School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4832072.stm

Common sense as won but for how long?

What a nice surprise. Some officials didn't bend over for once....

We had a bit of a similar legal challenge here in Canada a few years ago when a Sikh RCMP officer sued claiming that the uniform regulations prohibitted his wearing a Turban and therefore infringed upon his freedom of religion. He won his case.

I'm not sure what precedents that may have set for other forms of muslim headgear/clothing as we have yet (to my knowledge) to get embroiled in the bans/controversies on this that are happening in parts of Europe these days - undoubtedly due in large part to our smaller muslim population. Time will tell I guess.

Too tight jeans. As you know, an Italian firm came up with a solution for that.

Was this a case of a Muslim or a Sikh? Neither one is like the other.

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Firstly I would have to say that the decision by the law Lords was the right one. Simple common sense really and it is a relief that it has prevailed here. Miss Begum had attened this school fully aware of the uniform policy. She had adhered to it until when she decided to start wearing the Jilbab back in late 2002. It is important to note that almost 80% of those attending the same school are Muslims who had no problem with the policy.

Now if I recall correctly from an interview I heard from a person representing the school they denied here request to wear the jilbab on safety grounds and that the school already had a flexible policy with regards to religious and cultural sensitivities. If she wanted to, Miss Begum could have accepted this decision and found another school which would allow such a garment to be worn. There are schools in the UK which permit this I believe.

I suspect that someone got in her ear and said fight this. I suspect that that someone was either a member of Hizbut Tahrir (HT) or had contacts at HT. Certainly HT were quick to jump into the fray supporting Miss Begim with legal advise/lawyers. Quite frankly I think HT, being the parasites that they are, were steering this ship from the beginning for their own agenda.

With regards to the actual debate within Islam over what constitutes Islamic dress there are wide and differing opinions. Hence that is why you will see some Muslim women wear nothing over the head, some wear a loose scarf partially over their hair/head (granny scarf I call this), Hijab, Jilbab, up to the extreme Burqa with gloves (ala Wacko Jacko) and all. My own personal view and interpretation as a Western Aussie Muslim man on this subject is that you can wear whatever you bloody well want in so far as you fulfill your obligation of modesty. I base my opinion off in principle these Qu'ranic verses:

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them. And God is well-acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarliy) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except before their husbands...(24:30-31)

I hope that this is the end of this story but I wouldn't be surprised if HT and others try to pressure this girl into taking this to the EU Commission for Human Rights or something absolutely ridiculous like that. :damn:

Close the latest is she is going to the EU Courts to get the ruling overturned and knowing that lot they will.

Sikh, I'm aware of the differences and didn't mean to suggest they were similar, only that we've also had at least one legal challenge (that I know of) involving religious headgear and uniform regulations.

Sadly, Oh so true. :(

I appreciate you for that. Let let me tell you that there is another big difference. In Sikhism the headgear or turban is necessary. It is one of five things that are part of a Sikh). The turban is only removed when a person accepts defeat. A self respecting man is supposed to wear the turban. In sikhism women enjoy the most freedom.

In Islam I think it is necessary to cover the head, only while praying.

School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

Hey Pigfish, ltns! (long time no see!)

I guess some people on this forum suffer from PTSS (Post Terror Stress Syndrome). If Muslim FET's (Fascist/sExtremists/Terrorists) don't mess with the world for a change, they overreact on minor issues or start "What If" threads.
This topic - though by itself interesting enough for this forum - suffers from the overload of postings caused by this syndrome.
The other day I caught myself starting a topic about Muslims walking on the streets of Amsterdam. Nothing interesting of course, but still...
A moderator brought me back to my senses.
:D

Re: School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

Take a brake, guys - play chess! Or SBP, for a change! :smug:

Re: School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

I would say this has more to do with divisive US foreign policy and the war in Iraq than to do with terrorism, which has always been with us. In fact the largest terrorist attack, before 9/11, was no less shocking or horrific (I would imagine) to those directly affected by it. It lacked certain key elements however, which is why after the same amount of time had passed it became a footnote in history rather than continuing frontpage news:

1. The attack was perpetrated by American citizens rather than foreign nationals. Thus there was no foreign enemy to rally a war around.

