Maybe it's just me, but this sounds like "Eoither give up your identity and be just like everyone else, or else you're a terrorist". Maybe if they tried actually accepting people for who they are and exploring their grievences progress would happen.
None of this mattered a jot before the "war on terror" and Blair's full support for it stirred up the wasp's nest. UK-born immigrants of all races and creeds were steadily integrating into our society, however their first generation chose to live. Now one section's been singled out and the finger pointed at them. Hey, folks, some forms of racism are OK! It's really a case of moving the blame outside government circles. By the Kelly argument, as a moderate citizen, it's actually my fault petty crime and vandalism is rife, I'm not doing enough to encourage the local yobs to behave. Perhaps she'll come along and address the Neighbourhood Watch in similar vein.
To whom exactly did it not matter before? Race relations in some areas have been strained for years in some areas prior to the war on terror - post 9/11 we might see Muslims coming under scrutiny more than previously, but the issues (or *perceived* issues) of how well some minority groups integrate into British society aren't an overnight occurence.
I'm inclined to agree with much, but not all, of the sentiment that exists right now. I wouldn't want to see every city in britain containing ghetto's with only muslims in them. The UK is already well on the way to this and many of these exist, that is not a sign of an integrated country. Frankly I'm not wanting to see a totaly multicultural Britain. If I want to see what poland looks like I'll go there, and if I want to feel what it's like to be in the middle of baghdad I'll join the army. As it is, I rather like the UK feeling British, and at the risk of being branded racist I'll declare myself perfectly happy if vast numbers of people who just want to live in an area and turn it into a little slice of home don't come to the UK to do it. That is not to say that these things are bad done within reason, but taken to extremes, and you just get a coutry divided up between people of different cultural and religious backrounds, and that's crap.
Agreed, the original topic's quite worrying too. Whats say you take multicultural britain mondays and wednesdays and fridays, I take tuesdays, thursdays, and saturdays, and on sundays we give it a rest?
Gotta love that logic... I'm sorry, but reap what you sow. Not too long ago we were quite happy to waltz into their countries and impose our cultural values, and domination to boot, all for the greater glory of our colonial empires. Never mind ethnic sensitivity, mutual respect for each other's differences, or blending in with the local culture. We've been living on credit for a long time, and now we get presented with the bill. There have always been racial conflicts, but at least there was an acknowledgement that the ethnic majority shouldered at least some of the responsibility for ethnic marginalisation. Institutional racism was acknowledged and frowned upon. Now it gets governmental endorsement.
Uh uh, you ain't pulling that one this time Mr. Nexxo. I'm 19, I've never voted in a national election but I pay tax on a regular basis. I've had absolutely no choice in what this country has done in the last 10, 20 or 200 years. I do not get the bill. Just as men in the balkans shouldn't have to hide in their houses for their whole lives because if they leave someone will kill them for something their grandfather did, I should not be forced to pay for something I have had no hand in creating. I know many cultures in this world work on much longer time frames then we in the modern west do, but that doesn't mean I as a regular joe who's never invaded anyone has to pay the price and watch where I live turn into lots of little slices of different countries because the people who've moved here want to live in little argentina or little ireland or little austrailia or little thailand. How is wanting people to integrate racist? I don't want to see muslims not living in this country, or black people not living in this country, or french people not living in this country. I just don't want to see places where only they live, I wanna see everyone mixing, living side by side as people of Britain. One culture built out of many, not multiple cultures doing their best to remain as seperate as possible.
I'm afraid that, as with everything in life, everybody pays. What goes around comes around, whether we want to or not. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's how the world turns. The racism is implicit. By telling people to shape up and integrate, it is implicitly suggested that they are not, and by argueing that this promotes extremism, they are implicitly blamed for it. Basically the message is: "Muslim youths are blowing up people because Muslims aren't behaving British enough". The racism, spec, is this. The mesage is that if you don't behave, look, dress, eat, speak, worship British, then you are automatically suspect. You are a potential terrorist. Don't believe me? People are kicked off the planes for Flying While Asian, shot in their own home during misplaced raids, and someone was actually summarily shot in a Tube for, in the end, no other reason than being coloured. No, think about it for a sec. I know I harp on about this one, but that is because I don't think people really understand the implications of this event. All they had on this guy, all the real evidence was that he walked out of a building where suspected terrorists lived. That's all. That's it. But people walked in and out of the building all day, as people do. The rest, him being a young male, getting on the Tube, was also just circumstantial. Thousands of people do that every minute. Now ask yourself this (and be honest): if he had been a (stereo)typical British pale-skinned blonde or ginger bloke walking out of that building, would he have garnered the same paranoid attention that eventually led to his death? I really think not. The secret agent observer felt he was "worth another look" because he did not look like your average Brit. He was shot because he looked foreign. If we start spreading the message that to look foreign, or have foreign ways is to be automatically suspect, is that not racist? Real integration comes from embracing difference, celebrating it, sharing and tasting and experiencing it, not hiding it in the closet like some embarrasing family skeletons. Diversity should be showed off and explored, not hidden and feared.
