Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The school operates a policy which requires anyone entering the building to remove specific headwear for identification purposes
She claims the problem first surfaced at a parents' evening two years when she was told she was not allowed into the main hall while wearing her niqab.
The full veil, which covers all the body except the eyes, is worn by a minority of Muslim women in the UK as part of their religious beliefs, to protect their modesty from men.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, said: "I explained that I was willing to take off the veil in front of the female teachers, but not the male teachers.
"A year later the same thing happened when I went to drop my son off at the school. Then this week at a parent's evening I signed myself in and saw two teachers in the library as I was not allowed in the main hall.
the headteacher, said the school was rated as "outstanding" by Ofsted for community cohesion, care and guidance.
She said whilst it was acceptable for women to wear veils on a one-to-one basis at meeting, difficulties could arise when people were wandering around corridors or rooms

This is the same town that became the focus of national attention in 2006 when its MP Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, suggested the wearing of veils could damage community relations because they were a "visible statement of separation and of difference".

Can you please quote URL's to the articles which you are quoting, thanks.

If wearing beachwear in the street offends the nationals of the UAE, then why can't the wearing of niqab in specific circumstances offend western secular socities? Where is the difference? Just because it's not the UK's 'religion' that is offended (or France's where this has happened also), how is that no other means of 'offence' is acknowledged?

Speedhump wrote:Can you please quote URL's to the articles which you are quoting, thanks.

If wearing beachwear in the street offends the nationals of the UAE, then why can't the wearing of niqab in specific circumstances offend western secular socities? Where is the difference? Just because it's not the UK's 'religion' that is offended (or France's where this has happened also), how is that no other means of 'offence' is acknowledged?

lol i guess muslim women will not be allowed to wear hijaabs in the streets of UK because of national security threat. LOL british facists.

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Can you please quote URL's to the articles which you are quoting, thanks.

If wearing beachwear in the street offends the nationals of the UAE, then why can't the wearing of niqab in specific circumstances offend western secular socities? Where is the difference? Just because it's not the UK's 'religion' that is offended (or France's where this has happened also), how is that no other means of 'offence' is acknowledged?

lol i guess muslim women will not be allowed to wear hijaabs in the streets of UK because of national security threat. LOL british facists.

What you *guess* is a load of b*llocks. I sincerely believe you have no idea of what the word facist actually means either.

By the way, aren't you the Indian hater? You're a nice one to be talking about racist Brits and Aussies in that other thread. You me.

Speedhump wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Can you please quote URL's to the articles which you are quoting, thanks.

If wearing beachwear in the street offends the nationals of the UAE, then why can't the wearing of niqab in specific circumstances offend western secular socities? Where is the difference? Just because it's not the UK's 'religion' that is offended (or France's where this has happened also), how is that no other means of 'offence' is acknowledged?

lol i guess muslim women will not be allowed to wear hijaabs in the streets of UK because of national security threat. LOL british facists.

What you *guess* is a load of b*llocks. I sincerely believe you have no idea of what the word facist actually means either.

By the way, aren't you the Indian hater? You're a nice one to be talking about racist Brits and Aussies in that other thread. You me.

what i guess is not a load of bolocks because if they are already banned from schools. they will be banned from shops, cinemas, town centers and you get the pic . give england politicians another 2 to 3 years and see what laws they come up with.

why cant u brits stick to the topic for gods sake? so i say something bad about the IPL, or corrupt indians in dubai and all of a sudden I am a indian hater? lol lets stick to the topic and indians are certainly not the topic in this thread

speedhump is right, you don't know what a facist is, otherwise you wouldn't be calling them that.

I like yje poiny made about locals getting offended if we were to impose our Western ideals on them such as believing it's ok to wear short skirts, tight jeans or males jogging without a shirt. The point is we live here in their country and should respect their culture. The responsibility shifts in the West as we are obligated to respect and abide by other cultures' ideals in the name of tolerance.

Also, except for indians themselves, we are all indian haters to some extent.

