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

Air India think weight is an issue, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4530914.stm

But how did I miss flying with this lot?

http://www.hootersair.com/

>>
Either BA should give up on trying to enforce uniform, or it should enforce its no religious symbollism outside your clothing rule without exceptions or playing favourites.
<< (Bouncy)

I've been assuming that the reason that BA allow headscarves is that if they didn't it would be discriminatory on the basis of religion. Do you have laws prohibiting refusing employment on the basis of religion? Isn't this Whisky's point: that if one is a certain religion, and that religion requires wearing a headscarf, then refusing to employ someone wearing a headscarf is discriminating on the grounds of religion. This obviously doesn't apply to religions that don't require wearing things that happen to conflict with employer requirements.

I'd be interested to know if BA requires orthodox christians to work shifts on Sundays, or exempts them.


>>
Do these religious dress codes not seem a bit silly to anyone else though? It boils down to this damned idea of moral authority. The Qu'ran says people should dress modestly, great. So why is no-one asking for what purpose it says this? Once you know why, you can work out what is the appropriate modern dress to fullfill that criteria. Instead they faff about trying to unpick a vague centuries old line to get to some definitive interpretation of what modesty should be in modern times.
<< (Bouncy)

Actually if you talk to muslim women you'll find that the dress code is as much cultural as religious. Many women find dressing modestly appropriate in the culture they live in with the sexual mores of that culture.

Also, it's not like the UK and other Western cultures don't have their own prescribed cultural requirements on what women can wear. We tend to think that because we have this individualistic, freedom to choose ethic that we don't also have specific constraints on what women wear. But trying working in for instance the corporate world, or a department store, or a bank, and not wearing make-up, not shaving your legs etc. These things aren't specific to individual employer dress codes, they are cultural requirements. At least muslims are more honest in how they oppress women.

I agree with a lot of Kea's comments here, but I think the veil is a political statement more than a religious one. Despite the insults and taunts from Muslims over this issue, it is clear that veils are not obligated in Islam. Comments made by those who have travelled extensively in the Middle East say that the Burqa is primarily worn in very poor, remote areas.

The Burqa and the veil were certainly very rare until recently in the UK. So why the rise? It doesn't appear to be first generation immigrants, but girls born and bred here. The reasons they give for wearing it are confused. Some say modesty, some say it is liberating, others say the Koran commands them. Except it doesn't. Somebody is telling them it does though.

Which raises a common point. The moderates seem to have no authoritative voice on Muslim issues. We know that moderates far outnumber the extremists, but they seem unable to engage with each other in a public debate. I am sure they do behind closed doors, but that hardly helps the public image of Islam.

One reason for this IMO is the issue of abrogation: later parts of the Koran take precedence over earlier parts. In the early days of Mohammed's rise to power, he was still trying to win friends and influence people, so the Koran is quite gentle and reasonable at this stage. The later parts were written when Mohammed was more powerful and the conquest of other tribes and societies was in full swing. As the most powerful military force in the region, Mohammed became more belligerant. The Koran written in later years is less about conciliation, more about conquest. When moderates quote the peacable parts of the Koran, they are quoting the early parts. The extremists quote the later parts. With abrogation, the extreme message always wins.

Which is why moderate Muslims cannot publicly be seen to debate with extremists. The moderates would lose.

So who is pulling the strings of the Muslims?

Muslim men commonly describe Muslim women as "Diamonds", meaning they are a precious resource to be cossetted and protected. This is a very strong theme in Islam. So I do not think it is a coincidence that the issue of Muslim women's dress has been pushed to the forefront three times in the last year. First a schoolgirl sueing a school, then a woman has her veil ripped from her face, (and of all the Muslim women in Britain for this to happen to, this one is a senior member of the MCB), now a teacher and the veil. Muslim women are being pushed into the front line by extremists to attract criticism from mainstream British society. The message to Muslim men is clear: non-Muslims are attcking the diamonds of Islam. I would not be surprised if this is exactly the message being conveyed in darkened rooms to groups of gullible young Muslim men.

