[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well apparently it clearly is to you! If it is a FEE PAYING school it is clearly only accessible to muslims who can afford to pay the fees - duh! The state run muslim schools ALSO do a great job of indoctrinating little girls for a life of servitude and submission to men, but they are constrained by the fact that they rely totally on government funding, so are unable (as yet) to practise full blown brainwashing. Perhaps you are also aware that, unlike christian faith schools who are forced to take a proportion of non christians, no such compulsion is placed on state muslim schools who refuse to take non muslims.

You wouldnt like to put your money where mouth is on that little piece of gen there would you and prove that one?

If we allow Catholics, Jews etc to have thier own schools whether they be state assisted or private why shouldnt Muslims be able to have theirs too, or are you saying they should be treated separately because they are simply muslims and you dont agree with the way they treat women.

Personally I wouldnt send my children to a Muslim school. But that is purely because of my distaste for Islam. But if people do want to send their children there, then why not? It is there choice for their children. Or would you prefer to deny them the choice they wish and just have little schools that you approve of?

As for the garbage about brainwashing, dont you think the parents and family will be doing that anyway in most cases?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

You wouldnt like to put your money where mouth is on that little piece of gen there would you and prove that one?

If we allow Catholics, Jews etc to have thier own schools whether they be state assisted or private why shouldnt Muslims be able to have theirs too, or are you saying they should be treated separately because they are simply muslims and you dont agree with the way they treat women.

Personally I wouldnt send my children to a Muslim school. But that is purely because of my distaste for Islam. But if people do want to send their children there, then why not? It is there choice for their children. Or would you prefer to deny them the choice they wish and just have little schools that you approve of?

As for the garbage about brainwashing, dont you think the parents and family will be doing that anyway in most cases?

I suggest you try reading what I actually said. Christian schools have been forced by legislation to allot a percentage of their places to children from other denominations. Muslim schools however refuse to take children from other faiths, (even supposing anyone would want to send their kids there), and there is no such legal compulsion on them. You really have a very poor grasp of Islam if you do not understand that it is not just a religion but an holistic way of life that permeates every thought, every action, every deed in a way that other religions do not. Central to Islam is the belief that women are inferior beings who are only in the world to do the bidding of men and to serve them without question. Before they are married they are the property of their male relatives, once they are married they become the property of their husband. She is never her own person. From the moment a girl is born she is indoctrinated to that belief and she faces a life of submission to men. If you do not understand why I, as a woman, find that offensive and abhorrent, that's not my problem.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

I suggest you try reading what I actually said. Christian schools have been forced by legislation to allot a percentage of their places to children from other denominations. Muslim schools however refuse to take children from other faiths, (even supposing anyone would want to send their kids there), and there is no such legal compulsion on them. You really have a very poor grasp of Islam if you do not understand that it is not just a religion but an holistic way of life that permeates every thought, every action, every deed in a way that other religions do not. Central to Islam is the belief that women are inferior beings who are only in the world to do the bidding of men and to serve them without question. Before they are married they are the property of their male relatives, once they are married they become the property of their husband. She is never her own person. From the moment a girl is born she is indoctrinated to that belief and she faces a life of submission to men. If you do not understand why I, as a woman, find that offensive and abhorrent, that's not my problem.

I would suggest you try writing what you want to say then. Muslim run state schools are under the same legislation for state funding as Christian run schools. Opting out of religious type education and prayer sessions is mandatory, complaints upheld against non complying schools could restrict or delay funding.

As for understanding Islam, yes i do understand it and the nature of life of some adherents to it. But what you are suggesting doesnt apply to all of Islam.

Your problem is you like to tar people, you dont like ALL Islam because of certain school's attitudes to women, you dont like any man to disagree with your opinion, if he does he is misogynist.

Sorry I am male, I dare to disagree with you and I am not misogynistic. I am a realist. You cant legislate peoples attitudes, nor can you decide what people should or shouldnt believe, nor the religion they follow.

[Tom4784]

The Daily Mail is hardly a source to take seriously, You'd get a more balanced view from a BNP newsletter. If it is true then I disagree vehemently but then again that article doesn't comment on the parent's reaction, as expected. Daily Mail can't allow muslims to be portrayed a truthful light since they're all bloodthirsty extremists after our civil liberties obviously.

Chances a good percentage of the parents are as outraged at this is other people are. I expect the student Body to drop in number considerably. No one should be forced to wear the Burkha but 3 schools do not represent all muslims so it's unfair to judge them as so.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The Daily Mail is hardly a source to take seriously, You'd get a more balanced view from a BNP newsletter. If it is true then I disagree vehemently but then again that article doesn't comment on the parent's reaction, as expected. Daily Mail can't allow muslims to be portrayed a truthful light since they're all bloodthirsty extremists after our civil liberties obviously.