She is obligated to respect and abide by British cultures and if they don`t like it there in Britian see should contact the BNP and see if they would like to help her repatriate

rudeboy wrote:so i say something bad about the IPL, or corrupt indians in dubai and all of a sudden I am a indian hater? lol lets stick to the topic and indians are certainly not the topic in this thread

and let's look at:

rudeboy wrote:i personally hate bloody indians. they are everywhere like cockroaches. you stamp them they bloody come back again.

Quite the little liar aren't you.....

You hate the British and you hate Indians, and who knows who else you hate. You are the racist, little man. And that definitely IS relevant in this thread, you made it so.

You are also too scared to tell people which country you are from. So we have a cowardly liar.

smokedawg wrote:speedhump is right, you don't know what a facist is, otherwise you wouldn't be calling them that.

I like yje poiny made about locals getting offended if we were to impose our Western ideals on them such as believing it's ok to wear short skirts, tight jeans or males jogging without a shirt. The point is we live here in their country and should respect their culture. The responsibility shifts in the West as we are obligated to respect and abide by other cultures' ideals in the name of tolerance.

Also, except for indians themselves, we are all indian haters to some extent.

You spoiled your post with the Indian comment.

But that aside, little rudeboy's problem is that he is sad because British tolerance is becoming a bit strained because 'Islamist' terrorist bombs are killing people in the UK, which is causing friction between people there, and he really cannot understand the simple reactions and reasoning of everyday, simple people, even though he is a pretty simple one himself.

He also wants to see Muslims being allowed to live by their own laws in the UK, and if that can't happen then the UK is 'facist'.

It's a little pathetic, but in keeping with his ridiculous attitudes on the forums in general.

Speedhump wrote: you have no idea of what the word facist actually means either.

Unfortunately not only Rudeboy uses this word misplaced. It was a great Duce's idea about collaboration between Labour and Capital in national state.

Surprisingly Germans have been using this idea even after WWII upto now.

Speedhump wrote:But that aside, little rudeboy's problem is that he is sad because British tolerance is becoming a bit strained because 'Islamist' terrorist bombs are killing people in the UK, which is causing friction between people there, and he really cannot understand the simple reactions and reasoning of everyday, simple people, even though he is a pretty simple one himself.

He also wants to see Muslims being allowed to live by their own laws in the UK, and if that can't happen then the UK is 'facist'.

It's a little pathetic, but in keeping with his ridiculous attitudes on the forums in general.

To put it blunty why do you, Speedy, accept all those Muslim who don't want to integrate in UK? If you need plumbers, bus drivers and dustmen why don't you take it in the poor members of EU? Their ancestry at least crusaded with your Lionheart almost 1000 years ago.
By the way I read a new article about granting citizenship in the UAE written by your lovely Qassimi. At his point of view the applicant should be not only Muslim, but also wear local dreass, eat by hands and use water instead of toilet paper. He name it as an integration to the local culture.

The woman should send her husband to the school if she can't show her face to any possible men there. In many other world cultures it is not okay to cover your face, which masks your identity. Others cultures value seeing who is in their presence and using non-verbal queues from facial expressions as part of communication. Just as women who live in stricter Muslim countries cover themselves to respect the culture, so should Muslim women living in other cultures. She can cover her body an hair, but he face should be shown.

This 'story' is over a year old!

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:But that aside, little rudeboy's problem is that he is sad because British tolerance is becoming a bit strained because 'Islamist' terrorist bombs are killing people in the UK, which is causing friction between people there, and he really cannot understand the simple reactions and reasoning of everyday, simple people, even though he is a pretty simple one himself.

He also wants to see Muslims being allowed to live by their own laws in the UK, and if that can't happen then the UK is 'facist'.

It's a little pathetic, but in keeping with his ridiculous attitudes on the forums in general.

To put it blunty why do you, Speedy, accept all those Muslim who don't want to integrate in UK? If you need plumbers, bus drivers and dustmen why don't you take it in the poor members of EU? Their ancestry at least crusaded with your Lionheart almost 1000 years ago.
By the way I read a new article about granting citizenship in the UAE written by your lovely Qassimi. At his point of view the applicant should be not only Muslim, but also wear local dreass, eat by hands and use water instead of toilet paper. He name it as an integration to the local culture.

Can you supply the link to the article if it's online, or online reference to it, I haven't seen it.

