Headscarves in schools - recent update

Watch this thread
This discussion is closed.
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#121
Report 18 years ago
#121
(Original post by Xenon)
Howe exactly would a teacher wearing a scarf distract you?
As you can see many posters here are against religion in general. not just islam. These secular posters along with the religious (another religion) are offended by the fact that some people purposely wear OPTIONAL religious symbols to promote their religion.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#122
Report 18 years ago
#122
(Original post by DoctorNO)
As you can see many posters here are against religion in general. not just islam. These posters along with religious (another religion) are offended by the fact that some people purposely wear religious symbols to promote their religion.
No, they wear 'religious symbols' because it is part of their faith, not because they seek to 'promote their religon'.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#123
Report 18 years ago
#123
(Original post by kildare)
Democracy is based on the principle that the majority should choose the governement, however the governement must also respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. Even without the European Charter of the Human Rights (one of the most commendable things about the E.U in my opinion) I would say it's likely that the proposed bill would violate French law vis-a-vis freedom of relgion and/or expression.
Maybe so, but i still think democracy means the will of the people, what the majority want should be carried. More problems are caused when popular changes aren't made, for example Iraq in the UK, this was unpopular and will resonate badly on ol' Tony in the future.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#124
Report 18 years ago
#124
(Original post by kildare)
Democracy respects the will of the people- not just the will of the majority. Hence why in France the proposed law cannot/should not be passed as it contravenes the European Charter of Human Rights, of which France are a signatory.
Absolute crap. Democracy, generally represents the will of the majority as well you know.

Contravening the European Charter of Human Rights?

Human rights law in Europe comes from the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ammended. Being a signatory to it means sweet ****-all actually and has as much legal significance as signing Kyoto.

Britain signed this hunk of **** back in 1953 (I think it was) but it wasn't until it was finally embodied into law through the Human Rights Act 1998 that it mean't very much.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#125
Report 18 years ago
#125
(Original post by claire1985)
In a muslim state, banning the veil is a pretty stupid thing to do, as it will affect the majority of people and will be grossly unpopular. However, it must be noted that France is not a muslim state, it is Roman Catholic, and therefore the banning of headscarves and other religious articles will not affect people as much. As Iran is an inherently religious country, religious laws will obviously have more of an effect than in a country such as France, which is less religiously motivated.
France is not a Roman Catholic State it is a secular state and most French people are very proud of that fact. I feel that restricting individual freedom of expression/relgion is a very strange thing for a country which prides itself and liberity and unity to do.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#126
Report 18 years ago
#126
(Original post by kildare)
France is not a Roman Catholic State it is a secular state and most French people are very proud of that fact. I feel that restricting individual freedom of expression/relgion is a very strange thing for a country which prides itself and liberity and unity to do.
But Roman Catholicism is their key religion i thought?
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#127
Report 18 years ago
#127
(Original post by claire1985)
Maybe so, but i still think democracy means the will of the people, what the majority want should be carried. More problems are caused when popular changes aren't made, for example Iraq in the UK, this was unpopular and will resonate badly on ol' Tony in the future.
If the majority decided that they wanted the governement to sanction the killing of the other 49% would that be ok? I apologise for the trivial example but the point stands any democratic country MUST respect the wishes of a sizeable minority (within reason) and their own constitution/any other legal system which they are party to.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#128
Report 18 years ago
#128
(Original post by kildare)
Ironically enough, one of the reasons why Iran finds itself in the posistion it does is due to the vastly unpopular laws passed by the Shah, one of which being the banning of the veil...
Well, then change the ****in law then. Or are the ******s that run the country unable to operate the levers of government? **** me.....the Shah got booted out 20 something years ago man!
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#129
Report 18 years ago
#129
(Original post by claire1985)
I agree with you totally, religion is the root of all 'evil'.

If you mean that the idea of evil came from religion, then you are right. If you mean what you literally said - then you are talking utter shite.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#130
Report 18 years ago
#130
(Original post by kildare)
Democracy is based on the principle that the majority should choose the governement, however the governement must also respect the fundamental rights of all its citizens. Even without the European Charter of the Human Rights (one of the most commendable things about the E.U in my opinion) I would say it's likely that the proposed bill would violate French law vis-a-vis freedom of relgion and/or expression.
Yes, it would. It would violate the constitution as I pointed out earlier.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#131
Report 18 years ago
#131
(Original post by kildare)
If the majority decided that they wanted the governement to sanction the killing of the other 49% would that be ok? I apologise for the trivial example but the point stands any democratic country MUST respect the wishes of a sizeable minority (within reason) and their own constitution/any other legal system which they are party to.
I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#132
Report 18 years ago
#132
(Original post by Howard)
Absolute crap. Democracy, generally represents the will of the majority as well you know.

Contravening the European Charter of Human Rights?

Human rights law in Europe comes from the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ammended. Being a signatory to it means sweet ****-all actually and has as much legal significance as signing Kyoto.

Britain signed this hunk of **** back in 1953 (I think it was) but it wasn't until it was finally embodied into law through the Human Rights Act 1998 that it mean't very much.
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community

Refer especially to points 3 and 5.

Yes, democracy does mean that the majority choose the governement, it does not mean however that the minority forfeit their rights.

As regards the vagaries of national/international law (although I thought you had already argued that the law did contravene European law, I may be wrong though but yes anyway...) I must profess ignorance and as such will only try to argue that the law infringes on basic rights and on the principles that the Republic was founded on.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#133
Report 18 years ago
#133
(Original post by claire1985)
I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.
Basic human rights overrule democracy.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#134
Report 18 years ago
#134
(Original post by Howard)
Well, then change the ****in law then. Or are the ******s that run the country unable to operate the levers of government? **** me.....the Shah got booted out 20 something years ago man!
I'd love it if the law was changed, the Islamic hierocracy are firmly implanted in Iran however, due in no small part to the actions of the Shah and his western sponsors in the years prior to the revolution. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day though...
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#135
Report 18 years ago
#135
(Original post by Howard)
Yes, it would. It would violate the constitution as I pointed out earlier.
Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#136
Report 18 years ago
#136
(Original post by Bigcnee)
If you mean that the idea of evil came from religion, then you are right. If you mean what you literally said - then you are talking utter shite.
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#137
Report 18 years ago
#137
(Original post by claire1985)
I take your point but i think there are laws about majority rulings, i.e. the majority have to have more than 51% of votes. Opinion polls in France are 65-70% for the ban, i think this is a good majority that can put a motion through.
Fortunatley enough it is the courts which decide on legality and not public opinion...
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#138
Report 18 years ago
#138
(Original post by kildare)
No, they wear 'religious symbols' because it is part of their faith, not because they seek to 'promote their religon'.
Like I said something that is a "part" is not necessarily a requirement. The hijab is optional. And some people do make an outward show to distract other people. And as you can see in this thread that some people are already distracted by the very idea of religious symbols in schools.
0
kildare
Badges: 8
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#139
Report 18 years ago
#139
(Original post by claire1985)
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
Evil exists independant of religon. Eradicating religon certainly wouldn't eradicate evil/'evil people'.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#140
Report 18 years ago
#140
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Basic human rights overrule democracy.
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Do you know what you'll do if you don't get the grades you're hoping for?

Find something else in clearing (40)
28.17%
Take a gap year (22)
15.49%
Resit my exams (40)
28.17%
Look for alternate pathways to the career I want (19)
13.38%
I don't know yet (15)
10.56%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (6)
4.23%

Watched Threads

View All