Chances a good percentage of the parents are as outraged at this is other people are. I expect the student Body to drop in number considerably. No one should be forced to wear the Burkha but 3 schools do not represent all muslims so it's unfair to judge them as so.

Have you even bothered reading the whole thread - it has been reported from other news sources and let's face it if it were untrue, the muslims would be issuing their high court writs as I type, but that ain't going to happen, because it happens to be the truth.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by angus58

Have you even bothered reading the whole thread - it has been reported from other news sources and let's face it if it were untrue, the muslims would be issuing their high court writs as I type, but that ain't going to happen, because it happens to be the truth.

Did you even bother to read my post? I said if it's true then I disagree with it but you can't judge a group of people on the actions of a few. I never said it wasn't true only that chances are the Daily Mail reported it in a biased manner or that it may have exagerated events.

Read my posts before you critique them in future.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Did you even bother to read my post? I said if it's true then I disagree with it but you can't judge a group of people on the actions of a few. I never said it wasn't true only that chances are the Daily Mail reported it in a biased manner or that it may have exagerated events.

Read my posts before you critique them in future.

I will feel free to critique yours or anyone else's posts in the future if I feel like it, since that is the nature of the forum beast, and I don't require your permission to do so. Once you post expect a reaction, especially when it's a dismissive one such as yours before you had even bothered to check out the authenticity of the story.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by angus58

I will feel free to critique yours or anyone else's posts in the future if I feel like it, since that is the nature of the forum beast, and I don't require your permission to do so. Once you post expect a reaction, especially when it's a dismissive one such as yours before you had even bothered to check out the authenticity of the story.

Yes but you can't have a go at me, acusing me of not reading the articles when you yourself didn't read my post properly. That's just hypocritical. I'm being dismissive because the Daily Mail is a piss poor excuse of a newspaper and I merely wanted to hear both sides of the story, something very basic that all newspapers should adhere to. Sorry I'm not wailing like a banshee in vehement disagreement with the story because simply we do not know all the facts. Like you said in that post You're free to critique my post (Bearing in mind you actually read it first next time) so why am I not allowed to critique a source? Once again, hypocritical.

[Ayesha]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The Daily Mail is hardly a source to take seriously, You'd get a more balanced view from a BNP newsletter. If it is true then I disagree vehemently but then again that article doesn't comment on the parent's reaction, as expected. Daily Mail can't allow muslims to be portrayed a truthful light since they're all bloodthirsty extremists after our civil liberties obviously.

Agreed. Good old Daily mail. A muslims best friend.

Chances a good percentage of the parents are as outraged at this is other people are. I expect the student Body to drop in number considerably. No one should be forced to wear the Burkha but 3 schools do not represent all muslims so it's unfair to judge them as so.

Well exactly, if parents dont like it, they can put great pressure on the schools to change (the advantage of fee paying parents..) - or send their kids elsewhere.

[arista]

"The Daily Mail is hardly a source to take seriously"

This was debated on LBC and ITV1's "AT" 5PM show.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by arista

"The Daily Mail is hardly a source to take seriously"

This was debated on LBC and ITV1's "AT" 5PM show.

lol ITV, It doesn't change the facts that we haven't heard the opinions of the parents and such, instead we're lead to believe that they might be fine and dandy with it that just fuels the media made image that Islam is a slowly creeping monster seeking to take away our liberties.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

lol ITV, It doesn't change the facts that we haven't heard the opinions of the parents and such, instead we're lead to believe that they might be fine and dandy with it that just fuels the media made image that Islam is a slowly creeping monster seeking to take away our liberties.

Sure I am sure we will.


Yes I can understand you Dezzy
with the 'Monster.'

But 3 Muslims Schools with Ofsted Permission
are going back in time, the wrong way.

[letmein]

It's a private institution. They can do as they like. Don't like it, don't go. We should then ban all uniforms.

And The Daily Fail, is a racist, homophobic organization, that lies and distorts things to further their own agenda. The history speaks for itself. So, don't go giving us that "lefty" crap.

[Parmy]

Who's saying the 11 yr olds are being forced to wear the veils? At that age you do as you're told. Sunday school was something I hated, I still had to ****ing go and listen to some freak in a frock ramble on about jesus.

