hear. I just didn’t have the facts. Does he also ask Jews to take off their yamulkas or is there something special about veils?
[/QUOTE]
No, but I’m sure he’d ask someone wearing this to remove it as well even if it was a religious thing.
The women he asks are free to say no. He also always has a female in the room during meetings.
Are you serious? You are equating a veil to a skimask? Are you saying that veils are a security concern? Why does he allow them to wear veils if they insist?
Lets say he requested women to wear skirts instead of slack because he felt uncomfortable around women wearing pants because he just wasn’t used to it. Would you feel the same way or is it possible that your judgment informed by the fact (I assume its a fact) that you aren’t used to veils or that you infer some sort of nefarious intent to veils and perhaps muslims?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I have no idea of if she wishes Sharia law to become the law for all in England, but there are plenty who do - and in other countries also. Including some just blocks from where I live, at least before 9/11. And they’re not Saudis. And it is not like the Saudis are the only country with this restriction. If a majority of Christian countries, say, outlawed eating meat on Friday under pain of punishment, I’m not sure the particular sect would matter much. (Bad example, I know - I can’t think of any Christian laws even in history that are analogous to the veil issue. )
[/QUOTE]
Although face covering by Muslim women seems to be becoming more common lately, it’s far from being the norm. I think there may be some confusion about what hijab means - most Muslim women wear no head covering, and of those that do, it is almost always a scarf which covers only hair and throat (some of the Pakistani ones just a gauzy swatch of silk) - face covering is rare.
A number of countries which might be thought of as Muslim actually forbid any head covering - Algeria, Turkey, Egypt and Morocco (on and off). There’s currently some conflict in Tunisia which has recently enacted a headscarf ban.
From what I understand, this teacher in the UK was wearing a full face cover, which I agree would inhibit her ability to teach - she should get a different job.
This is not a ‘clash of civilizations’ though, this is simply one unrealistic individual who wants to have everything her own way. The sooner everyone stops conflating the ‘cause celebre du jour’ with these absurd comic book views of Islam, the sooner we can all get on with our lives.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Lets say he requested women to wear skirts instead of slack because he felt uncomfortable around women wearing pants because he just wasn’t used to it.
[/QUOTE]
You can see the face of a person wearing a skirt or slacks.
[QUOTE=Themenin]
From what I understand, this teacher in the UK was wearing a full face cover, which I agree would inhibit her ability to teach - she should get a different job.
[/quote] Here she is.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Are you serious? You are equating a veil to a skimask? Are you saying that veils are a security concern? Why does he allow them to wear veils if they insist?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what yojimbo’s equating, but I’m now, for this post, equating the full veil worn by the woman in the picture linked by **jjim ** to a skimask, yes.
Like a skimask, her veil prevents us from seeing her face.
Like a skimask, her veil muffles her words and makes it hard for her students to hear her.
Like a skimask, her veil makes her facial expressions - important social and educational cues - invisible.
Like a skimask, her veil makes it impossible to tell if she’s who she is, or a similarly dressed intruder (and I purposefully put this last, as it’s an overblown concern, but it, added to the others, is a valid one.)
So, yeah, it’s like a skimask in many ways.
I’ve said it before, I have no problem with women freely choosing full veils if it doesn’t interfere with their job duties. I actually think it’s a damn cool religious choice that says awesome things about that woman’s relationship to God. (I don’t think most women in, say Iran or Afghanistan are given free choice in the matter, but that’s fodder for another thread.) But in this case, it does interfere, and it should not be permitted.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Like a skimask, her veil muffles her words and makes it hard for her students to hear her.
[/QUOTE]
As I have said, I’m no defender of the veil, but the material, while opaque, is actually very light and loose, and hangs down loosely from below the eyes, with much breathing and mouth movement space behind it. I don’t think the claim of voice muffling actually stands up.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
As I have said, I’m no defender of the veil, but the material, while opaque, is actually very light and loose, and hangs down loosely from below the eyes, with much breathing and mouth movement space behind it. I don’t think the claim of voice muffling actually stands up.
[/QUOTE]
I think it depends on the person and their general level of enunciation. There are dialects I have trouble with and individuals speaking my own dialect that I have trouble with, even with the mouth in full view. On the phone, even a good quality phone, or with an obstructed view, it’s hopeless. I think, since I’ve not sat in this woman’s class, that I’m willing to give the students the benefit of the doubt here.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I think it depends on the person and their general level of enunciation. There are dialects I have trouble with and individuals speaking my own dialect that I have trouble with, even with the mouth in full view. On the phone, even a good quality phone, or with an obstructed view, it’s hopeless. I think, since I’ve not sat in this woman’s class, that I’m willing to give the students the benefit of the doubt here.
[/QUOTE]
I personally doubt its the veil. My guess is that she has a bit of an accent as well. You should hear students whine and complain about “unintelligible” professors and TAs just because they have the slightest accent. It doesn’t affect their ability to communcate, they just don’t want to have to try to listen.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I’ve said it before, I have no problem with women freely choosing full veils if it doesn’t interfere with their job duties. I actually think it’s a damn cool religious choice that says awesome things about that woman’s relationship to God. (I don’t think most women in, say Iran or Afghanistan are given free choice in the matter, but that’s fodder for another thread.) But in this case, it does interfere, and it should not be permitted.
[/QUOTE]
My bolding.
Although there may be others, as far as I know, the only country where women are legally required to wear a face covering is Saudi Arabia. In Iran a scarf over their hair is sufficient. The full Chador is rare, and only widespread in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. It may be that women dress this way in rural parts of other countries - maybe another poster has first-hand knowledge ?
In modern Iran, women wear make-up and colors, but are expected to cover their arms and legs.
The lot of the average (non-wealthy) Iranian woman was largely improved by the Islamic revolution (they now have access to the vote, government positions, greater access to education etc).
I’m not a big fan of any organized religion, and would like to see an end to all religion based law, but I’m kind of disturbed by the amount of disinformation we’re seeing about Islam these days.
[QUOTE=hawksgirl]
I personally doubt its the veil. My guess is that she has a bit of an accent as well. You should hear students whine and complain about “unintelligible” professors and TAs just because they have the slightest accent. It doesn’t affect their ability to communcate, they just don’t want to have to try to listen.
[/QUOTE]
Having heard her talking on the radio, she is very comprehensible and articulate. She has a very slight south Asian accent, but wouldn’t be incomprehensible to anyone in the UK that I can imagine.
If anyone would like a more lighthearted take on this subject, check out this short YouTube clip of Irish comedian Ed Byrne talking about going to a water slide park in Dubai.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Wow.
I think the school should work with her on some sort of compromise.
We’ve gotten enough Muslim folks angry as it is. It would be nice to have some on our side.
[/QUOTE]
Then they have to learn to bend a little when it comes to imposing their customs on others when they are not in their native land.
