Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Has This School Discriminated Against This Parent Because Of Her Religion?
91 Answers
http://
// Her solicitor, Attiq Malik, has written to the school saying its actions were a ‘straightforward’ test case of discrimination on the grounds of religion. ///
/// Mr Malik, of Liberty Law Solicitors, added: ‘The Government constantly talks about British values. To me, those values include diversity and multiculturalism.’ ///
// Her solicitor, Attiq Malik, has written to the school saying its actions were a ‘straightforward’ test case of discrimination on the grounds of religion. ///
/// Mr Malik, of Liberty Law Solicitors, added: ‘The Government constantly talks about British values. To me, those values include diversity and multiculturalism.’ ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the two are pretty much interchangeable as words go now.
https:/
https:/
Newspapers pepper their stories with irrelevancies to frame their agenda.
'Single mother of three' being the stand out one in the Mail verson. You don't have to read any more of the story after that to know the parent is the baddie of the piece. It is totally irrelevant to the issue, but is a loud peep on the dog whistle for Mail readers.
'Single mother of three' being the stand out one in the Mail verson. You don't have to read any more of the story after that to know the parent is the baddie of the piece. It is totally irrelevant to the issue, but is a loud peep on the dog whistle for Mail readers.
Gromit
We obviously read the same thing with different interpretations. The lady was quoted as saying that she had no problem from security at the school gate. The way that is phrased, my understanding is that there was someone at the school gate checking that the people entering had the right to do so.
If my interpretation is correct and there is security at the school gate, I fail to see why her wearing the veil once she has cleared security should be an issue. I'm pretty sure that airports don't insist that women remain unveiled once they pass security there.
We obviously read the same thing with different interpretations. The lady was quoted as saying that she had no problem from security at the school gate. The way that is phrased, my understanding is that there was someone at the school gate checking that the people entering had the right to do so.
If my interpretation is correct and there is security at the school gate, I fail to see why her wearing the veil once she has cleared security should be an issue. I'm pretty sure that airports don't insist that women remain unveiled once they pass security there.
New Judge
If my interpretation of her words as given in the Guardian is correct and there is security at the school gate, the safety aspect is not an issue - photo id and her listing the veil to confirm her identity is sufficient in my opinion.
As for frightening the children - I think that is unlikely. Having seen Muslim women in the full kit and caboodle walking around shopping centres without sending people (including children) scurrying for cover, I doubt that children at the school would be frightened.
You may feel insulted by women wearing the full outfit offensive, I do not. As far as I am concerned how they dress is their business, and if their foibles include hiding their faces in public, so be it.
If my interpretation of her words as given in the Guardian is correct and there is security at the school gate, the safety aspect is not an issue - photo id and her listing the veil to confirm her identity is sufficient in my opinion.
As for frightening the children - I think that is unlikely. Having seen Muslim women in the full kit and caboodle walking around shopping centres without sending people (including children) scurrying for cover, I doubt that children at the school would be frightened.
You may feel insulted by women wearing the full outfit offensive, I do not. As far as I am concerned how they dress is their business, and if their foibles include hiding their faces in public, so be it.
Gromit
Why should the description 'Single mother of three' make one automatically know that the parent is the baddie of the piece?
On the contrary it is widely used to gain sympathy towards the woman, i.e. being left to bring up three children on her own.
And from what the Mail has said she has not made a bad job of it.
Have your usual dig at the Mail if you must, but give them credit for mentioning that fact.
Why should the description 'Single mother of three' make one automatically know that the parent is the baddie of the piece?
On the contrary it is widely used to gain sympathy towards the woman, i.e. being left to bring up three children on her own.
And from what the Mail has said she has not made a bad job of it.
Have your usual dig at the Mail if you must, but give them credit for mentioning that fact.
Zacs-Master
/// That's rather an assumption on your part AOG. She may be a woman of independent financial means.
I doubt anyone who was 'left' and needed sympathy would be able to send her offspring to an elite school. ///
You are talking out of your aris once again.
The elite school you are talking about is a comprehensive school, and not a fee paying private school.
/// which is known as the ‘socialist Eton’ because although it is a comprehensive it is in one of the most expensive catchment areas in the country. ///
/// That's rather an assumption on your part AOG. She may be a woman of independent financial means.
I doubt anyone who was 'left' and needed sympathy would be able to send her offspring to an elite school. ///
You are talking out of your aris once again.
The elite school you are talking about is a comprehensive school, and not a fee paying private school.
/// which is known as the ‘socialist Eton’ because although it is a comprehensive it is in one of the most expensive catchment areas in the country. ///
AOG, I never said it was a fee paying school BUT it is in The Royal Borough of Kensington where a 3 bed semi will set you back just under £1m, so your assumption that the mother is in dire straits is highly unlikely.
You need to check your facts before your 1950s attitude that the man of the house had left, leaving her impoverished, makes you look daft. Again.
You need to check your facts before your 1950s attitude that the man of the house had left, leaving her impoverished, makes you look daft. Again.
“She wanted discrimination (to be treated differently) because of her religion and the school has refused and are treating her the same as everyone else. It's anything but discrimination.”
Perfectly logical, pixie (and the way most folk would see it). Unfortunately in the strange world that is “religious equality” to attempt to treat somebody the same as everybody else when they have a peculiar habit which they say is a requirement (or even a desire) of their religion is seen to discriminate against them. This lady is saying (in effect) that she has a requirement (or a desire) to wear a facemask and this is brought on by her religion. To force her to remove it is only being done, therefore, because of her religion. Ergo, she is being discriminated against because of her religion.
Crazy world, crazy logic. But that’s what being “tolerant” involves – tolerating intolerance.
“…it is in The Royal Borough of Kensington where a 3 bed semi will set you back just under £1m,”
No, we don’t know this lady’s circumstances. But all the people resident in Grenfell Tower also lived in the same Royal Borough and I doubt many of them had the wherewithal to buy a three bedroom semi down the road.
Perfectly logical, pixie (and the way most folk would see it). Unfortunately in the strange world that is “religious equality” to attempt to treat somebody the same as everybody else when they have a peculiar habit which they say is a requirement (or even a desire) of their religion is seen to discriminate against them. This lady is saying (in effect) that she has a requirement (or a desire) to wear a facemask and this is brought on by her religion. To force her to remove it is only being done, therefore, because of her religion. Ergo, she is being discriminated against because of her religion.
Crazy world, crazy logic. But that’s what being “tolerant” involves – tolerating intolerance.
“…it is in The Royal Borough of Kensington where a 3 bed semi will set you back just under £1m,”
No, we don’t know this lady’s circumstances. But all the people resident in Grenfell Tower also lived in the same Royal Borough and I doubt many of them had the wherewithal to buy a three bedroom semi down the road.
NJ, catchment area for Holland Park school:
https:/
Don't thing there are any Grenfel type residences here.
https:/
Don't thing there are any Grenfel type residences here.
Discrimination or not , I think not - but what they did was cak handed to say the least. They messed it up.
She entered dressed as she was and it was later she was taken aside and told of policy that she knew nothing of - now they may well have now written that in but they hadn't at the time.
Should there be all this hoo ha?
No.
She entered dressed as she was and it was later she was taken aside and told of policy that she knew nothing of - now they may well have now written that in but they hadn't at the time.
Should there be all this hoo ha?
No.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.