observer Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 A Judge in a court case has told a Muslim woman that she can't wear a niqaab - but only while she's giving evidence. A college in Birmingham has banned the wearing of ALL head and face coverings within the college - fine. But get ready for the inevitable appeals to the ECHR. What a joke they've turned this Nation into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 The college in Birmingham that introduced a ban on head coverings has already reversed the decision due to Muslim pressure.... and in the paper today some muslim guy who bought his kid a cheese and onion pasty that had a normal meat pasty in the package has complained that when he approached Morrisons; they offered him a bottle of champagne as compen..... he was (as usual) "Outraged" that staff did not know his cultural beliefs!!! These people really do need to stop pandering to these minorities and stop letting them dictate how we in this country do things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Apparently this woman is on trial for intimidating a witness so it is important that her face is known to public & police...if she gets sent down will her police & prison picture be of her with or without a veil .People know the British way of life & it is immigrants who should fit in with us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 The gentleman's outrage stems not from the fact that he was offered the heinous insult of a beef pasty, meat which a muslim is permitted to eat, but that the animal had not been tortured in the correct manner during slaughter. The cruelty of halal slaughter is a ticking animal rights time bomb, methinks he'd have been better keeping his trap shut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottie Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I would agree with a ban on face coverings in courts, People must be able to see your face when you are giving evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I would go further and do what they have done in France. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Thought you were a "liberal"?!!! So, if they can do it in France, why can't we? What primitive beliefs folk wish to hold, is fine imo, providing it's kept in the privacy of their homes or mosques/churches etc. However, when in the public space, it would seem appropriate to apply non-religious or secular values and dress codes, mainly for practical reasons. For a start, face coverings would negate all that Government investment in CCTV for example ! Security issues, interview and teaching scenarios; bank and commercial transactions etc etc; all require imo face to face contact; as communication involves body language and facial expression as well as the spoken word. And as the saying goes: "when in Rome....." etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Playing devils advocate! - would you allow a medical person eg. dentist or doctor to treat you if they were wearing 'face coverings' because of their religion?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 simple way round it. When they appear in court no need for them to remove their head gear, just have to say "Guilty as charged, sentence is 2 years imprisonment starting now, take them away next case" Any objections and the judge can just say well it was you because you were recognised by your description oh and another six months for contempt if you carry on objecting. will never happen. Latest one to hit the headlines,as it were, is the one about the pig gelatin in flu vaccine that was given at schools in leicester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 In contrast, their was a festival at Liverpool on Sunday where Hindus made offerings on the Mersey to a Hindu god. They were so grateful for the freedom given to them over here to be able to pay their homage so freely & unopposed . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Obs I am also an atheist, and their is also the issue that Women might be being forced to where them, better to do what they did in France, any Muslim immigration into France know their stance on it and can make their decision accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Algy doctors where masks because of infection reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 The wearing of the niqaab is not a mandatory requirement of Islam, but a cultural adaptation, in just the same way as forced marriage or honour killings. We don't tolerate the latter, so I see no reason to tolerate the former. Our liberal elite, who bend over backwards to accommodate anachronistic practises in the name of cultural and religious diversity, have merely made rods for our own backs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Lt, please credit me with some intelligence, I'm well aware that surgical masks are worn in certain medical situations to prevent cross contamination, however there was a case recently where a patient refused treatment from a female dentist who was wearing a niqab with only a slit for her eyes. NB. I believe the correct spelling is niqab and not niqaab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Sorry algy Not heard about the dentist, but I don't think I would go to a dentist or Doctor, who was wearing the a head covering and had just a slit for the eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevofaz25 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 be glad she got a trial- lots of places where it doesn't happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I keep hearing how these veils are a hinderance to proper conversation as you can't see facial expressions , sort of makes the phone a useless invention if its true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 Seems two young Muslim boys at a Catholic school; have been banned from growing beards; how will they go on with Sikhs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted October 6, 2013 Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 They haven't been 'banned from growing beards', they already have the beards. They have been excluded from communal lessons but are still being educated. Which side are you on Catholics or Muslims? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted October 6, 2013 Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 Is he obliged to take sides?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 6, 2013 Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 I would like to thank eagle, for telling us the facts, unlike the spun version we got from Obs!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2013 "excluded" = "banned"; the reason being, according to the head, is that they don't conform to uniform regs; which would be rather difficult for a Sikh perhaps they'd call that a tur -BAN? ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.