Darque Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Also, I'm sick to death of people whining and slapping on lawsuits because they can't have everything they want 100% of the time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I totally agree with this. It's way way over done.
Judge Hades Posted October 18, 2006 Author Posted October 18, 2006 It kind of goes like the article I read in the paper the other day about Islamic cab drivers not taking passengers that are intoxicated or carrying alcohalic beverages. The airport of which these cabbies perch at weas complaining about this but they were adamant.
Darque Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 It kind of goes like the article I read in the paper the other day about Islamic cab drivers not taking passengers that are intoxicated or carrying alcohalic beverages. The airport of which these cabbies perch at weas complaining about this but they were adamant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmm, I'm not sure this is the same thing. I thought Cabbies had the right to determine whom they pick up or not.
Judge Hades Posted October 18, 2006 Author Posted October 18, 2006 Not if it is at the cost of individual freedoms and rights. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, Hades, this is how the real world works. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the real world sucks.
Darque Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Well, the real world sucks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're how old and just figured this out?
Calax Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Hades has it right. Paying people gives an employer the right to their employees work - only to their work. If the employer sets unnecessary descriminatory conditions or provisions against people who they don't like because of their religion or culture or something else the employer is just being too cleverly deceitful as well as bigoted. We shouldn't quibble about such things. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Incorrect. Employers ALSO have the right to set dresscodes. Which both of these fall under. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Except dresscodes cannot violate the sensibilities of the employees or the customer. For example if an employer says Black Pants and a white shirt, employees can't wear black pants with a white shirt while the shirt is tied up so that their bare midriff and the top of their genitals show. visa versa a employer cannot be required to force employees to run around wearing "gimp" suits in a mcdonalds or target. Heck dress codes if you try are usually not even enforced unless your in a uniform setting where it's obvious whos not up to code. This is especially true of highschools. Another thing I don't get is that the teacher isn't allowed to ware her Burka(?) when a student would be. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Colrom Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 So we have found that reality is imperfect have we! Does this mean that God is dead and/or evil is good? There is no question in my mind that the Muslim woman is the target of bigotry. Quite wide ranging bigotry at that. Even MPs feel the need to get involved! Even here, too. Too bad. As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God.
~Di Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Except dresscodes cannot violate the sensibilities of the employees or the customer. For example if an employer says Black Pants and a white shirt, employees can't wear black pants with a white shirt while the shirt is tied up so that their bare midriff and the top of their genitals show. visa versa a employer cannot be required to force employees to run around wearing "gimp" suits in a mcdonalds or target. Heck dress codes if you try are usually not even enforced unless your in a uniform setting where it's obvious whos not up to code. This is especially true of highschools. Another thing I don't get is that the teacher isn't allowed to ware her Burka(?) when a student would be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually most businesses do have dress codes. Some are more stringent than others, of course, but I've never worked in a place where people could wear, for example, a pair of speedos or torn pants. Places where employers meet and greet the public usually have pretty strict dress codes. Except for casual Fridays, of course! As for students being allowed to wear hajib's or burkas, perhaps in that school they are not. There are many schools where religious apparel is simply not allowed. If students insist upon wearing their religious apparel, then they can presumably find private accommodations. *shrug* At any rate, I'm sure the Muslim teacher will argue in court that she is being discriminated against on religious grounds, and if she can prove that Jewish male teachers are allowed to wear yamaca's or Hindu teachers can wear turbans, then she most certaily will have a case... I would think. The lawyers amongst us can detail the law better than I can, certainly.
Judge Hades Posted October 18, 2006 Author Posted October 18, 2006 The problem there Di is that she is the only minority there that has such dress restrictions working there.