[Zippy]

If burqas and veils are not a religious requirement then I see no justification for them whatsoever. Theyre clearly all about desexualising females and making them invisible. I don't think that should be acceptable in any free civilised country.

The goverment should send out a strong message that hiding females away like this is just intolerable and actually dehumanises them.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by Zippy

If burqas and veils are not a religious requirement then I see no justification for them whatsoever. Theyre clearly all about desexualising females and making them invisible. I don't think that should be acceptable in any free civilised country.

The goverment should send out a strong message that hiding females away like this is just intolerable and actually dehumanises them.

It would not be a free society then. The government has no business getting involved in these institutions. If you don't want to go to one, you're free to not go.

[BB_Eye]

Nobody is breaking the law by making Islamic school girls wear the hijab or even the veil. Religious institutions are given exemptions (some might say special treatment) from certain laws which bans discrimination towards women and other groups

Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but I hope in the interests of consistency, the same people asking for a ban on mandatory veil-wearing for girls in schools are also prepared to deny the Catholic and Anglican church the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians which they do routinely and legally.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Nobody is breaking the law by making Islamic school girls wear the hijab or even the veil. Religious institutions are given exemptions (some might say special treatment) from certain laws which bans discrimination towards women and other groups

Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but I hope in the interests of consistency, the same people asking for a ban on mandatory veil-wearing for girls in schools are also prepared to deny the Catholic and Anglican church the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians which they do routinely and legally.

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

Once again you seek to muddy the waters by throwing some slightly factually based inflammatory garbage into the debate.

Sharia Law doesnt actually prescribe a punishment for homosexuality, some countries have used the fact Mohammad said it was immoral to practice sodomy to impose the death sentence for those caught practising, however more countries that have laws based on Sharia simply use imprisonment, there are even countries that dont punish.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

Yet I'm sure you would have been the first one complaining about cctv cameras going up all over the place.

You come across as very intolerant to the muslim faith and religion angus, It's a shame because all your posts are well written. Garbage, but well written!

ps, don't reply because i'm beneath you in intellect.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Yet I'm sure you would have been the first one complaining about cctv cameras going up all over the place.

You come across as very intolerant to the muslim faith and religion angus, It's a shame because all your posts are well written. Garbage, but well written!

ps, don't reply because i'm beneath you in intellect.

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

[letmein]

Originally Posted by angus58

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

CCTV cameras are too 1984, and dangerous. A totally Fascist concept.

I agree with you about the face covering thing in public. People should be able to see your face in case you break the law. However, in a public institution, you should be able to wear what is required. Outside, that's a different story.

All religions brainwash youth. That's a fact.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by angus58

I have no problem with cctv cameras, they are an absolute necessity in city centres, airports etc. I am not intolerant to any religion, but I am extremely intolerant to a garment that conceals the FACE. It is not being tolerant, but stupid and naive, to find it acceptable for anyone to have the right to walk amongst us unidentifiable - I have still not read one good reason for this to be permitted - religious requirement or NOT.

I have also already explained at great length my objections, as a woman, to being confronted in our western culture with this very visual and obvious sign of the subjugation of women. Muslim women are brainwashed from birth to believe they are inferior to men, so their adult views are not too convincing to me.

Incidentally it is not my fault if you cannot follow an argument

Oh I can follow an argument easily enough, I tend to just skip over racism though.So you can imagine I was only getting snippets of your ramblings.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

You are aware, I take it, that under sharia law, homosexuality attracts the death penalty?

Where does Sharia law come into this? Anyhow Sharia law doesn't prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality, but I am aware homosexuality is considered one of the worst of sins in Islam.

I only mentioned Christians to illustrate a point. The Anglican and Catholic church have been the most vocal about their wishes to be exempt from Britain's laws on discrimination (for instance women and gays in the clergy, same-sex marriages, gay adoption etc). What I mean to say is there was never half the amount of fuss over the special considerations made for religious institutions across the board as there is on this single issue regarding Islam and the burkha. Why the sudden emergence of concerned citizens?

Originally Posted by angus58

Furthermore, I don't recall that homosexuals are required to conceal their identity by wearing face enveloping burkhas

If it were up to me, I would far rather be a woman wearing the veil than a homosexual living out a double life or a sham marriage. Both entail concealing oneself up to a point.

Originally Posted by angus58

Religious freedoms should not be allowed to infringe the public's right to safety and security, which is somewhat hampered by the inability to identify a person.

But there are plenty of times where we would compromise our safety and security for our civil rights/liberties. For instance many agree excessive CCTV can amount to a violation of privacy and the idea of introducing ID cards greatly angered the GBP.