The Cross in question was a fairly small one of the shorter versions.
As to the full veil, if I was in Sainsbury's and someone was wearing one I would not use that check out and tell the supervisor that I would refuse to hand money over to someone who wanted to seperate themselves from me but was quite happy to take my money. I personally find them issolating. The head scarf is off course entirely differant and less issolating.
The asistant school teacher as already said didn't wear her veil to interview which somewhat knocks the necessity to wear it reason somewhat, she had only been in job a few months.
I am somewhat dubious of her reasons for wearing it as in an interview yesterday she encouraged and said that soon all doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc
would be wearing them and she said "Come on girls get wearing them". Such a statement can hardly be said to designed to calm the present situation, indeed I felt it was designed to heat up the present problem.
Another girl was shown last week being interviewd on GMTV several times through morning, this was a girl who had never worn a veil until a few days after
Straw's interview, The more honest and direct interviewer said that she seemed a quite mischievous young woman and asked if she was just wearing the veil to cause mischief, she wouldn't answer and just laughed. Another interviewer asked if she was started wearing veil just to get attention.
......if some people are starting to wear these veils just to stir things up than it does not exactly help to keep things calm in Britain.

Morning all,

Having started this thread, and having just read through to Starnglely Strange's post I would like to widen it a little.

My local news agent has just been taken over by an Islamic family.In the mornings one is served by two young girls of around 18 years of age, both wearing headscarves, both smilining, both very pleasant.

I would feel very uncomfortable if I were being served by a veiled lady, and would probably change shops. Am I prejudiced ? No , not really, just saying that the veil as a chosen adornment ( NOT mandatory from Allah ) isa matter of the woman's choice, as it is mine not to be served by someone I cannot 'engage' with.

I think SS is right, particu;arly in younger Islamic girls this choice is not for 'modesty' but more for political or religious attention.

Jack Straw was right. Those of us who can see past the narrow argument of faith, belief, rules, adornment, choice etc can see that not to challenge one form of choice for fear of offence is itself offensive.

If I were to walk into a bank wearing a full face motorcycle helmet I would be asked, if not expected to remove it. Would a veiled woman be asked to remove her veil?. I doubt it in the present climate. And if my scanario stands scrutiny then it is 'discrimination'.

I started off with the BA incident. That was a mistake because we got side tracked into policies and dress codes of one company and the subsequent argument about contravention by the Cross wearer.

It is a great deal widerthan that. It goes to the heart of Islam's insitence on all their rights, including pushing for Sharia la to apply in certain areas - presumably among the 30% of the population of Blackburn.

Not to remark this, and not to recognise the reverse descrimination involved is to ignore a 'lit fuse' because it marks out two socoities in the UK. those of us who recognise a secular State in which we aare all equal under the law, and those who want to live as though they were somewere warmer.

Novo

It's a bit more complicated than that.

You cite the example of sharia law for example - there are already Jewish legal courts operating in the UK for civil law matters where the two parties agree to be bound by them.

If you are a C of E clergyman and do something naughty, canonic law will apply rather than your standard employment law.

1/3 of our state schools are run by the C of E. They have a special dispensation so that laws on discrimination against homosexuality do not apply to them.

There are exceptions to the police helmet rules for Sikhs, and London Transport have a special cap for Rastafarians.

In other words, it's not UK versus Muslim, it's secular versus religious. We make loads of concessions to religions and religious people in our society - the real question is how far we take this tolerance.

sprout

People in this thread are arguing that women are turning to the veil for political reasons, and also for mischievous reasons. Sure that maybe the case. Kind of like the drawings incident earlier this year (the 'contraversial' drawings which led to huge rioting all over the world) - people used that and did some drawings just to provoke Muslims. They wouldn't have done it, had the Muslim society not reacted as they did.

