Loading ...
All the better to see you…
Guidelines issued today to schools have said that head teachers will have the right to request Muslim girls to remove their veil (at least the part that covers the face) in classes.
I know from last night that faith schools and the place of Islam in society is an extremely contentious issue within this society just as in public. Personally, I am pleased with this ruling. I have to agree with Jack Straw in that the veil does nothing to aid communication, and forms such an obvious barricade to integration into ‘British society’. Some may argue that it does not go far enough, as this still allows for the headscarf to be worn in school, and of course veils can still be worn outside school.
This is a very difficult issue, as it is a question of juggling excessive legislation and imposing on rights (which is a particularly distasteful characteristic of Labour) with segregation and isolationism of the Muslims, which almost certainly fuels extremism. I would not like to see a full-out ban on expression of religion in schools as is the case in France, primarily because I think that would unfairly affect Christians. A point was made last night that I wholeheartedly agree with that ‘faith schools’ have only become as controversial since Islamic schools have appeared in the UK, and stories of them breeding terrorism (such as the Jameah Islamiyah School near Tunbridge Wells). I do not see why we should penalise the many excellent Christian schools because of this.
However, there is no easy solution, and I do not see the situation improving significantly for some years. Any views anyone?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I’m not going to look at this matter subjectively, but consider the following scenario:
An individual is seen wearing a mask on the tube for no obvious reason. Say, a clown mask. It’s clear that some may feel worried and ask the individual to remove his mask, primarily for indentification purposes.
The situation concerning veils is the same, and just to illustrate my point I’m going to direct you to the following photograph:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/images/pointless_photo.jpg
So, strictly from a law-enforcement point of view, veils should be banned.
Furthermore, integration into “British Society” is also an important reason for banning them. One of my friends recently travelled to the UAE, and chose to cover her arms and legs, despite the weather, simply because she wanted to feel as integrated into the local society as possible. She was acting out of respect for local decorum. The preservation of local culture is in my opinion vital, be this in the UAE, the deep Amazon, or the UK.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Its a difficult topic.. the thing is I disagree with the ban purely on the grounds that it causes a media frenzy and in todays political climate with the tensions that surround certain communities the whole controversy seems to do no more than aggitate the situation!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:59 am
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those that would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”, and ne’er was it more apt than in our society today. The right to dress as one wishes is a fundamental part of the freedom of expression: Franklin’s essential liberty that must never be qualified or restricted in the pursuit of your temporary safety.
To ban any form of dress, based upon cultural integration, is an abrogation of the responsibility of government to guarantee its people’s liberty. Not only that, but, rather self-defeatingly, it undermines the keystone of our country’s culture: respect for personal liberty and tolerance of others’ vices. Sometimes I worry for the ‘broad church’ Conservative Party if it offers sanctuary and solace to jack-booted authoritarians.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
I agree with your point about the clown mask Ilya. What I can’t understand is that if you go into a bank or other similar places, there are signs asking motorcyclists to remove their helmets for purposes of crime prevention. People who walk into banks with a mask covering their face are associated with carrying a shotgun in one hand and a swag bag in the other.
I have never been in a situation where I have seen one of these women in a bank, but I certainly not think that their rules should be relaxed for the sake of political correctness, in the same way that a policeman should be able to demand the mask be removed (without having to spend the rest of his day in the office justifying his suspicion). This is not an infringement on our rights Oliver.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I agree with Ilya, especially with his final point. Whenever I or any of my friends go abroad to countries with a different culture like UAE we respect and follow the rules of the country.
To me it doesn’t seem fair that we follow the rules of other countries, while people from other countries and cultures living in our country seem to make no attempt to intergrate into our society. As was said on Monday, in USA you are American first then what ever other ethincity be it African, Irish etc We do not appear to have this in our country. You are Indian, African etc first then English. There also exist people in our country who live here but claim to hate what our government and our country stand for and activly set out to destroy it eg 7/7
I am not against people choosing to express there religion, a full ban as is in place in France is too extreme in my view, what I am against is people willingly choosing to live in our country but not intergrate into our society. It’s not an infringement Oliver, stop being such a Liberal Democrat! Every person has the right to live in this country and practise their right to freedom of speech, but everyone also has the right to live in this country without fear!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Stuart: A bank is a private institution, hence has a right to rule what customers may wear on its premises. By comparison, a state school is a public institution, whose patronage is forced upon every individual by the Education Acts, (unless one pays a poll tax of at least £6,000, called ’school fees’). What you are suggesting is akin to the state telling every bank to outlaw the wearing of motorcycle helmets in its branches. That is an abrogation is the liberty of the bank and of the people.
Moreover, Ilya’s suggestion was not even so staid and respectful of liberty as your disrespectful proposal. If I understand his analogies of the Underground and the United Arab Emirates, he suggests that these forms of dress be banned at all times, on all premises, whether with the consent of the premises-owners or not. Please correct me if that’s wrong, but (if it is correct) we have witnessed a proposal worthy of a totalitarian state, by ending any conception of personal liberty, personal responsibility, or personal worth.
Laura: Our society’s core belief, what our country stands for, is freedom. It is the belief in freedom that sets us apart from barbarians countries, such as the UAE (and worse). To insist on playing by their rules is to insist that their rules are superior: that East bests West, that barbarism bests civilisation, that tyranny bests liberty.
Another core belief of the United Kingdom is that we set the rules, in political philosophy as suredly as in cricket or football. Whether one thinks of it as a blessing of Divine Providence, a by-product of our wealth, or a sign of our people’s greater nobility, we have made it a hallmark of the British people that we have played the game by our rules, and not simply to those played by others. To bow to others, for no reason but out of a spiteful demand for a level playing field, is wrong, and inherently un-British. If we wish a fair match in the return leg, we must raise them to our level, and not descend into the pit of barbarism.