German State Court Upholds Headscarf Ban for Teachers

  • Thread starter Thread starter guyabano
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 105
  • Views Views 11K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whilst the race-relations law in Britain protects other religious minorities like Jews and Sikhs from discrimination, it specifically excluded Muslims. Muslims unlike the other religious minorities are racially diverse and cannot be defined in terms of race, and so the excuse goes, are left unprotected by the law. Even after a decade of lobbying, and with independent academic studies, like the Runnymede Trust report on Islamophobia, all advising government of the need to provide equal protection under the law for Muslims, successive governments have all refused to do so.

This loophole in the law has lead to horrendous discrimination of Muslims in all sectors of society including schooling and employment.

One example which has hit the news recently (5 Dec 2003) is that of Icknield High School in Luton where governors are currently considering whether the school should continue its discriminatory practice of banning girls from wearing hijab. It was in 1999 that the schools islamophobic practices were first exposed (Muslim News 26.11.99):

Shabana Katisar, 16, who is in Year 11 at Icknield High School, said many girls wanted to wear the hijab but were prevented by the school. She said she wears the hijab to school and removes it when she enters the premises. On the occasions that she has kept the hijab on in school she, and other girls, have been placed in isolation.

She said: " It has happened many times. Last year, Sadia, who is a year ahead of me, came into school wearing hijab. She was isolated for two days. Her parents moved her to another school where they are allowed to wear hijab..."

Ms Kausar also said that she and a friend were placed in isolation in September when they wore the hijab to school. She added that the school is adopting double standards with this issue:

"Sikh boys are allowed to wear a turban even though it is not part of the uniform. This is because they are protected under law but we are not because we are Muslims."

Ms Kausar has discussed the issue with her Head Teacher, Keith Ford, but has been told to remove the hijab or face continued isolation. She has also spoken with the Equal Opportunity teacher: " She is sympathetic to us but she told me she cannot do anything as the Head Teacher has the final say."

Mr Ford acknowledged that two pupils were placed in isolation and said the "head scarf is not part of the uniform." When asked why Sikh boys are allowed to wear the turban when it is not part of the uniform, Mr Ford replied: " we took legal advice and were told that Sikhs are protected by law. I am not going to break the law."
 
no, i want u to allow all religions to be fulfilled as long as it does not harm others !

I actually want that too, as long as all the other ways of life are just as accepted and priviliged as religions. And while they are not, religious people have to follow the same rules others do.
 
I actually want that too, as long as all the other ways of life are just as accepted and priviliged as religions. And while they are not, religious people have to follow the same rules others do.

mixing religion and culture is like mixing an elephant with an ant.

how can you not see the huge difference?
 
mixing religion and culture is like mixing an elephant with an ant.

how can you not see the huge difference?

when u mix culture and religion it just turns the whol thing upside down!

Like some people love their culture more than they love Islam. and thats why they r wanting to compromise their culture for the sake of their religion.

Cheack this video out the guy says true words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bmBfZNgcU
 
mixing religion and culture is like mixing an elephant with an ant.

how can you not see the huge difference?

I guess Im just too non-religious to see the difference where one value is more worthy than other because its based religion. All I simply want is same treatment to my values as yours. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
mixing religion and culture is like mixing an elephant with an ant.

how can you not see the huge difference?

Oh sorry, I married an asian woman, a filipina, and we have a wonderful relationship, 2 lovely children, a third on the way...

So why should the mixing of cultures and religions not work? One of my neighbours (christian) is married with a Thai (Buddhism) and it works perfectly
 
So basically you want to be priviliged over others instead of equality for all ways of life?

Your illusion of equality is nothing short of oppression of religious minorities. Is it equality that some people suffer way more than others as a result of some law that is meant to make people equal? And it isn't only Muslims women who suffer either. So do Jewish and Sikh men.

Oh sorry, I married an asian woman, a filipina, and we have a wonderful relationship, 2 lovely children, a third on the way...

So why should the mixing of cultures and religions not work? One of my neighbours (christian) is married with a Thai (Buddhism) and it works perfectly

I think he means treating culture and religion as the same thing. So banning jeans (cultural dress) is not the same as banning religiously required dress.

But obviously they are to completely different things- jeans are only a personal preference, religious dress is compulsory.

I know of a girl in Turkey suffering from depression because she had to remove her head scarf to continue working. As if anyone is going to suffer from depression for not wearing jeans.
 
Last edited:
Your illusion of equality is nothing short of oppression of religious minorities. Is it equality that some people suffer way more than others as a result of some law that is meant to make people equal? And it isn't only Muslims women who suffer either. So do Jewish and Sikh men.

So the alternative is to give special status to some groups of people and let the others suffer?
 
No, the alternative is to have NO BAN on religious symbols. Isn't that obvious?:confused:
 
I think he means treating culture and religion as the same thing. So banning jeans (cultural dress) is the same as banning religiously required dress.
.


JAZAKALLAH KHAIR !!


lol i dont know why that was so hard to understand, is it the way i word it ?


anyway the points across now Alhamdulillah
 
So the alternative is to give special status to some groups of people and let the others suffer?

if someone "feels" that they are "suffering" (IN INVERTED BLASTED COMMA'S) due to our fulfilling of our religious obligations (which is mainly worship and good treatment) then they have a serious problem and may make an appointment with a doctor any time !


seriously, i find this more then ridiculous
 
if someone "feels" that they are "suffering" (IN INVERTED BLASTED COMMA'S) due to our fulfilling of our religious obligations (which is mainly worship and good treatment) then they have a serious problem and may make an appointment with a doctor any time !


seriously, i find this more then ridiculous

They are suffering because they cannot dress how they want, not because you are fulfilling your religious obligations.
 
No, the alternative is to have NO BAN on religious symbols. Isn't that obvious?:confused:

No, thats again a situation where one group of people are favoured over other based on what they believe is important.

Edit: What about people who want to display non-religious symbols?
 
Last edited:
As for myself, I welcome the decision of the court. Schools are a place to learn and not to display religious symbols.
If you don't like, so change the school or leave the country. Simple !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top