Page 5 of 6
Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 14:11
by weebleswobble
emilystrange wrote:itnAklipse wrote:
i'm sorry if i offend, but are you a teacher? Because ... i think a teacher needs a broad mind, also a teacher should really be well-read and thoughtful in order to communicate to the innocent little fragile impressionable minds instead of being on the level of a "housewife" spouting tasteless and flat remarks and taglines and cliches.
yes i am a f*cking teacher trying to do the best for my kids. don't EVER dispute that with me, f*ckwit, because you have NO idea what it's like teaching kids to read and write, how to understand texts, how to impart any kind of enthusiasm, sense of fun... I can control my class with the expression on my face or the lift of an eyebrow. not raise my voice.
you need to be able to see someone's face, to learn from them, ESPECIALLY at the age i teach.
You're my hero
Incase my point was missed
Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 14:15
by scotty
Veils, Passports..........Driving Licence......pictures?
I genuinely don't know
Posted: 22 Oct 2006, 15:48
by Dark
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 02:44
by Andy Christ 666
O.K, so wearing a veil is a part of their culture(but not mandatory), if I went out tomorrow wearing as s.a.s style balaclava or a gimp mask, drove into town and wandered around the shops and market (I wont even mention going to the bank), you can bet that I would be treated to a chat with the local police and asked to remove my 'headgear' as it hides my identity and could be used as a disguise in any 'unlawful activity', which is fair enough.
So why should they be allowed to wear them, as it is in a way a disguise, can you imagine if a group of them held up a bank?
Police- 'Can you describe the bank robbers?'
Cashier-' Well, they had brown eyes and spoke like Kenny from South Park.'
Not to mention that they remind me of female ninjas............
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 03:23
by boudicca
scotty wrote:Veils, Passports..........Driving Licence......pictures?
I genuinely don't know
It's so they can do terrorism, dontcha know!
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 10:06
by Dark
Andy Christ 666 wrote:Not to mention that they remind me of female ninjas............
If that's not the best reason for having veils, I don't know what is..
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 18:11
by Petseri
smiscandlon wrote:This topic is really bringing out the best in people isn't it?
It
has brought out nice comments about you. Deservedly so, I will add.
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 19:19
by James Blast
all's well that ends well, trash it Martin, put us out of our misery
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 19:51
by Petseri
James Blast wrote:all's well that ends well, trash it Martin, put us out of our misery
Admittedly I was tempted, but then would come the waves of posts about censorship.
This way, though, you can see the nature of fellow HLers. Like
smiscandlon.
And others.
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 20:27
by James Blast
QB wasn't so lite (<-----Amerikan spelling, there) handed as you Martin
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 20:34
by weebleswobble
Petseri wrote:James Blast wrote:all's well that ends well, trash it Martin, put us out of our misery
Admittedly I was tempted, but then would come the waves of posts about censorship.
This way, though, you can see the nature of fellow HLers. Like
smiscandlon.
And others.
I agree, nae need to trash as it has proved very, very interesting
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 20:42
by Petseri
James Blast wrote:QB wasn't so lite (<-----Amerikan spelling, there) handed as you Martin
Watch it, or I will change one of your posts to read that you utterly detest
YCBTO!
The boss tends to be very tolerant and fair around here. Not that he would have liked this thread, I doubt that he would have been full of p*ss and vinegar over it and binned it. I may be wrong; it happens.
Mind you, if it goes much further, someone will step in, but the lot seemed to have things under control. Besides, one source of tension has left the building. Time to see if promises are kept.
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 21:09
by James Blast
Petseri wrote:Besides, one source of tension has left the building. Time to see if promises are kept.
as sarah orange so aptly put it, and I quote "pfft"
Posted: 23 Oct 2006, 21:28
by emilystrange
it's a useful sort of utterance
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 10:25
by sarah_orange
my favourite use when I'm feeling comedy sexist is:
men! pfft! ffs!
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 10:30
by eastmidswhizzkid
in short -veils/hoodies/jesus is a cunt t-shirts: what fucking right has anybody got to tell anybody else what they can and can't wear (apart from trinny and susannah).
intolerance breeds intolerance.fact.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 11:13
by boneheadhaggar
trinny and susannah.....if ever there was a case for all women to be made to wear veils, then they are it
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 11:44
by Izzy HaveMercy
boneheadhaggar wrote:trinny and susannah.....if ever there was a case for all women to be made to wear veils, then they are it
I never trusted women that deliberately fondle other women's tits and asses on prime-time TV anyways. They are the 'Dolle Mina's' of our time
IZ.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 12:23
by markfiend
Petseri wrote:...but then would come the waves of posts about censorship.
