Lisa Shea Forums General Discussion Politics Was she entitled to the money?

I agree with you that it would be impossible to establish a just monetary value to compensate the "harmed party" for her emotional distress, especially since it would be difficult to demonstrate: (1) how she was harmed and (2) how much that impaired her ability to work or get on with her life. I find it very frivolous.

I think that the thing with this story, the one about the school uniform, and the one about the hair stylist, is that they are linked.

The link, of course, is Islam ~ or at least Islam as interpreted or followed by some people.

I am very wary of discussing issues like this, for risk of being considered racist or offensive in some way, but, let me try to put forth my thoughts.

It appears to me, that in Britain, and possibly other parts of Europe, there is some kind of movement, either planned or informal, to somehow either disrupt good feeling between Westerners and Muslims, or show up bad feeling between Westerners and Muslims.

Also, I think that there is a counter-movement to try to tone it down.

A Muslim friend of mine told me that in some areas of Birmingham, where the population is possibly 100% Muslim, non-Muslims could, indeed, be at risk if they entered that area.

Obviously, my friend would not be amongst those wanting trouble. Neither would most of the Muslims I know. But there are, presumably, some.

Similarly, there are racist white people ~ quite a number of them, I would say.

I think that the stories of the schoolgirl and the stylist equally arouse feelings of indignation. There is a feeling, I think, of 'when in Rome do as the Romans do. Whether the English do in Rome as the Romans do, I'm not sure.

Stories of white Christian people not being allowed to discuss their religion in an English city is likely to arouse racial distrust and possibly racial hatred.

Similarly girls insisting on wearing a specific outfit, that traditionally would not be allowed in schools, will annoy people who stick to the rules, in spite of disliking their uniform ~ remember that in the UK most schools have a uniform which is fairly strictly enforced.

And small businesses ~ surely you can employ whomever you wish? But what if you don't wish, because you want people who speak the language well, dress in high fashion and showcase new hairstyles?

What if the person you turn down would be a great sales-person, or hair stylist, or whatever you require, but you turn them down because they are male, or they wear a headscarf, or English is their second language, or they wear a turban, or a jilbab, or a veil?

Then, if you do not choose them, isn't it indirect discrimination, because it is their gender, or it is their ethnic or religious cultural restrictions which are preventing them from doing what you wish ~ and therefore they are not getting a fair chance?

Or should it be that, in an English, Western, supposedly Christian state, ethnic minorities should just have to like it or leave it?

It's a difficult one. I find myself going back and forth on it. This whole problem area has been blamed on multiculturalism. Migrants have brought their cultures with them. There is an argument that immigrants should not have done this but should have accepted the culture of the host nation and kept their own cultural observances for the privacy of their own home or place of worship.

I don't know if similar difficulties occur in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc???

http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302936#Post302936

This requires a more thoughtful, measured, and comprehensive response than I have time for for the moment. I am only going to focus on the fact that groups that benefit from religious tolerance do not always reciprocate it to others.

For instance, in the US, William Penn founded Pennsylvania on the principle of religious tolerance. As a result, Pennsylvania attracted a large number of different and often persecuted christian sects. Unfortunately, these people had little interest in showing the same tolerance to others that they had received themselves; instead, they have been intolerant towards others, shunning modernity and cosmopolitanism. It is probably for this reason, that in the north eastern United States, Pennsylvania is one of if not the poorest state.

An example that fits here is; English is the established language for all airline pilots. English is required. Is it then descrimination to not hire someone because they do not speak english. It is a job requirement. It is up to the employer to establish job requirements. It is not descrimination if these are established prior to any interviewing process. There is also weight to height requirements for flight attendants. Is it descrimination because they would not hire someone who does not meet the job requirements.

Also a uniform is required - is it descrimination to require employees to wear a uniform. It is not, it is required.

Good points BLR--although as an FYI several of the airlines were sued a few years back by flight attendants who were grounded when they gained weight-and the airlines lost. They also had to relax thier age requirements.

yes but the flight attendants had to show that they could perform the job.