2. The attackers were white christians rather than "Islamo-fascists". Thus the existing definition of "terrorist" was sufficient and no need was felt to coin new terms like "Islamo-fascist".

3. The attackers swiftly were caught, tried, and subsequently executed as opposed to either dying in the attack or remaining at large. In the former case society's need to see justice served and punishment meted out was satiated, while in the latter case that opportunity had not been present.

There are other differences, but from citing just those three its possible to see that while the domestic terrorist attack was simply a tragedy, 9/11 was both a tragedy and an opportunity for a cynical government that had been dogged by controversy and sinking poll numbers since its election.

Recall that immediately after 9/11 the world was behind the US and the people rallied around its president. But after promising them Bin Laden "dead or alive" he couldn't deliver. Had Bin Laden been captured or killed, or had the US simply used the solidarity following 9/11 as an opportunity for multilateral anti-terrorist efforts on a global scale then there might not be a "FET" today. But solidarity and multilateralism aren't this president's strong points.

Instead in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 his administration saw an opportunity to withdraw from its nuclear nonproliferation treaty (the first of many treaties it would go on to withdraw from). A curious response in the aftermath of a terrorist attack committed by perpetrators armed with box cutters; but a profitable response for the arms merchants its in bed with, enabled, without any public or global outcry, by the events of 9/11.

Then later the attack on Iraq, of all targets, whose links to terrorism were weak, at best, and who had no connection to 9/11. The justification? That they possessed WMD; this after the US itself had only just pulled out of its nuclear nonproliferation obligation. Of course Iraq had no WMD so the justification has changed continually ever since - all the better to blur the original rationale for war. The profits to the arms merchants, again, have probably never been better. While at the same time creating yet another devisive issue that US public could only rally behind because their government had successfully terrified them with visions of "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" and other such dire scenarios.

This warped divide and conquer strategy has paid dividends with Bush's re-election. Even if the conquering end hasn't worked out so well.

School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

This topic takes an interesting turn.

Scandium, are you adressing the worst terrorist attack against the USA before 9/11?
I thought that was the Al Qaida attack on the US Embassies in Kenia and Tanzania, in which hundreds of completely innocent Africans, mainly Christians, not Muslims, died for the greater goal of the Muslim fight against the "Great Satan".
POTAS Bill Clinton reacted with firing 75 cruise missiles costing about $ 1.000.000 at the - by then of course - empty training camps in Afghanistan and went to bed, after telling the world he retaliated.

I prefer Bush's reaction after 9/11. The guy took the problem by the horns and went into Afghanistan, kicked the Taliban out, and got Bin Laden neutralised. Brilliant campaign with very few casualties!
Putting myself in Bin Laden's shoes, I think 9/11 was a gross underestimation of the reaction of the USA (courtesy President Clinton). Probably the best move President Bush made to stop Muslim FET's (= Fascists/Extremists/Terrorists) - whatever his Iraq policy will bring.

I left out one very important piece of my sentence which provides the crucial context: the largest terrorist attack on American soil. I was referring to the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building.

US Embassies are on American soil. ;)

Okay you have me there on a technicality, although had I not left out the "on American soil" and mentioned the Oklahoma federal building more specifically, then the rest of my post would still have made more sense. :-?

Re: School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

If Islamic terrorism is comparable to McVeigh, can you please point out the McVeighite churches in Christianity? Can you please show me where the global movement of Christian McVeighites can be found? Can you explain why there are no such churches or terrorist groups, while Islamic jihadists can be found in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria, Liberia, the Netherlands, and elsewhere?

:zzz:

Re: School wins Muslim dress appeal
 

That's a bit of a strawman Avon, as your questions seem addressed at a comparison I never made. The only thing I said they had in common were that both were terrorist attacks aimed at targets on US soil. Beyond that I pointed out the dissimilarities between the two attacks and mentioned that in the case of the domestic attack it was perpetrated by white christians making it distinct from 9/11 which was perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists. That doesn't mean I equated the two religions or even suggested that religious ideology was the motivation behind the domestic attack; again, my 3 points were to show some of the ways the two attacks differed from one another.

