Again, what does that have to do with getting an audience to meet with your elected official?
Maybe Mr. Straw and the women concerned should have conducted their business on the phone.
As for the security aspect, in an ideal world there should be a rule requesting the removal of the veil under given circumstances. It’s not an ideal world, and any suggestion of such a rule would go down like a lead balloon with the Islamic community. See also my post #62.
Anyway, in my experience people wish to meet other people in person for various reasons. Professionally I enjoyed it because it gave me a chance to observe body language and facial expressions. In so doing, I sometimes got an inkling of the value of what others were saying to me. I ask in all seriousness what is the Muslim policy on reading body language? It’s worth noting that a veil wearing female can read the body and face language of a non veil wearer a fraction more easily than vice versa.
I find the veil a divisive influence in Muslim/non Muslim relations. This is nothing to do with religion. It concerns social and business interaction. I can’t envisage having a (strictly platonic) friendship with a woman who wears a veil. Again, I don’t know what Islamic law says about females having friendships with men. My guess is it’s not allowed. I’m willing to be corrected.
If I was conducting business with a veiled woman I would be very, very uneasy about it.
As a reminder, there is nothing in the Q’ran which states that veils must be worn by females.
I guess my point is that you are uneasy because you have not been exposed to it. I am going to guess that people aren’t as uneasy about talking to or conducting business with someone wearing a veil in Saudi Arabia because they have been exposed to it. The question has never been that there are any real security concerns or whether Straw can gauge the demeanor of his constituents when they come talk to him. The question remains, should Straw acclimate himself to the religious practices of others or should the muslims integrate their customs to their new environment.
Assuming the veil is about modesty and preventing unwanted interactions with males, the logical extension is lock themselves up. They would rather not do that, well thats just too bad, they live in the UK and they need to adapt.
Veil wearing moslem women in the UK are a tiny minority, no-one objects to them wearing headscarves.
This partcular idiot female seems to think that we in the UK must completely change our society to accomodate her little immature desires.
Sorry little girl, you need to grow up, you need to understand that you cannot always get everyone else to live their lives at an inconvenience just to suit you.
Now they might find it offensive, however, they must operate in UK society.
The veil is not a religious requirement at all, it is not required in the Q’ran, therefore it is not a religious item.
Since it is therefore a personal decision, one can legitimately require that one complies to a dress code, just like everyone else at work does.
When you go to talk to someone at a particular level, one would not go to meet them dressed in tatty old jeans, and dirty T-shirt, no atter what your personal preferances happen to be, and this is no differant at all.
Stuff her, if she finds her personal interpretation of her religion makes her life somewhat inconvenient to her, then she can change or piss off to another place, or maybe she doesn’t really want to live in the places where women are property, where they have little freedom of experession.
She want us to conform to her insignificant little morees, sorry bitch, get the fuck out of the UK and live in a Sharia state if you feel so strongly about it…or maybe it you find its actually a better place to live in the UK, just think about how we got to being that way.
Maybe she should understand the concept of self deprivation, if she wants something and she can’t have it, then that’s just hard shit, that’s how it is.
Jack Straw made it clear that he merely requests that people who talk to him remove their veil, because he finds it a barrier to communication in the way that a yarmulke obviously isn’t. It’s just a request, not a stricture, and that’s all. He’s perfectly within his rights to make the request, and his constituents are perfectly within their rights to refuse. There is, as far as I know, no question that he refuses to see anyone who won’t remove their veil; he merely prefers it to be removed, and makes sure a woman is present if the visitor agrees.
That’s all. Personally I don’t see why he’s that fussed, but I think this is real mountain/molehill territory. There isn’t even a hint of compulsion here, so it’s an utter non-issue.
OK, hold on a fucking minute.
Time out.
What in the name of holy living piss is a “muckity muck” and why does col_10022 keep using it about Mr Straw?
Thank you. You may continue.
While I’m here though, arguments such as Guin’s about people doing things “her native country” are neglecting that we have many thousands of second- and third-generation Muslims (probably fourth- too) in the UK. This might not be the case of Ms Azmi, but it is the case for others: the UK is their country. If they want to wear a veil in their own country, and have heretofore been permitted, then admonishments to “go home” are irrelevant: it becomes a simple human rights and expression of faith issue.
(This said while still acknowledging that the woman in question is a bullshitter and that my personal feelings about the veil are the same as those of Jack Straw.)
I didn’t mean it in a “go home” way. I meant, that she can’t expect everyone around her to compromise, without doing so herself. EVERYONE has to give a little to get a little-that’s the way the world works.
I do not understand you. Let’s review: I think that choosing to wear a veil in a society/country where that is not common, and expecting to do a job that relies on face to face to communication is stupid. I think this woman is playing '“let’s martyr the Muslim” by not wearing a veil for the interview and then insisting upon wearing it for her job. That is the basis for this thread and that is my contribution to it.
it is not my mind that is a mess. You had asked or intimated that I wanted all Muslim women to change to Western values-or some such nonsense. I answered that. Nowhere did I say that it was dangerous (for whom? to whom?); nowhere did I say it was wrong. You say these things and impugne them to me. Again, are you conflating my posts with someone else’s?