By pushing the veil situation in the forefront, and having people like SWL and Strangely Strange argue that the veil is wrong and offends your sensibilities, more women will turn to the veil. Just to provoke you. It's like being a child. They want attention, so they do what they know you react to. So face it folks. The public reaction to the veil is causing this situation to get out of hand.

If girls are being told to put the veil on - it means that their religious leaders are telling them the wrong thimg. So why is it that the women are being attacked. Why don't you focus on the real problems? Dealing with the Imans. A lot of them cannot speak English - there is no law dictating they should be able to. Maybe that should be rectified. Maybe the government should push the Muslim leaders to communicate more with their followers, and deal with the situation of isolation for the youths. Maybe segregated religious schools should be banned.

After 9/11 happened, a lot of people treated Muslims with distrust. They were treated differently. Asian looking people were eyed suspiciously. After 7/7 happened it worsened. People lashed out on Mosques. Racist attacks on asians who they believed to be Muslims doubled. The Muslim community became withdrawn. People turned to their readings to try to make sense of what happened. They were proud to be Muslims, and were horrified by the events of what happened. They tried to make sense by going back to their religious roots, like a lot of people did.

I'm not a Muslim, but I could see this happening. Religious intolerance has increased substantially. I remember reading a report where students of the age 14 or so were interviewed on their religious beliefs. The results were shameful. It showed that they were intolerant of those who didn't share their beliefs.

Just hold om a minute, I couldn't care if was Christians walking around wearing ice hocky masks, it would still be anti social and hardly condusive to people communicating, I wouldn't want my doctor having their face covered whoever they are.....and there is nothing wrong with commenting on events like these, if these people are doing it just to wind people up then maybe you should be directing your comments at them since to do that when we have had trains and a bus blown up is shameful!

I think there's a danger of going overboard on this issue.

Yes, BA certainly do have double standards on this issue. But that's not to say that there is some sort of mass, organised campaign of Political Correctness. All that's happened is that a silly policy has been put together by an incompetent functionary who has somehow got hold of the wrong end of the stick and imagines there's some sort of risk that (eg) Muslims might be offended by a crucifix. Said functionary has probably never even *asked* a Muslim. The very notion is absurd - any more than a Muslim would be offended by a Sikh turban, a Sikh by a hijab, a Christian by a turban or a hijab (but note that people *have* been getting hot under the collar at minority variants of Muslim dress lately )...or, indeed, an atheist fundamentalist such as myself at a hijab, turban, crucifix, star of David or what have you.

It's not persecution of Christians and should in no way be interpreted as such. It's a silly storm in a teacup, brought to light in the current news climate.


I must admit, though...I do have an irrational urge to ram cars sporting those fish symbols.

>> All that's happened is that a silly policy has been put together by an incompetent functionary who has somehow got hold of the wrong end of the stick and imagines there's some sort of risk that (eg) Muslims might be offended by a crucifix. <<

Is that true? Have BA said this? I thought the ban was on jewellery and other body adornment irregardless of whether it was religious or not.

And that the exemptions (turbans, headscarves, bangles) were because they couldn't easily be worn *under the BA uniform.

Hi Sprout,

Perhaps then it is a case of Muslim versus the Uk ( the rest of us ).

Novo

I really don't think so. Did I really explain myself that badly?

I, personally, think the wider conflict is secular versus religious. Definitely not Muslim versus UK. It is virtually impossible to distinguish the views of a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Jew and a fundamentalist Muslim - I disagree with them all equally.

On clothing though, even though I am a very secular person, I am prepared to tolerate enormous crosses, veils, even fish symbols on the back of cars in general interactions with the public, just as I would tolerate rude tshirts, strange piercings and that kind of thing.

Live and let live, I say.

sprout

>>Is that true? Have BA said this? I thought the ban was on jewellery and other body adornment irregardless of whether it was religious or not.

Yes I think that this *is* what they're saying, in fairness...in which case talk of anti-Christian discrimination are even sillier. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would have been sensible to knock the silly woman off her high horse by saying, " it...wear a crucifix if you really *must* ( sanctimonious cow)."