But if I'd done something wrong, if I'd commited some great crime against certain people I would choose to say "well I screwed them over, let them escape the country I broke and come and live here" - I didn't do that though, and as such, I can freely and justly fight the idea that people should be allowed to come here only to turn the area they settle in to, in to a little slice of home. I'm not sure I agree with such a leap of ideas. Lack of integration doesn't result in terrorism, but I would say it makes it simpler. Integration(or the lack of) and terrorism are of course going to be linked for muslims. Large numbers of muslim youths in the UK think terrorism against fellow UK citizens is justified. Is not the best way to get people to stop hating each other to get them to talk to each other Nexxo? Integration would do that. I just don't agree, yes there are always racist fools who say things like "go home muslims" and other such NF designed horse****, but that doesn't make the majority of people racist just because they desire to know the people the cultures they're sharing the country with. Police screwups don't imply racism, they imply a police force that sucks at counter-terrorism. It's not racist to only go after muslims when you're fighting islamic extremism, it's just retarded to do otherwise, even if it would please certain people. Of course not, but who's the last ginger islamic extremist? Your point about him being shot because he looked foreign is exactly right - but doesn't relate to the topic of integration. It perhaps shows that even people who are integrated(I understand he wasn't exactly living in a brazillian ghetto) can be subject to police mistakes, but that's not an arguement for or against integration of minorities, it just shows that the police screwed up. If you're having a go at racial profiling in the fight against islamic terrorism then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your aim. There ain't no Christian or Bhuddist islamic terrorists, and while the IRA still exist, the current "threat"(it's all exagerated and overblown, but regardless..) is from islamic terrorism. Is it racist to say that most muslims aren't pale white ginger guys? Maybe, but it's true. The problem there is that to look foreign is automatically to be suspect - most people begin with an opinion of mistrust and suspicion. Only by being friends with someone who's muslim or christian or whatever you're not, by learning about them and how they live; or by living next to them, by interacting with them - only by this can the difference be celebrated and embraced by all. I agree exactly that diversity should be shown off and explored, I wouldn't wish it any other way, but people need to mix with and understand different people to apreciate difference and diversity. Otherwise it remains a misunderstood concern to them, and we'll continue to see all of the current idiocy for a long time to come.
As I said, this has nothing to do with fairness. Just cause and effect. Integration cannot be forced, spec. If you want them to join our society, you have to make them feel welcome. Lack of integration works both ways. When black and Asian people came to this country, they did not aim to cluster together in ghettos. They aimed to integrate and partake from the golden opportunities that they were promised honest hard work in an affluent West would bring them. But we all remember the "No blacks" signs in the boarding house windows. We all know about institutional and "informal" racism. These people clustered together because no-one else wanted them moving into their street, taking their jobs, marrying their son or daughter. If you exclude people, they will marginalise. And then they compete. For the next wave of immigrants, their new home became a logical choice: battling the slings and arrows of outrageous prejudice in a hostile foreign society, or sticking with your own kind living in your little home country enclave? It was observed earlier that next generations of immigrant parents tend to Westernise and increasingly integrate into mainstream society --if we let them. But if we discriminate, they will marginalise and become more devout to their culture of origin than their parents were. You have to feel you belong somewhere. It is racist to go after Muslims indiscriminately. But I'll get to that below... It is an argument for racial/ethnic stereotyping prevents integration. That is what happened on that day. This Brazillian could very easily have been as British as they come: might have been born and bred in London, gone to a local comprehensive, voted Labour, supported his local football team waving Union Jack and all, eaten his fish and chips with HP sauce. At that point, however, all that the police knew about him was that he looked foreign. He looked like a threat. Bang bang --he's dead. Integration is kinda difficult on that basis. Visit Chechnia --you'd be surprised. Ah, the dangers of racial stereotyping, eh? It works against the rest of us as well. The next Muslim terrorist could very well be that pale, ginger guy. Yes, but it is a two-way traffic. Perhaps we ought to invite people and make them feel welcome, if we want them to join our group; not browbeat them into it while rejecting them at the same time. You have to accept people for what they are, while treating them as the people you'd like them to be. Not the other way around --that never works. Perhaps we could even join their party for a bit. After all, the curry didn't turn out to be half bad; perhaps we ought to taste some of that lamb and couscous before we force-feed them our bangers and mash.