I tried to show my point of view that in the former case, the domestic attack, it was dealt with swiftly, completely, and that justice was served and society has reached closure on it which is why its a footnote in history rather than something that dominated the news for years afterward and significantly impacted the way people lived their lives. (Abraham's "FET" syndrome).

9/11 was nothing new: it was not the first incident of terrorism, not the first time Americans were the target, and not the first attack on American soil (another point of mine). The methods were somewhat novel, but it wasn't the first ever hijacking either. Had the terrorist possessed cruise missles they could have achieved the same ends, but being an assymetrical battle where they were severely technologically disadvantaged they instead made use of American technology (the aircraft hijacked) and converted it into a weapon.

I think in the domestic case things were handled well while in the latter its been largely one screw up after another going back before the attack and continuing on today.

Let's recall a few key historical points and maybe you'll understand why I feel as I do:


Both Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were already known entities. In fact they'd already unsuccesfully tried to blow up the WTC once before, so this was also a known target.

The incoming President's running mate and the new US VP is a former CEO of one of the world's largest oil companies from which he still receives deferred compensation . The newly appointed National Security Advisor (and the current Secretary of State), aside from being an expert on the non-existant Soviet Union, is also a former oil executive and even has an oil tanker named after her. The newly appointed Secretary of state is a former General who played a prominent role iin the 1991 Gulf War. Donald Rumsfeld, among other things, was a strong proponent of missle defence having, after the Republican requested 1995 National Intelligence Estimate determined an ICBM nuclear attack from a rogue state was unlikely within the next 15 years, chaired a second "independent panel" whose purpose was to undermine the NIE's findings and provide the desired findings to support a missle defence program (this is after the first independent panel agreed with the NIE's findings). Wolfowitz and Perle, two other prominent figures who were to play a role in later events were also strong proponents of missle defence.

Now with the actors out of the way, the events:

The new VP holds controversial secret energy meetings with executives from leading American oil companies. From these meetings its subsequently concluded that control of Iraqi oil fields would help fill what's forseen as increasing domestic demand with falling domsetic oil production.

The President goes on a one month vacation in August, what at that time is the longest vacation by an American President. While on vacation he receives an August 6th PDB titles "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." Just days before 9/11 some several billions of dollars are appropriated for a missle defence program while a 600 million dollar request for anti-terrorist funding is denied. 9/11 occurs, on the same day Rice is scheduled to give a speech on missle defence.

Immediately following 9/11, as in within days after it, plans are requested to launch an attack on Iraq. It becomes known that Bin Laden was behind it who is believed to be in Afganistan. With overwhelming support, domestically and internationally, the Taliban is routed and the hunt for Bin Laden begins. Kharzai is appointed "President" of Afghan. He previously served as an advisor to the US effort to negotiate a natural gas pipeline through Afghan. Negotiations broke down, the US offer was rejected, no pipeline is built. Subsequent to his new appointment, however, one of his first acts while in office is to sign a deal for the construction of a natural gas pipeline.

With Bin Laden still on the run and with no support (initially) at home or abroad, the US decides to set its sights on Iraq next which had no connection to 9/11.

Now I've laid enough foundation here that any reasonably open-minded person should be able to themselves connect the dots and see the pattern. For those unable to do so I will spell it out for you: the US "War on Terror" has never been about terrorism. Instead 9/11 simply served as an opportunity for the people in charge, with their backgrounds and ideological agenda, to use it as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with increasing the profits to oil and arms companies. Why do you think Bin Laden is a low priority? Why did the US squander so much manpower, money, and good will attacking a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11 while Bin Laden was still at large? Why is the US planning to spend 200+ billion on missle defence (which doesn't even work) while fighting a War on Terror and almost nothing securing its borders when terrorist are much likely to come ashore or cross its porous borders with a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb? All of this while telling Americans to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting and spinning the new terror alert wheel.

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.