The origin of the Sikh turban, of course, is as an overt display of faith. It's a religious obligation to be in-yer-face about it and suffer the consequences if necessary (but noting also the obligation to defend the faith by the sword). Christians, of course, do *not* have a tradition of overt display of their faith. Neither do they have an obligation. Leaf through any copy of the New Testament and you'll see that Christians were encouraged to be secretive where necessary. In Ancient Rome, they were a covert, 'entryist' movement...much like they are in the current Cabinet.

Hijab...that's somewhere in between. It's not *required* as such - what's called for is 'modest dress' - but if a woman's culture leads her to feel exposed when her head is uncovered in public, a headscarf is no great shakes, is it? But does anyone feel naked without a crucifix?

Fundamentally, though, I have difficulty getting my head around this whole affair. I understand dress codes almost as little as I understand religion.

Aren't all companies allowed to demand a certain dress code, whether it be having to wear uniforms, can't wear sandals, can't grow a moustache or beard, etc?

And isn't the person who agrees to this employment contract bound to what they agreed to?

az

Edward, I agree it's not some anti-christian thing. And unfortunately it looks like the reaction is anti-muslim.

>>On the other hand, it seems to me that it would have been sensible to knock the silly woman off her high horse by saying, " it...wear a crucifix if you really *must* ( sanctimonious cow)."<<

Yeah but then they'd open themselves as an employer to all sorts of claims to wear jewellery, tatoos etc.

In the Royal Navy, one can wear a beard and moustache (A 'Full Set'), but not a moustache alone. I'm not sure what the regulations are on those bizarre, morris-dancer beardless moustaches. (They ought to be banned on aesthetic grounds. They lead inevitably to the wearing of socks with sandals).

Changing topic slightly....

I read yesterday of the US congressional attempts to reverse previous policy and permit army chaplains to conduct overtly Christian services. One brave Lt Col has come out and says that if it happens, he'll simply refuse to allow them to conduct *any* services, this being fundamental to the 1st Amendment of the very constitution that he has pledged to uphold.

http://www.slate.com/id/2150801

>>Edward, I agree it's not some anti-christian thing. And unfortunately it looks like the reaction is anti-muslim.

What's not clear is whether the employee's motivation was anti-Muslim. I have my suspicions.

I asked a US friend the other day why so many USians are fundamentalist christian (I'd heard a figure of 30% which is incredible really). She reckoned it's a recent thing (the high percentage) and it comes from the fear generated within the US since 9/11.

This is interesting, because in this thread listening to people's concerns about what British muslims are doing in the UK, I've been wondering what people are afraid of. I think concern is legitimate (although I am uncomfortable with how some people are making it an us and them situation), and I understand fears, but would be interested to know what people are fearing specifically. Is it that if enough of the population becomes muslim then you will lose western values and freedoms?

>>What's not clear is whether the employee's motivation was anti-Muslim. I have my suspicions.<<

Yes. Although it might also be just her feeling the need to stake a claim or something similar. Listening to some Brits there is this current need to secure identity, to make sure that Britian doesn't become too foreign. If Brits are feeling insecure about who they are, then it's understandable that they will feel threatened if they perceive others getting special treatment.

I see where you're coming from, aek.

The thing is...I think it's something of a manufactured insecurity. I don't mean this in a conspiracy theory sense...but as part of the over-reaction to 9/11, coupled with the US's unrelated imperialist goals, my fellow citizens of subcontinent origin have definitely been scapegoated. The mechanism was already in place, to a large extent, in the low-level racism - or, at very least, the lack of cultural openness - that was prevalent in British society. Nowadays, racism is being stoked up and expressed with the spurious justification of national security. Mild discomfort at not being able to see the facial expressions of a small minority of women from a minority group quickly elides into "What if the woman in a veil is really a suicide bomber" and "How dare they come to our country and bomb us."

In the US, I have a feeling that it's been more blatant. The Neocons have deliberately connected Christianity, Patriotism and National Security with their sectional interests.