h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Edward,
don't put words into my mouth that I never said.

Ed, are you just making this up as you go along?

I never brought up the Crusades, I responded when they were mentioned.
Show me where I said all Asian crime is racist.

Is this the way you go through life, ignoring what people actually say and ascribing your own meanings to their posts?

I'm not going to stoop to your level of ignorance and petulance. Your posts say so much.

SWL,
Edward is just using the slurs and untruth that some people resort to when they can't win an arguement, unpleasant and slurs in one afternoon, that isn't bad going.

It's a pity though. The content of his posts were fine and the exchange of views was good, then he resorts to childish behaviour

Ho Hum. Back on track,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm

"A Muslim classroom assistant suspended by a school for wearing a veil in lessons has lost her claim of religious discrimination at a tribunal. "

but

"Kirklees Council was ordered to pay her £1,100 for victimising her. "

How were they victimising her?

Hmmmm so victimisation can only happen in cases of "religious discrimination" eh SWL?

Total testes, it is quite possible for a tribunal to find out that bullying happened but it wasnt racially motivated. Come on use your loaf.

Actually I would like to take a discrimination case out against her, she clearly stated that she would take her veil off in a room with women but insisted in wearing it in a room with a man.....which clearly means she is treating men differantly due to their gender...a clear case of sexual discrimination!

She was victimised due to her actions then?

Seriously, the School did not act in haste, they monitored her performance over a period of time before deciding the veil was having a detrimental effect. If there had been others wearing the veil who were not monitored, then yes, I would agree she could claim to be victimised. But if she is the only perpetrator, how can she be singled out?

As an aside, I notice the legal team are based in the same building as my office. Maybe that's why there were so many veil wearers in the lifts.

"Here's an invisble one for you, matey. I'm directing it at my screen right now."

Ed, as you know, I've supported the substance of the majority of your earlier posts, but this goes too far. Sorry. But just as we must stand up and be counted when it comes to confronting racism and xenophobia, so too must we stand up and be counted on the side of settling debates through civil discourse. I believe you owe an apology to those at whom your incivility was directed.

As a former US president is known for saying, "I feel your pain." Nevertheless we must remain civil if we are to resolve anything here.

Ah, I see. It's because politicians commented about the case before the tribunal. Fair enough then.

Not a criticism of what they said, but when they said it.

From the BBC article linked earlier:
>>"In a statement she criticised ministers who had intervened in the case and said it made her "fearful of the consequences for Muslim women in this country who want to work"."

Well, I wonder what the consequences will be.
Is even the remote possibility of someone becoming a problem not likely to make people a bit more wary of employing a Muslim woman, or even someone they think *might* be Muslim?

Would it be religious discrimination for a company without any kind of dress code to say at interview to someone wearing a headscarf "What are your thoughts on veil-wearing?" or "If you work here, you'd better not start wearing a veil"?
Should a small and informal company have to try and draw up a dress code to head off possible problems, when previously they'd just worked on the bosses being able to have a quiet word with people?
Could the easy option for an employer (even if unfair) be to err on the side of safety and, if all other things are equal, avoid the female Muslim candidate?

I'd have thought one of the extra obstacles in the path of Muslim women who want to work would be people wondering if they may turn out to be trouble. Someone who has turned out to be trouble is possibly not in the best position to start making judgements.

Maybe she's making a personal stand for freedom of clothing.
Maybe she's making a political gesture.
One thing she doesn't seem to be doing is improving the employment prospects of Muslim women, especially those who tend towards an identifiable Muslim wardrobe, even if they don't wear veils, and would be unlikely ever to do so.

And that is the bad thing, there have been people on TV who have just started wearing them, including the girl in the employement case, who seem to to be making a political case or enjoying the mischief, which helps no one.

I heard that the 'victimisation' was because they did not follow the correct grievance procedure. However, it is going to be seen as 'COuncil victimises Muslim woman over veil'.

The woman used her 'statement' to make a political message which had nothing to do with her case. She said ' Muslim women who wear the veils are not aliens' well of course they aren't, they are just wierd.

The whole point of the case was that the school put the education of the children first. This teaching assistant did not agree: she put what she believes her religion requires of her first. If that's the case: go and work in an Islamic school where they do put religion before general education.

And now an Educational Authority have to pay her £1100, which I'm sure would buy a few books. Still, if they didn't follow procedure, that's just incompetence.

It's a pity the Islamic School in Dundee was closed down. I'm sure this girl would have fitted in just fine. It was closed down when it was disovered that girls were being taught a different curriculum from the boys. It wasn't felt necessary for the girls to be taught maths, science, geography or suchlike.

They did receive extra classes in home economics though, which is nice

Novo [to Ed]: >Are you never troubled by humility?<

I can assure you that he is. Arrogance is not one of Ed's faults - over-exuberance, yes, bludgeoning recalcitrance, OK sometimes. But, well, since people like Two-Bit left, things would be incredibly dull without people like Ed around to stir up the apple cart.

Ed, stirring up the apple cart? No, more like running to hide underneath and pulling faces through the wheel-spokes.

For challenging views and destroying weak arguments, (including mine on occasion), we miss SoRB & Blues. Both of these guys could communicate an argument with an economy, style & wit. For defending Islam we miss Adib whose technique was to talk ad nauseum in circles until everyone gave up the will to live, but he did so intelligently and rarely with childish insults.

I can be convinced I'm wrong at times, (hopefully some here will remember times when I've held my hands up & changed my position on an issue) but it will take a better man or woman than Ed to do so.

Blimey, you're up late. And I'm So, in vino bullshittas, as they say.

I don't miss Sorb at all. He was a f00king a*ehole who'd crucify people over the tiniest mistake they'd made while ignoring the gaping holes in his own arguments. Destroying weak arguments is a tuppence-ha'penny venture. Ignoring them and concetrating on the real substance of an argument is what proves your worth.

But anyway, if Blues has gone forever, I'm truly sorry.

I think it would take a particularly favourable set of circumstances and a couple of tablets of something illegal to convince you of your blindness on this issue. No single person could do so.

I could also argue that it's only because I'm so poor at expressing myself in type that I don't convince more people.

No one will ever convince me that a significant element of Muslims don't have a political objective. That makes them a legitimate target for me. The problem is the obfuscation, dressing up political ambitions in mumbo-jumbo and hiding behind a silent and pliant majority of fellow Muslims.

"No one will ever convince me that a significant element of Muslims don't have a political objective."

I have been following the debate and while I may not agree with his methods - Ed did admit to troll-like behaviour. I would say though that a sentence like the above may add fuel to his arguments. It might be very unlikely that you willl be convinced, and I think I have realised that by reading your posts, however, you seem to be saying that there is no point in trying to convince you.

When you look at the situation in Iraq currently, you become aware that there are such considerable differences between different "flavours" of Islamic believers that lumping all Muslims together really is no more realistic than doing so with all British people (many of who are Muslim).

I fail to see how saying a "significant number" amounts to "lumping all Muslims together".