I’m sorry that you can’t understand me. Most others here seem to do just fine. That might be something to ponder.
I don’t say that not wearing the veil is “better” for them-you say I that I think that. This whole “challenge” is in your head. It’s quite a leap to say that because someone finds a practice stupid, that he or she know what is best for the practitioners. You seem comfortable with such leaps.
I’m not sure if you’re the one on meds or you’re the one who needs them. This is a garbled train of thought quoted here, but this obviously means a lot to you. Are you a woman who wears a veil?Do you know what is best for others" For me? Should I wear a veil? (oops, being facetious…)
Believe me, I’ve been around long enough–if I think I know better, I do not feel compelled to “deny it”. I have not actually characteized myself as a nice person or a "nice person’, but hey-thanks for the compliment. The question, to my mind, is why I never realized that you were an asshole. I doubt that assessment is inherently wrong, and it is certainly justified by context.
No, more convulated reasoning from your own head. An opinion is just that-and usually opinions have little to no effect on behaviors of others, far away, especially when they are not acted on in any way. Certainly opinions expressed on a bb hold to this premise.
As stated in first post in this thread, I said I was not going to express myself eloquently. I did not. Guess what? I still think that veiling as a choice is stupid. You seem to find this stance offensive and open to ridicule. Who am I to deny you that? Have at it. It might vent some of your spleen. You seem an angry person.
Let me know when you do critically analyze anything. I have not protested any challenge here-unless you call a simple question (“what is with the personal attack?”) a challenge. I have a pattern? Are you tracking my posts? Am I to find you in other threads or forums, commenting on my posts? Such a thing I have to look forward to! I can hardly wait.
And it will have to wait, because I have work and other RL duties that call me. Enjoy yourself Ensign-I will not be here for several days.
The BBC link that you provided in post #91 upthread says that she’s “from Cardiff”, which implies to me that she was born there. Hence, she’s at minimum 2nd-gen Muslim, and disparaging references in this thread to her “native country” take on a distinctly humorous side once one discovers that it’s Wales.
I’ve not always agreed with Jack Straw, but I can’t fault him on his non-binding requests for facial visibility in a face-to-face meeting. In watching the video of her press conference on the above-linked BBC page, I’d say that although she seems to speak quite clearly through the niqab, and has no accent that would cause misunderstandings to a typical Yorkshire schoolkid, the lack of facial visibility does reduce the impact of her speaking, and I can easily see where it might make points harder to get across in a learning environment. IMHO, if she’d shown up in the niqab for the job interview and still been hired, she’d have a strong case. However, as others have said, the fact that she pulled a bait-and-switch counts very strongly against her.
I note that her local MP, Shahid Malik (one of the first two British-born Muslims to be elected to Parliament), referring to the hearings that upheld her firing, described the findings as “quite clearly a victory for common sense”. Mr. Malik has struck me as someone who has a good head on his shoulders, and knows which battles are worth fighting. Aishah Azmi would do well to take his advice IMHO.
Veering off-topic slightly, there have been a few posts here bemoaning the lack of English fluency of Professors and TAs (Teaching Assistants) at US universities. Although the students in those cases may have a reason to complain, it should be borne in mind that in most such cases the Profs and TAs are not hired primarily for their teaching skills, but for their academic achievements and research potential. For TAs at least, teaching is usually a secondary task needed to pay the bills and satisfy the administration so that they get to do the fun stuff of research and eventually walk out with a graduate degree. In Aishah Azmi’s case, teaching and communication with the kids is the entire reason that she was hired, and any post-hiring decisions that she made that impacted on her ability to do that job seem to me to be valid grounds for dismissal.
[I’ll also add that I wasn’t too impressed with her whining on the video about her poor pupils being left without a teacher while she was on leave. **(“Won’t somebody please think of the children?”)**. This reasoning could be used by anyone terminated for cause, and it just strikes me as lame.]
eleanor, you are a liar.
You want to take back your new claim to have only ever been talking about this one woman now?
As for the rest, I think you like to think of yourself a matyr for your opinions. I can’t just disagree with you (and dislike you personally), I have to somehow be trying to make you into eleanor the oppressor. For the third time, I think there are valid arguments for and against on this issue. You’ve failed to make one. You’re also asserting things which are logically impossible, like that you can think someone is doing something stupid, but not think you know better than them whether it’s stupid. Obviously, they don’t think it’s stupid. If you do, then you know better than they do. And that’s okay…provided it’s not based in ignorance, which you’ve admitted your position is. Once again, I might add.
It is a religious requirement for her. There are about a zillion things that are required by the Catholic Church that are not required by the Bible, doesn’t makje them any less religious.
My original post was about integration versus prejudice. We here in America are running into the same problem with the integration of Mexicans and the appearance of prejudice. It is not inconceivable that we are disguising prejudice as promotion of integration.
Oh, around the Dope it is. Around here, only people wearing white sheets and carrying burning crosses can actually qualify as prejudiced.