This is probably why my finger has hovered over the "lock" button but not actually clicked it too. That and the fact that there's a potential conflict of interest in arguing and moderating in the same thread.
Anyhoo, I found this comment elsewhere...
Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with making comments or not being able to make quick comments in a weblog. Freedom of speech has to do with government censorship and intimidation, not our little "Shut up?" "Oh yeah" back and forths.
At the end of the day, this is a moderated forum. If someone,
anyone doesn't like the way moderation is done, they don't have to post here. In fact, they're perfectly free to go and set up their own message board.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 12:38
by aims
eastmidswhizzkid wrote: what fucking right has anybody got to tell anybody else what they can and can't wear (apart from trinny and susannah).
As an employer, every right. Veils impede communication, hoodies are intimidating and "Jesus is a c**t" tees are, like it or not, going to offend a large proportion of your customer base. When you clock on at 9, some common sense sacrifices have to be made to do your job properly. When you clock off at 5, you can do whatever you want. If they're paying you to do something and your choice of clothing/equipment/timetable/whatever prevents you from carrying out that job to the best of your ability, then unless you're willing to rectify the situation, they're quite within their rights to stop paying you and to find someone else to do it.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 12:53
by eastmidswhizzkid
but they still don't have the right to tell you what to wear. they are perfectly entitled to refuse you emplyment or sack you for your apparel but it is still your choice as an individual whether or not to accept their terms on the strenghth of feeling you hold over the sacrifice of your freedom.
if i wanted to be a pig -i mean police cuntstubble- that badly then i'd have to leave my harry roberts is my friend tee at home.my choice.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 13:02
by markfiend
eastmidswhizzkid wrote:they are perfectly entitled to refuse you emplyment or sack you for your apparel
This is what happened in this case. The woman didn't wear the veil to her interview, but wore it to work. Some parents complained that she couldn't do her job properly with it on, the school agreed and sacked her.
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 13:06
by Rafster
well i still think people are looking at this problem from a really short termist perspective which is exactly what straw didn't want (but obviously he didn't achieve it!). he wanted to see better community cohesion because communities aren't mixing and this breeds misunderstanding, fear etc.
what we need to know is: why are veils being worn? they're being worn loads more than even 10 years ago. once we address these kinds of problems we could start slowly sorting things out.
but saying "no, you must not wear the veil, period" isn't actually a million miles away from snatching it away physiclally IMHO.
la la la...
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 14:23
by aims
eastmidswhizzkid wrote:but they still don't have the right to tell you what to wear. they are perfectly entitled to refuse you emplyment or sack you for your apparel but it is still your choice as an individual whether or not to accept their terms on the strenghth of feeling you hold over the sacrifice of your freedom.
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the slightest practical difference between the two. Surely sacking someone if they don't wear what you tell them to is exactly the same act as telling them what to wear? It's not like they have strange mind control powers which can keep you in the job and force you to wear stuff. What you're saying is "Point 1 doesn't stand but Point 1 does". They're exactly the same
Posted: 24 Oct 2006, 15:01
by smiscandlon
To me it all comes back to the issue of the item of clothing preventing her from doing her job effectively. A teachers job is
communication, and the veil was (allegedly) preventing effective communication with her pupils.
I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on my brain while wearing a nice pair of sheepskin mitts, or to be rescued from a burning building by a fireman in high heels. You could equally argue that either of those "shouldn't be told what to wear", but the fact is that a great many of us have to make concessions when entering the workplace.
Although I suppose a less flippant parallel would be the Sikh's turban.
Wikipedia wrote:For Sikhs, the use of turban excludes the wearing of a cap. In India, Sikh riders of motorcycles are exempt from wearing crash helmets. Similarly, a Sikh soldier would not wear a steel helmet even under shelling or firing. However, in some foreign countries the compulsion of wearing a turban, like the wearing of long, untrimmed hair, has sometimes led to the Sikhs being placed in a position of conflict with employers or even governments whose rules or laws require the wearing of a cap or helmet.
The turban being religiously obligatory for the Sikhs, a more tolerant view has begun to be taken recently. For example, the Motor Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act passed in British Parliament in 1976 exempts “any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban� from having to wear a crash helmet. Similarly, the highest court of the country in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords, has ruled that Sikh drivers and conductors of public vehicles are not to be compelled to wear caps. Similarly in Canada in 1986 Sikhs in the Metro Toronto Police were granted the right to wear turbans rather than caps while on duty, and since 1990 have been able to wear their turban while serving in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
A very interesting news article from a couple of years ago
here, contrasting somewhat with the current face veil case.