If the first case (with a salon owner) was a matter of religious discrimination why did she sue for emotional distress? Or maybe I'm not understanding something. Either way, it doesn't really sound justified , unless the judge decided that the owner had set down these rules as way to specifically avoid hiring muslims, or that they simply weren't legal (business owners can't make just any rules, after all). But it doesn't really sound like either to me - the displaying of hairstyles in a hair salon sounds totally reasonable.

As for the schoolgirl...I haven't heard too much about that, but if this was a public school I do think she should have been allowed to wear her religious attire, whatevere it was. Then again, England does have a state church (right?) so I guess things might be different. It doesn't really have anything much in common with the employment case, because the girl wearing her jilbab doesn't interfere with her schooling or anything else, as far as a I can tell.

Cases of religious discrimination are probably among the most interesting (along with things like weight), becase they concern things that aren't really physically involuntary, like race, sex or handicaps. They can get a bit fuzzy, then.

In a city near by an Islamic student, a young small male, was put head first in a toilet by a few older male students, big macho type students. It caused the Islamic community to go into an uproar, which then caused an Islamic "class" to be taught at this particular junior high. The class teaches about the Islamic people, their religion, their persucusions and the reasons why they are settling in the US.

The principle of this JH resigned saying that this was not a discrimination on the schools part but has become one of the Islamic community. That if every time a small males head was put into a toilet by bigger macho males there would never be anytime to have core classes because of all of the different races we have in the Houston area if they had to give a class over that race, culture, etc.

The boys were suspended for doing what they did, but they told the principle that it wasn't because of his race, that race had never entered their minds. He was just a kid to pick on because of his size.

These guys are getting combat ready early. Maybe we can ship them out to Iraq or Afghanistan now! Or maybe they're Texas prison guards in training.



It was probably both, racism and physical size. Junior HS is a bastion of bullying. Bullying was a major contributor the Virginia Tech and Columbine shoot ups. I hope that poor child wasn't psychologically scarred by the incident.

Hi Tuesday & welcome.
The news item in the paper brought up the connection with the school uniform story:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...ldnt-hair.html#

In England, we do have the Church of England, but the country is largely secular.

In this country almost all schools have strict school uniforms ~ even nursery schools. All children have to wear it. There are usually certain options, but they are restricted. It is the same for private schools and state schools. That particular one actually had a version of the shalwar khemiz as an option for students. Long dresses are not usually allowed because they could get caught on things or be tripped over on stairs. Youngsters have to wear uniform regardless of whether or not they hate it or find it uncomfortable ~ or even whether parents can afford it. It is one of the rules.

I think that the underlying question being asked in these cases is not being fully recognised.

It is this:
If ethnic minorities belong to a country ~ migrated or born ~ does the minority have to fit in with the status quo, or does the 'status quo' have to change to accommodate the differences?

If all women in England wore headscarves for religious reasons, what would happen, then, regarding the hairdresser?

If all girls in England wanted the jilbab as their school uniform for religious reasons, what would happen, then, in our schools?

I think that the obvious answer is that there would be changes.

So, should we make the changes, anyway, because a minority demand them? (And, even amongst Muslim women, I think that it is still a minority.)

Or, do we worry that the 'essence of Britishness' is being threatened by a minority of the country's inhabitants ~ some of whom migrated here and some of whom were born here ~ who want things changed.

One Muslim extremist on TV stated that the British have to accept that this is an Islamic country now.

This is why these stories are in the press, because some people feel that things that were accepted as the norm are now being questioned.

The question is, as I said, about whether ethnic monoroties should integrate completely, or whether, in a multi-cultural country, all the needs and wants of all minorities are given equal weight.

I know that by bringing this up I may offend some people ~ thinking that I am being negative towards Islam ~ but many Muslims are wary of this sort of thing, too. They came to Britain because they wanted to live in Britain. Some have said that they are made to feel less of a Muslim because they don't want to wear a scarf or veil or jilbab.