Anyway back to the original topic. Much like the teacher sacked for refusing to remove the veil whilst teaching kids, would we allow say a male teacher to wear a balaclava ? I very much doubt that would be accepted, and for me I see absolutely no difference between the two, who the hell gives a toss that your religious beliefs say you should wear a veil. If you wish to wear one in public or at home, fair enough, but not in school. I have always disagreed with separation in schools, much like my view that there should be no Catholic schools, schools should be 100% free of religion, religion is a personal belief that has no place in education other than the study of religions. PS. I have yet to understand why religion gets this special status above other beliefs, if you wish to believe in some imaginary power then great go for it, but why everyone should have to bend over backwards to accommodate people of religious beliefs is beyond me.
First we must get the facts straight. The teacher in question was happy to remove the veil while teaching the children (if no adult male staff was present), but wished to wear it in the corridors and staff room where male teachers were present. The children in that school are predominantly Muslim, so the concept of a veil is not strange to them in any case. But even if it was, this is a custom practised in some cultures, and it is good if children learn about different ways and customs. Perhaps if they get acquainted with it now, religious/cultural differences are not such a big deal once they are adults as they appear to be to us. Second, I think you are getting too stuck on the label "religious" here. You too have beliefs and principles that are very important to you, and you wouldn't want to be forced to disregard them just for the sake of keeping your job either. OK, example. Say you work in a computer firm: nice job, earns well, you worked hard for it. It is what you want to do and you see a good career ahead of you. But your manager says that as part of your job, you must mention your special component insurance to the customer, at least twice*. Now you know that this insurance is a bunch of crap: the fees they would pay are way more than what it would cost to replace the component in the unlikely event of it eventually breaking down. It violates your principle of honesty. But you have to push it, else it is a sackable offence. Whatcha gonna do? Leave your well-earning, nice job that you worked hard to obtain? Risk unemployment? For being principled and honest? You'd be calling your Union faster than a fast thing that is very fast. Your boss might say that your beliefs of honesty towards the customer are a bunch of pooh, Caveat Emptor and all that. But to you, those principles define the person that you are. Well, this is the same thing. Furthermore, where do you draw the line? A BA stewardess has been suspended for wanting to wear a crucifix necklace at work. Next women employees will not be allowed to wear trousers**. Men will have to shave their beard off, wear short hair and cover their tattoos. How often does someone on this forum post in outrage that they cannot wear their body piercing or earring? Think about it. * Established policy at PC World. ** This happened also. In 1995 A NHS Mental Health Trust board of managers actually decided this in a moment of madness. Luckily someone higher up saw sense, and overruled them.
I'm a big fan of the Star Wars series of movies, I want to dress as a Jedi Knight and bring in a Light Sabre to work, I also want half an hour each day to practice my religion by hoping up and down on one foot, I wonder if my boss will think that an OK thing to do? What the hell has that to do with this discussion, there is absolutely no comparison here. A small discreet cross, I have no issue with that, lots of people wear crosses that have nothing to do with religion. If you wish to wear a small Star of David, cross or other such item of jewellery then cool where is the harm.
