This should draw a line under the veil

Have a look at this

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/24112006/325/veil-teacher-sacked-suspension.html

Seems line commen sense as for once prevailed.

 

The girl was being used by local imam to cause trouble!

 

A bit hypocritical of the CoE mind you. Look at all their complaints about a woman not being allowed to wear her crucifix outside her uniform on BA whilst all other staff were forbidden from doing do (special rights for Christians?) but when a Muslim exercises her right to publically express her beliefs they sack her. They cannot have it both ways. One law for Christians and another for Muslims it seems! :roll:

They really should read what the New Testament has to say about hypocrisy these Christians. They'd be in for a really nasty shock! :evil:

 

Comeon Steve, there is a world of difference between a small cross and a veil which effectively covers the face.
If the veil was mandatory wear for Muslims perhaps she would have been on safer ground.

 

Is wearing a cross compulsory for Christians

 

There doesnt seem to be any hypocrisy in this particular case. Had there been they wouldn't have employed her in the first place would they?

Always a civvie - "these christians" also have pretty firm views about sexual orientation dont they?

 

Wearing the cross is not compulsory for Christians. I think we are rapidly approaching a point where all religious symbols should be banned. They seem to be creating animosity wherever they are used.
However as the Queen is the head of the country and also head of the Christian church it seems fairly obvious that the UK is still supposedly a Christian country. Its about time we stopped bending over backwards to accommodate all and sundry and do same as other countries. Thailand is a Buddhist country but allows freedom of religious expression, Northern Cyprus is a Muslim country but allows freedom of expression, China is communist but to a point allows freedom of expression. These countries allow this freedom but do not bend over backwards to fund religious activities from state funds.
The UK bends over backwards and of course gets shafted for it!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Well I learned recently that a government Minister, who shall remain nameless, demanded that a non-religious belief group seek the consent of the Church of England before the Government would consider acknowledging their human rights in law under Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights [link to pdf document]. You can bet the CoE would express outrage if they were subject to similar requirement viz, say, the National Secular Society!

What we have is a clear violation of the rights and freedoms of the non-religious by this government, who whilst consulting the religious about such things as providing public services and the "right" of the faithful to opt out of providing services to those they disapprove of, ignore their obligations towards the whole population. They wilfully ignore Article 9(2) of the above Convention, which constrains any freedom to manifest, etc., ones belief (whether religious or philosophical) where it seeks to impinge upon or deny the rights and freedoms of others. This is most typically demonstrated in Ministers stating that Bill X complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 when in a number of cases it clearly violates it!
[hr]
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.

(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

F*** the European Convention on Human Rights, F*** the European Court,
F*** the European Commission - they are all unelected/unimpeachable constrain the sovereignty of the nation state, asphyxiating the very freedoms of the British people.

 

Well said that man! They can stick their European law up their arse, we didn't vote for it.

 

Well I doubt you'll be saying that the next time you're in a country without a British Embassy and you need help - as a member of the EC you have the same rights and assistance from any European embass/consulate in the EU as all other European citizens... when you're in the sh!t and someone is trying to help get you out of it, do you really care they're from Denmark rather than the UK?!

Most people's perception of the EU is jaded due to the media picking out the 'bad' things it does. I am far from a Europhile myself, but unlike some of the xenophobic POVs in RR I like to do a bit of reasearch before I spout of about something I know (little) about! :lol:

 

My feelings about this case have nothing to do with women covering their faces - if they want to do so they can go ahead. I'm fine with that. What I have an issue with is someone in a public position covering their face - like the lawyer who was in the news the other week. If you are in a position of trust and authority then you are publicly accountable for your actions. This accountability ceases to exist when the person holding this post does so in an anonymous fashion from behind the screen of the veil. It is perfectly possible to carry out a one-to -one conversation without seeing (I think Jack Straw was wrong in this though I hope he got someone to check the ID properly of the woman in question) what is more problematic is any form of participation in the wider community. You can't tell if someone is smiling behind the veil unless you know them quite well and in this society with the exception of a few nutters women aren't generally veiled to prevent their participation in the broader community, they don't need this protection they have the protection of the law. I have worked with several women who wore scarves and it made absolutely no difference, but a veil, I wouldn't like that at all.

 

I think that you have put the situation in a nutshell.

 

SgtPepperband - please list those countries where they are "without a British Embassy and which European embass/consulates exist in those countries. Thank you.

 

For starters try Laos. No British embassy or consulate. Nearest is Bangkok.
Laos does however have a french consulate.

 

Well they probably wouldn't want me knocking on the door, like Nelson I believe in hating the French as you hate the devil!

The EU is a waste of space, is costing the UK a fortune and if thats the best reason you can come up with you've bought into Eurospin hook, line and sinker. What the f*** are they doing with representatives all around the world (the EU not the French) as accreditted diplomats EG. in Australia when they aren't even a country? You are slepwalking toward an abyss and sound as though you'be happy falling into it!

 

Here,Here F169
RoofRat
( English first, British second, European never!)

 

F169,

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. It predates the Union and the EEC. It was established in response to the revelation of the horrors of what occured in Nazi Germany and the Convention itself was masterminded by Britain. It was one of Britain's great post-War achievements, establishing an international model for basic human rights.

All states aspiring towards, or holding membership of, the EU must ratify the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, which is enforced through the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (not to be confused with the EU's Court of Justice which adjudicates disputes arising from breaches of Community law). The ECHR cannot directly impose changes in the law of states who have ratified the Convention, rather they have an obligation under international law (by Treaty) to put into effect the decision of the Court. The reasoning of the Court allows Governments to limit the scope of any legal changes to those specific circumstances, if the jurisprudence permits this.

The EU itself has both the elected European Parliament which is increasingly asserting its power - and which should be encouraged to do so - and the European Commission whose Members, like the Council of Ministers, are appointed by the elected Governments of Member States. There have been opportunities to change this democratic deficit in favour of more direct representation, but Thatcher vetoed these proposals so they were never enacted, requiring as they did, unanimity.

Now go to the Chief and ask him for a square inch of Pussers Hard to eat, F169 and then make us all a nice, hot, cup of tea. No sugar in mine please! :wink:

Steve.

 

Ditto mate