Veil ban on kids

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113

Ruling ... Education Secretary Johnson



Face veils stop girls learning


By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
March 20, 2007


VEILS will be banned in schools to help pupils learn and to keep them safe, Education Secretary Alan Johnson has ruled.

His decision will affect thousands of Muslim girls who wear clothing like the full niqab.

He will publish details of his guidance to headteachers in the Commons today. The wearing of full-length robes may also be affected.

A source said: “Veils mean teachers can’t see the face.

“It’s a problem for security and it’s also a problem for learning because the teacher can’t see whether or not a child is understanding what’s being taught.

“A full face veil means you can’t see who the person is.”

Ministers will say it is also dangerous under health and safety regulations.

A Bunsen burner could easily set light to a face veil in a science lab, Mr Johnson will point out.

School heads will be told to consult parents before going ahead with the ban.


Defeat ... Shabina Begum, 18, lost her bid to wear robe in class


They will tell parents they CAN uphold religious traditions provided they do not put security and learning in jeopardy. The rules will also apply to faith schools.

But Mr Johnson is convinced there will be no serious opposition to the move.

Teachers will not be covered because they are governed by employment rules.

Mr Johnson will also outlaw the wearing of badges, insignia or other features linked to gang membership.

His action on veils comes after a 12-year-old girl lost a legal battle to wear one in lessons.

The Muslim child claimed her human rights were being abused when she was banned from wearing the niqab in her Buckinghamshire school. But Mr Justice Silber ruled at the High Court that the school’s ban was “proportionate” for security reasons.

The ruling will be used to scupper any counter-bid by Muslim parents. It is estimated that 2,500 girls wear full-length Islamic dress in class in England and Wales.

Shabina Begum fought a four-year legal battle to wear a traditional robe. The 18-year-old took her school in Luton, Bedfordshire, to court after being sent home to change into uniform.

Her barrister Cherie Booth QC — wife of PM Tony Blair — argued the ban was a breach of human rights.

But last year the House of Lords overturned a judgment in favour of Shabina.

thesun.co.uk
 

Rar! I'm a scary monster!

Electoral Member
Mar 10, 2007
134
5
18
46
Western NC, USA
Well, we need to get yarmulkas out of schools too.

I mean, how do I KNOW a child is absorbing knowledge if I can't see the crown of their head?? Test grades? Homework? THOSE aren't reliable sources by which we can determine their progress.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
There is a big difference between covering your head and covering your entire face. Common sense prevailed.
 

Dezzarai

New Member
Mar 16, 2007
30
0
6
I think they shouold be able to wear whatever they want if it's for religious reasons, maybe they should have to sign something saying that they can't take legal action against the school if they get burned from wearing a veil in a science lab? maybe they should have their faces checked in hte morning entering the school if there is a security problem? I dunno, but banning them seems wrong, if you do that you should ban people from wearing cross necklaces etc. too.
and I agree Rar.
Well, we need to get yarmulkas out of schools too.

I mean, how do I KNOW a child is absorbing knowledge if I can't see the crown of their head?? Test grades? Homework? THOSE aren't reliable sources by which we can determine their progress.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
look at the picture. They're not hiding their faces. We're not talking about bhurkas here.

personally i think any school can require anything of its kids. if parents don't like the uniform they can send their kid elsewhere. And I can see the reasoning behind not allowing these veils, although it's not irrefutable.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
No, it's not a euphemism. It's a play on "You got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning!" Obviously, that might be hard to do if your bed was extended. And sleep is such an easeful mistress.
 

Rar! I'm a scary monster!

Electoral Member
Mar 10, 2007
134
5
18
46
Western NC, USA
Let's say 'intolerance' does that to me...

I prefer the term 'lack of respect' to 'intolerance' though.

I'm a big fan of the idea that I have no right to tell people how to love their particular deity. Personally, seeing Christ bleeding on the cross is offensive to me, but I have no right to condemn the use of the image.
 

Rar! I'm a scary monster!

Electoral Member
Mar 10, 2007
134
5
18
46
Western NC, USA
Hmmm...

How 'bout this:

The veil ban is a ban against a religious observance. It is being brought about as a safety measure in science labs (perhaps instead they could bind the veil so that it is in place but not a fire hazard), as a preference by some teachers who believe they need to see more than their students' eyes because they claim the teachers "can’t see whether or not a child is understanding what’s being taught" (I thoroughly disagree), and really it seems that people become more and more suspect of muslims wearing anything concealing at all.

I feel that if there is a schoolwide ban on veils, there should be one on other religious observance so as to be respectful of all the students' beliefs.