maybe there wasnt a rule against last year because no one was wearing one in the court.
There was no rule against veils last year, ten years ago or five hundred years ago. I see no reason for an old judge to impose a dress code now. Wearing a veil does not violate some long-standing tradition. It is a rule recently imposed by some busybody.
As for myself, I am here to help win the war on terrorism. I teach English. I build a bridge between the two cultures. I do not feel overly restricted in my life. I do more or less what I would do in the US. Further my presence here is in someway subverting the system.
maybe there wasnt a rule against last year because no one was wearing one in the court.
I wanna wear a clown costume to court... will it get banned?
You’re right, the world is beautiful outside, birds are chirping, roses are blooming and you look mighty fine behind those trendy glasses with pink lenses.
I am not familiar with the case you mention, did he have further charges laid after turning up ****…? If not, should he have…?
The question of a veil being a threat or not, is irrelevant. The questions are : What is an extreme group trying to achieve by introducing extreme customs and how far do they want to go…? How much a Western country should submit to such demands…? Are you aware of the movement for Sharia law (to settle issues within a minority) in Canada a couple of years ago, how does a second set of laws sit with you...?
In an amply multicultural environment, one may feel that traditions, customs and dogmas are overrated. However, making a multicultural society work is a damn hard work as you can never please everybody, hence the need for the dominant culture to preserve its etiquette. It's as simple as that.
If the idea is that you do not like what you say the veil represents to you. Well then banning it is an infringement on Free Speech. Unpopular speech is of course the whole reason we have this freedom. Popular speech does not need to be protected.
As for Fascism, is this not the political doctrine that people should (be forced to) act as part of a national group to uphold its culture and traditions? It is characterized by xenophobia. Are you not calling for that?
Speaking technically, the idea people should all behave as proper (Germans, Chinese, Saudis, whatever) is Fascism.
as far as your free speech arguement...........you cannot say fvck on public airwaves. isnt that infringing on your right of free speech??
no it is not. why? because we have decided that this is not accectable.
like i told you before.....you either understand that somethings are not accectable or you dont......you obviously do not understand this.
once again, i advise you to pick up a weapon and conqueor your own land so that you can live as you want since this is a concecpt beyond your grasp.
for the love of god, i again point to the fact that you are currently in a country where your rights are surpressed. and again i ask if these rights mean so much to you, why would you even goto a country that will strip you of them.
i know your there teaching english. but your instistance on prolonging this topic means that these rights mean alot to you, so why would you be there???????????????
seems you have sold out your beliefs for money. you goto a country that is so against your beliefs for what?? a job, which means money.
so, either explain why you are living in opposition to your beliefs, or drop it.
Telling people how to live their lives, what to wear, where to work is a concept unfamiliar to liberal (with a small 'l') thought. It is more in line with an Italian political movement founded in 1922 (Starts with F, six letters).
Perhaps you can imagine a way to win this war that does not involve making friends with Arabs and using language as a way as bringing in to our world and century, maybe you could share it with us?
As for your proposal "to pick up a weapon and conqueor your own land," well my own land is the US (although I own land in Panama, that is a long story).
How did the Western World become so scared of foreigners and their ideas? Ronald Reagan (of Margret if you prefer) did not show fear in the face of Communism. He (She) did not imitate it, and led us to victory. FDR (or Churchill if you prefer) did not fear the (F word, six letters), and did not imitate it, they beat it.
Cower behind your walls. We will do our best to hand people like you a victory you do not understand how to win yourself.
western countries are not scared of foriegners. hell, our country is a hodgepodge of culuters from all over the world. we take what we want from the new culutres and assimulate it into our own. england has decided that they do not want veils in their courts, and so it is.
im not scared of arab countries. i use that as an example becuase you are living in one right now. it just so happens that most arab countries have laws and traditions that i do not believe in. that is why i would never choose to live in one. just like the woman in england should not have choose to live in a country, or go into a profession that would be contradicary to her beliefs. and the country you call home, the US, is also not as free as you seem to think it should be, hence the "conqueor your land" remark.
the overall concecpt you are not getting is that NO ONE IN ANY COUNTRY in the world is free to do ANYTHING THEY WANT, ANYTIME THEY WANT. this seems to be you belief.
in actuallity, the structure you seek is anarchy. no rules, no limitations, no restrictions. in that society, you can be and do whatever your heart desires anytime you want. that is not the way civialized societies work. there are limitations, there are rescrictions, there are rules PERIOD.
you cannot be a stupid man. you could not be or you would not be in a foriegn land teaching. i cannot understand why you do not see the need for for limiting certain things. in this case, the limitaion falls under a cultural line. the english law says no veils in court, then no one will be allowed to wear a veil in court.
it is only an issue because this woman made it one. she was trying to change the way things are done in that country. that is no different then you insisting on doing something that is not accepcted in the country where you live right now.
so, please explain why you are choosing to reside in a place that is in direct conflict with beliefs you hold so so tightly to.
"england has decided that they do not want veils in their courts, and so it is."
Really? Parliament passed a law?
I am in Saudi Arabia to learn about the country and culture and to teach about mine. I do this in order to win the war against Islamic Fascism. People who fight have to come into contact with (as Bobby Lee called them) 'Those People.'
I am having much more impact of the local society that one British solicitor is having on British society, as a free society is so much stronger than the one here. Relax. This woman will not bring down Britain. She is not a pimple on a dog's butt.
However, destroying our ancient rights, that is a big and dangerous step. Further it is one that will not bring victory.
With ancient rights come ancient responsibilties. If you have the right to justice, you have the responsibilty to abide by the rules of the court and court proceedings.However, destroying our ancient rights, that is a big and dangerous step. Further it is one that will not bring victory.
I have already demonstrated how wearing a veil interfers with the running of the court and could possibly bias a fair trial.
If we do not require the courts to provide justice for all we create a class of people who the law does not protect. This is an underclass. That is Real Bad.
An 'underclass' by their own volition and of their own creation, although I seriously doubt this doomesday scenario you are painting, I don't know what would happen if someone refused to lift their veil in defiance of a ruling, I doubt that it would come down to physical force or denial of justice-they would just seem an idiot.
If they choose to live outside the values of our society that is their choice. There is no God given right to anything on this Earth without the accompanying responsibility. If a Judges passes a ruling that veils intefer with the course of the law, then tough cheese. There are enough checks and balances in the system that if british society at large deems this irresponsible than that will change.
Pragmatism is a very valuable quality and you seem to underestimate it, it is something the british are good at. Doesn't go very well with religious fundamentalism, which is why these issues are causing a stir here.
OK, so an underclass created by a collusion of they themselves and the Lord Chief Justice. An underclass nonetheless. A group of people who could not would not receive 'Equal Justice Under Law.' Are you OK with that?
People who when wronged would have to take some sort of direct action? People who would not feel bound by the laws of Parliament?
You would have us loose ancient protections of the Common Law in order that you might be spared the horror of a woman with a duck on her head. Or veil on her face, whatever.
If Parliament wants to pass a law, that is one thing. (It is also one thing they have never troubled themselves to do.) To let a single old guy in a robe make public policy is foolish indeed.