Gorth Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Too bad. Find another job then. Jewelry and clothing are just that. when you're working for someone, you're representing THEM not yourself, not your dog, not your country, not your faith. And so they have every right to determine how you represent them. Are you sure, you are not danish? >_ Except dresscodes cannot violate the sensibilities of the employees or the customer. For example if an employer says Black Pants and a white shirt, employees can't wear black pants with a white shirt while the shirt is tied up so that their bare midriff and the top of their genitals show. visa versa a employer cannot be required to force employees to run around wearing "gimp" suits in a mcdonalds or target. How did the Playboy bunnies ever get their jobs then? “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Colrom Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) Under the circumstances it makes sense to post this follow up info from BBC. Minister 'reckless' over veil row The 23-year-old insists the veil is not a communication barrier Aishah Azmi interview A minister has been accused of "reckless intervention" after he said a Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a full veil should be sacked. Phil Woolas told the Sunday Mirror that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she can't do her job". But the Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Woolas, whose brief covers race relations, should not have interfered. Meanwhile, Labour MP for Dewsbury Shahid Malik said the volume of Muslim stories was having a corrosive impact. Ms Azmi said she had never received complaints from pupils at Headfield Church of England Junior School, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, but was told her veil could not be worn in class. She added she would remove the garment, but not in front of male colleagues. 'Unprecedented' Mr Woolas, a local government minister, told the newspaper that this amounted to sexual discrimination and called for her to be sacked. Speaking later on the BBC's Politics Show he stopped short of repeating the call, but said he would defend the head teacher if Ms Azmi was sacked. "The head teacher says that she's not able to do her job...and if the head teacher says that that's the action that needs to be taken, then so be it," he said. His comments have triggered fierce criticism. Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This is an extraordinarily reckless intervention." Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: "It's unprecedented - in fact quite extraordinary - that a minister can be calling for a sacking of a school classroom assistant." He added that the minister should be concentrating on "discrimination in the Muslim community" rather than attacking it. "There are so many people in this country who wear the veil and who are very well educated," Aishah Azmi. The Islamic Society of Britain said it was wrong for a minister to wade into a sensitive case to score political points. Responding to Mr Woolas's critics, a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "It's far better to debate the issues than sweep them under the carpet when the question of children's education is at stake." Mr Malik, local MP for Dewsbury, added that while he thought Mr Woolas was right to intervene, the media, politicians and others needed to take a "reality check". "Both Muslims and non-Muslims are just getting fed up and tired with Muslim stories in the media," he said. Ms Azmi's lawyer has called for Mr Woolas to withdraw his comments, which he warned might influence the classroom assistant's imminent employment tribunal. "Mrs Azmi is very well able to carry out her role as a teaching assistant providing support to pupils who speak English as a second language," said Nick Whittingham, of Kirklees Law Centre. "She is able to do this effectively while wearing the veil. She has demonstrated in a number of interviews that she can communicate effectively while wearing the veil." Kirklees Council earlier said that Ms Azmi had been asked to take off her veil in class following complaints from children and teachers that it was difficult to understand her in English lessons. When she refused to remove the veil, she was suspended pending an employment tribunal. The council said the school's action had "nothing to do with religion". Ms Azmi told the BBC her veil had not caused problems with the children, with whom she had a "brilliant relationship". "The children are aware of my body language, my eye expressions, the way I'm saying things." But Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor. The school, which has 529 pupils aged seven to 11, takes many children from different ethnic backgrounds where English is not the first language. Religious freedoms The Leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, initiated a debate on veil-wearing last week when he suggested the full veil over the face separated communities. His comments were supported by shadow home secretary David Davis who, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, questioned whether a form of "voluntary apartheid" was being inadvertently encouraged. He later said he did not endorse the call for Ms Azmi to be sacked, but felt wearing a veil was not appropriate in that job. "But I wouldn't get involved in any calls, myself anyway, in any calls for sacking until the disciplinary procedure is concluded." Edited October 18, 2006 by Colrom As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God.
~Di Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 The problem there Di is that she is the only minority there that has such dress restrictions working there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the school has a dress code, and the hajib (or burka, whichever she wears) violates it, then it has to go or she can find work where her style of dress is permitted. If I insist upon wearing a bikini, then my choice of work options are certainly limited. I honestly do not see the difference here. For example, would a police department be violating a Muslim woman's rights if they prevented her from wearing a hajib or burka on duty? Most would say of course not, that it's ridiculous for a female officer to hike up her burka and chase suspects. Well, there are frankly a lot of jobs where having a pair of eyeballs peering out of a mask would be a detriment. I actually think teaching school is one of those, because children learn communication from non-verbal signals that are hidden beneath a face veil. A headscarf? That's different. But I think a legitimate argument can be made that covering one's face is a hinderance to one's ability to communicate effectively with children. It's okay to wear religious items; but one must accept that wearing those items will mean that some jobs will be restricted if those items violate the rules of that particular employer. That in itself is not illegal. A 300 pound female is not going to get a job as a flight attendent and an 85-year-old with saggy breasts is not going to get a job at Hooters... thankfully. Obviously I'm bigoted against old fat people.
Judge Hades Posted October 18, 2006 Author Posted October 18, 2006 I understand the 85 year old not being a hooter's waitress but why not a 300 pound flight attendent?
