It is insensitive, doncha know, to assert Western cultural norms. From The Independent, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
Pressure was mounting yesterday for national rules on Muslim dress in schools to be drawn up after a local authority chose Ramadan to enforce a ban on the jilbab, leading to protests from parents and pupils.Schools in Tower Hamlets, the London borough with the highest concentration of Muslims in Britain, were accused of insensitivity after letters were sent during the holiest month of the Muslim year restating the dress code. The letters, which made clear that wearing the jilbab - an ankle-length dress which covers the body except for face and hands - was not permitted, led to three girls at one school being withdrawn. Others pupils are understood to have protested about the letters with some requesting to be moved to different schools.
Muslim leaders called last night for national guidelines to be drawn up on appropriate dress for Muslims after a series of clashes between pupils and governors across the country. This summer, a 15-year-old student from Luton lost a High Court action after she argued her human rights were infringed when she was excluded from lessons for wearing the jilbab.
I thought that they were all supposed to wear school uniforms over there.
If school uniforms aren't the norm - then it should be.
My local school districts have been toying with the issue of school uniforms for years because the 'authorities that be' were forced to constantly update the dress code to stay current and address very specific violations wrought by the latest fashion trends (hats, scarves, colors (gang), fit, shirt/skirt length etc. etc.) .
Always, PC and self esteem would trump logic. This article highlighting the issue of "human rights" violations because of "dress codes" just proves that school uniforms make sense.
Actually, I don't like these clothing bans. I want Jews to be free to wear a kippah and Christians to be free to wear a cross or miraculous medal. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere- no nudist Druids, no Afghan style burkahs- but I don’t know about the jilbab. The article does not say if there a uniform requirement.
I understand that England is trying to mainstream people and get immigrants to assimilate instead of isolate themselves in ghettos. But what we are really trying to get Muslims to do is to accept our delineation of public versus private issues. I can eat pork, drink beer and show my legs (although really, after all the pork and beer maybe I would be better off in an ankle length dress). You don’t have to.
Those who wish to can make fun of Christians, Jews and Muslims, Christ, God, Mohammed, the Bible, Krishna, the Koran and anything else. Believers can taunt back (or earnestly argue depending on their proclivities).
That is the private sphere, but it ends when I commit violence against anyone. No wife beating, no killing unbelievers, no honor killings.
Now, can’t we all just get along?
Banning the large flowing gown could be a matter of safety as well. In the high schools in my area extremely baggy clothing is banned for both boys and girls because the of the ability to conceal weapons in the folds of the clothing
The school in Luton had an adapted uniform for Muslim pupils with a shalwar kamiz and headscarf, which is perfectly practical. The jilbab isn't practical - it would be impossible to do sport and imagine if it caught fire from a Bunsen burner in the chemistry lab.
This isn't discrimination at all - it's actually making sure girls get equal educational opportunities despite coming from a patriarchal and oppressive background.
What is so cunning about religo-political Islam is its rigid and outwardly ritualistic expression.
Cloaking up their women because the fear that they will be exposed as the human beings they are and possibly having others, muslim or non-muslim, looking upon them with a natural physical desire is an obvious man-made, tribal dictated response that sprung upon humanity centuries ago and hasn't left us since.
The hoo-hah about all of these outward manifestations makes a non-muslim, like me, wonder if there is any spirituality at all in this "great religion"?
I think NOT.
Dear Muslims, might I make a suggestion to all of you?
Know your role, keep your mouthes shut, and follow the rules that everyone else follows.
Thank you.
If it weren't for the safety issue, one wouldn't care if Muslim women wore paper bags over their heads, but long, flowing robes can conceal weapons, and veils conceal identity and are hazard during driving and generally walking around.
If uniforms are called for, all should wear the same. I imagine that sooner or later, Muslims will insist that non-Muslim women wear hijab so as not to "offend their sensibilities.
Beware, "National guidelines" is a first step for the implementation of Sha'ria. This is how it begins. Start with small things: hijab, halal foods, and then move to the bigger items, and soon you are immersed in Sha'ria.
DC,
Know your role, keep your mouthes shut, and follow the rules that everyone else follows....
Dont forget "pump my gas and get me a slurpee"
I always believed that the hijab was invented in Iran in the 1970s as a protest against the attempted 'Westernisation' by the then ruler, the Shah.
Females were encouraged (or should that be 'ordered') to wear the hijab as an outward sign that they opposed any form of Westernisation.
If this is correct, how is the hijab regarded as a religious symbol?
The hijab is a political symbol, meant to demostrate to the world that the female wearing it is opposed to any change in the status of females in the Muslim world.
The hijab should be regarded as a modern political symbol, not as some kind of ancient religious tradition.