Should the veil be banned in schools?

[boyfriday]

Intolerance being the key word. This is what its all about.

Its all part of the 'bigger' agenda.

 

You might have a point if the majority of Muslim women wore the veil..but they don't, in fact most of them are quite happy in western garb!

[janie48]

Slight deviation from the OP, but the burka wearing court woman must remove her veil during her trial.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24112067

And quite right too.

[angos]

That's right and you dont agree with my reasons for not banning it in the street.

 

Because your reason appears to be that the government shouldn't interfere with peoples personal freedoms, which is something the government already do for the grater good of society.

[Cyclone]

Because your reason appears to be that the government shouldn't interfere with peoples personal freedoms, which is something the government already do for the grater good of society.

 

Have you seen Hot Fuzz?

[Old Tom]

Ah! I see it now!

 

Personally I don't believe the state should interfere with what we wear, unless the garment contains slogans which are highly likely to cause a breach of the peace.

 

I've had some lively discussions with people who claim Doc Marten wearing skinheads are looking for trouble and they should be banned from having that look (weird isn't it?), I couldn't countenance that, not only because I know some perfectly nice skinheaded Doc Marten wearers through my children, but they ain't doing me any harm, so live and let live.

 

So what about "The Clan"?

[Cyclone]

The veil is a symbol of modesty. Why don't you look up immodest in the dictionary?

 

I'll save you the job.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immodest?s=t

 

adjective

1.

not modest in conduct, utterance, etc.; indecent; shameless.

 

— adj

1. indecent, esp with regard to sexual propriety; improper

2. bold, impudent, or shameless

 

So if modest is wearing a veil, for girls/women that don't wear the veil, this is what you are. You are indecent, improper and shameless. This is what the veil symolises - intolerance.

 

You seem to be suggesting that a solution to intolerance is intolerance, is that what you think?

[angos]

But what you're suggesting-banning balaclavas, face masks, stocking masks have never been subject to a ban consideration before..even with a long history of their association with criminality.

 

 

 

That's why I see banning face coverings as a grievous attempt to bully genuine, law abiding burka wearers. As I've said before, I don't regard the garment well at all, but the final paragraph of Zamo's post #52 crystallises my thinking entirely. I don't want to live in a society which imposes draconian restrictions on how people behave..whoever they are.

 

I'm not sure what that as to do with anything, just because something wasn't banned in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned in the future, humans used to walk round with nothing on, now its illegal to walk round in public with nothing on, teachers used to hit students with a stick and now its illegal for them to hit students with a stick.

[SportsTrophy]

With all the talk about school uniform at the moment, i'm staggered that the veil has come into fray.

 

The whole point is for children to be in a safe environment and remove barriers to learning. Clothing issues are one of those barriers to learning.

[angos]

 

Are you saying that disguises should be banned? Or that they are?

 

That they should be banned in public places, if a group of students turned up to class all wearing balaclavas they would likely be asked to remove them, despite the fact that they are not banned.

or someone walking into a bank wearing a balaclava might cause a panic or at the very least be asked to remove it even though they aren't banned.

and in both cases it is right that they should remove their face covering.

 

---------- Post added 16-09-2013 at 15:53 ----------

 

 

The point was that, if there is to be a case of replacing one type of "oppression" by another (the point I quoted in my reply post), then I would sooner replace the (faith-based) oppression of a woman/child by a male who forces them to wear a burqa (I am aware that not all do, far from it) with the (law-based) oppression of that male.

 

Makes sense?

 

It makes sense to me.

 

---------- Post added 16-09-2013 at 15:58 ----------

 

I'd question the practicality, and therefore the value, of banning the covering of the face in public i.e. outdoors. The reality is people legitimately obscure there faces with scarves, hats, umbrellas, by sitting in cars, wearing a motorcycle helmet etc, etc. There would be so many exceptions required as to render the policy pointless.

 

Indoors, such as in schools, courts etc is another matter. A ban on anything masking the face is practical and could therefore genuinely improve security. The question for me is not whether there should be religious exceptions (of course not because it would render the policy pointless) but whether the security gains are enough to justify us all enduring the loss of the freedom to wear what we want in certain buildings.

 

You're only human.

 

You wouldn't need exceptions, the police, a shop keeper, a business owner would just have the automatic right to request it be removed, in the case of the police if they don't comply there would be grounds for arrest.

 

Wearing a balaclava at the top of Scafell pike isn't going to be an issue.

[Cyclone]

It makes sense, but only if you pretend that only women who are forced into wearing it, wear it. Clearly this is not true.

 

Asking a group of students wearing balaclavas to remove them is not the same as banning all disguises in public places...