~Di Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 I understand the 85 year old not being a hooter's waitress but why not a 300 pound flight attendent? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Two reasons: Weight limitations of the crew, because airplanes can only carry so much weight... but also because she (or he, for that matter) wouldn't fit comfortably in the aisle or the tiny galley areas of the plane, and the restricted movement caused by her obesity could pose a danger to passengers in an emergency.
Colrom Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) I understand that Prime Minister Tony Blair has strong opinions on veils too. Ah for white priviledge and the Colonial point of view! I hear the Brits just recently allowed as it is OK to be a Catholic in England. Oh for the good old days when Arab women wearing veils were seen by westerners as demurely exotic! Meet me at midnight at the Oasis my darling! :D Edited October 18, 2006 by Colrom As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God.
tarna Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 A minister has been accused of "reckless intervention" after he said a Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a full veil should be sacked. Phil Woolas told the Sunday Mirror that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she can't do her job". But the Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Woolas, whose brief covers race relations, should not have interfered. Meanwhile, Labour MP for Dewsbury Shahid Malik said the volume of Muslim stories was having a corrosive impact. Ms Azmi said she had never received complaints from pupils at Headfield Church of England Junior School, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, but was told her veil could not be worn in class. She added she would remove the garment, but not in front of male colleagues. "The head teacher says " Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain, said Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: The Islamic Society of Britain said Responding to Mr Woolas's critics, a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: Mr Malik, local MP for Dewsbury, added Ms Azmi's lawyer has called Kirklees Council earlier said But Ms Azmi later admitted she had taken the veil off to be interviewed for the job by a male governor. The Leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, His comments were supported by shadow home secretary David Davis who, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, questioned whether a form of "voluntary apartheid" was being inadvertently encouraged. It is truely heartening to see that England has more people with their head further up their ass than does the US ( at this particular time ). :D Unbelievable! ( Actually, that's not true since I automatically expect the worst of people and they rarely disappoint me. ) Ruminations... When a man has no Future, the Present passes too quickly to be assimilated and only the static Past has value.
tarna Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 The problem there Di is that she is the only minority there that has such dress restrictions working there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And if I am the only one at work that wants to have a live chicken in my pants and the employer has a problem with that then I am a victim as well? This is stupidity. Leave your religious articles at home. Pull them out when you want to impress God or your friends. You go to work to 'work', not to show off how pious you are. Ruminations... When a man has no Future, the Present passes too quickly to be assimilated and only the static Past has value.
alanschu Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 (edited) So we have found that reality is imperfect have we! Does this mean that God is dead and/or evil is good? I have absolutely no idea how on Earth you came to that conclusion. Besides, if I didn't know any better, I could probably make a case about you making a quibble about someone's religious beleifs, and how they perceive God. There is no question in my mind that the Muslim woman is the target of bigotry. Quite wide ranging bigotry at that. Even MPs feel the need to get involved! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Or it's just some more confirmation bias. I found it hilarious that it wasn't an issue when she was applying for the job. Edited October 18, 2006 by alanschu
Kor Qel Droma Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Careful Tarna, Colrom will call you a bigot! I had a similar experience at work a little while ago. The store had just opened, and although there were no customers yet, my manager told me I had to remove my headphones. I replied that it was against my religious beliefs, since I worship the lord of rawk. Part of my religion states that if I have to work before noon , I must rawk for as long as possible. Then I informed him that there aren't any customers I would be neglecting due to my music since there were, well, no customers. Company policy forbids me from wearing headphones once the store is open, but is the store really open if there's no customers in it? My religious beliefs are being infringed! Should I sue? Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
alanschu Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Yes. Open and shut case for 7 figures I imagine. The emotional trauma!
tarna Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Careful Tarna, Colrom will call you a bigot! Namecalling is the first sign that you've lost an arguement. But then again one shouldn't let facts ( or the lack thereof ) get in the way of an emotional outburst and righteous indignation. Emotion is always so much a better way to run one's life than consideration of facts and logic. My religious beliefs are being infringed! Should I sue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you live in the US, certainly! Where's that whore Johnny Cokraine when you need him? ( Oh that's right, he's dead. God's paying him back for OJ. ) Ruminations... When a man has no Future, the Present passes too quickly to be assimilated and only the static Past has value.
tarna Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 I understand that Prime Minister Tony Blair has strong opinions on veils too. Oh for the good old days when Arab women wearing veils were seen by westerners as demurely exotic! Meet me at midnight at the Oasis my darling! :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well Barbara Eden did look pretty good. She wasn't an Arab but pretended to be one on national TV. Does that count? Ruminations... When a man has no Future, the Present passes too quickly to be assimilated and only the static Past has value.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now