If the dress is non-offensive and you hop during lunch or smoking breaks, I'm sure it's OK. Even Muslims schedule their five prayers inbetween work duties. The lightsabre is not an issue; even Sikhs are allowed to wear their ceremonial dagger (the kirpaan) if it is worn under the clothes and sewn into its sheath as is the custom. But your flippant comparison makes me think you are not quite getting it... OK, I'm sure you are not getting it. What I am saying is: what is just an ideosyncratic habit or dress code to you, is another person's deeply held self- and world-defining belief. If you can't get your head around that, be prepared to alienate people for the rest of your life. To Muslim women, the veil is not about looking cool and mysterious. It comes with a whole load of beliefs that define how they see themselves, others, the world, that operate on an almost feeling level. You can't expect this teacher to take off her veil in front of her male colleagues anymore than someone can expect you to drop your pants in front of your female colleagues. You'd feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. You just wouldn't do it. That's magnaninous of you, but this is not about what you think. There's a whole world of six billion people (approx.) out there who have very different beliefs, and just because some of them seem silly to us, does not make them any less strongly held, deeply invested in or even less valid than ours. Now in our culture, taylored to our beliefs, some of their beliefs may create conflicts or difficulties (as ours do in their cultures). But mutual respect involves compromise (and yes, the veiled teacher was prepared to remove her veil in the classroom). As soon as we are not prepared to compromise however, we are basically saying: "Our beliefs are right, yours are wrong". And that is where religious wars start. You're right: religious beliefs should be no big deal. Even if that belief is atheism. That is why we should be able to be flexible about them, too.
Disagree there boss. Superstitious beliefs are less valid then logical ones. Don't care about names applied to 'em and all that jazz but it's the way things are. Logical thought > superstitious products of emotion. Although I agree they're strongly held, you just need to look at NI or Palestine to see that. I'm with Yoda on keeping religion outta schools though, I don't think we should encourage children to be weak and dependant though, guess I differ with a lot of people there.
Ohh I get it Nexxo, I'm just not trying to be ohh so PC with my every answer. You and I know that it would not be tolerated by 99% of managers. Just because it's a religion does not make it any different to any other belief, no matter how many follow that religion, it's as simple as that. If you feel uncomfortable removing the veil in front of male colleagues, get a job working from home. Oh how big of her to say she will teach in front of the kids without a veil, but not in front of a male colleague, what if there is a requirement for a male colleague to also be in the classroom. Absolutely ridiculous tbh. Everyone has the right to their beliefs and practice their religion free of oppression, so long as it does not interfere with their work or other people liberties, just like everyone is free to believe in whatever they wish to.
All those qualities that we admire: honour and courage in the face of danger, honesty, love, compassion, you name it, are the product of emotion, not pure logic. Moreover, we value logical thought because of its practical use and value. Nothing so practical as a good theory, and all that. Well, emotional beliefs can also have their practical use. It is why we have emotions. They can be very practical. What we need to teach children, is the ability to think critically. This includes thinking critically about religion. We could choose instead to isolate them from its "harmful influence", but we tried that with sex and drugs, and that didn't work too well. People will seek out something to believe in, like they will seek out sex and pleasure. It is best if we teach them to contrast and compare, and make their own critical, informed, responsible choices. The same managers who don't tolerate veils, of course. But that is the point I have been making: religious beliefs are no different from any other beliefs, but my point (and I do have one) is that beliefs can be extremely powerful and meaningful things --with or without the label "religious". To wit: If you had to give up a career you worked hard for because of some request that made you feel uncomfortable, and in your belief was unreasonable, you would object, no doubt about it. People have had to leave a promising career in the army or police force because of a culture of sexism, racism and violence. Not so long ago, people would shrug and say: "Hey, it's just the way things are in the army/police force", but in the end, that was not acceptable as an excuse. Moreover, if they can't accept a black or female colleage, how would they behave towards black or female civilians? So some employees actually challenged the system in court, and won. And very slowly and slightly, things are changing for the better. Slowly and slightly. This is a similar thing. If we can't get our head around veiled teachers, then we can't get our head around veiled pupils and students, or veiled secretaries or shop assistants, or veiled women in the street. And as we discussed in another thread, we want integration now, do we? But integration does not mean people have to play by our rules only. Perhaps the source of the discomfort, like Jack Straw's, is in our heads rather than on their faces. After all, what big deal is a veil to us? Why can't we see past it?
What you seem to be stepping over is that this is a reasonable request, not unreasonable. I will go back to my original comparison, which is a hell of a lot more valid than some others posted, of a teacher choosing to wear a balaclava, that would not be acceptable. But because the veil is related to religion some people seem to think it has a higher status and should be allowed, sorry but any sane person must be able to see that. It's not rocket science, just simple common sense. Now we are moving away from the topic again and I appologise.