You have held the coin in your hand and looked at both sides of it. Is one the right side and one the wrong? We can consider this.

On one side you have the 'open door' policy that the UK practised, allowing anyone to enter and apply for a passport. Not just for low paid workers, literally anyone who was not an undesirable, plus their wives, sisters, children, ancient uncles, non-working grandfathers, all of whom take advantage of free healthcare, government handouts for housing, education, everything.......

On the other side you have countries who won't let you become a citizen unless you gve up all your former country's beliefs and hold down a well paid job.

Soclaist goverment started the rot in the UK in the 1960's, and no later government has had the balls to stand against it to a great enough degree to make a difference. Now as I said in another thread it's too late.

Which of these sounds a more sensible long-term plan, Harold Wilson (UK), 1960-64, with a complete reversal of policy in 1965 after the damage was done, or Al Qassimi (UAE) 2009?

Nation states should be selfish and should look after the affairs of their citizens. But the UAE's position can well change with time, nothing moves quickly here. Just even publicly considering the idea of granting citizenship to 'some' other nationalities is a large step.


If you have (or anyone else has) any interest, there is a very factual book online on how the UK has become so widely populated with immigrants. I hesitate to use the term 'multicultural' as I don't believe that it is. A Jamaican Jerk Chicken shop on every highstreet and an Indian grocery shop on every corner does not mean that groups mingle and interact, but my son has quite a few friends who like to consider themselves Indian or West Indian (e.g. Jamaican), but who were born in the UK. I think the attitudes of the young may be making a difference, despite the horror stories that the newspapers love to get hold of and make sound as though they are the norm.


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KuX7 ... =4#PPA1,M1

I am in the process of reading it myself, but it's in a long queue of reading I am doing. Maybe I need to take a year off work to read all the damn books I buy.....

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:But that aside, little rudeboy's problem is that he is sad because British tolerance is becoming a bit strained because 'Islamist' terrorist bombs are killing people in the UK, which is causing friction between people there, and he really cannot understand the simple reactions and reasoning of everyday, simple people, even though he is a pretty simple one himself.

He also wants to see Muslims being allowed to live by their own laws in the UK, and if that can't happen then the UK is 'facist'.

It's a little pathetic, but in keeping with his ridiculous attitudes on the forums in general.

To put it blunty why do you, Speedy, accept all those Muslim who don't want to integrate in UK? If you need plumbers, bus drivers and dustmen why don't you take it in the poor members of EU? Their ancestry at least crusaded with your Lionheart almost 1000 years ago.
By the way I read a new article about granting citizenship in the UAE written by your lovely Qassimi. At his point of view the applicant should be not only Muslim, but also wear local dreass, eat by hands and use water instead of toilet paper. He name it as an integration to the local culture.

Can you supply the link to the article if it's online, or online reference to it, I haven't seen it.

You have held the coin in your hand and looked at both sides of it. Is one the right side and one the wrong? We can consider this.

On one side you have the 'open door' policy that the UK practised, allowing anyone to enter and apply for a passport. Not just for low paid workers, literally anyone who was not an undesirable, plus their wives, sisters, children, ancient uncles, non-working grandfathers, all of whom take advantage of free healthcare, government handouts for housing, education, everything.......

On the other side you have countries who won't let you become a citizen unless you gve up all your former country's beliefs and hold down a well paid job.

Soclaist goverment started the rot in the UK in the 1960's, and no later government has had the balls to stand against it to a great enough degree to make a difference. Now as I said in another thread it's too late.

Which of these sounds a more sensible long-term plan, Harold Wilson (UK), 1960-64, with a complete reversal of policy in 1965 after the damage was done, or Al Qassimi (UAE) 2009?

Nation states should be selfish and should look after the affairs of their citizens. But the UAE's position can well change with time, nothing moves quickly here. Just even publicly considering the idea of granting citizenship to 'some' other nationalities is a large step.


If you have (or anyone else has) any interest, there is a very factual book online on how the UK has become so widely populated with immigrants. I hesitate to use the term 'multicultural' as I don't believe that it is. A Jamaican Jerk Chicken shop on every highstreet and an Indian grocery shop on every corner does not mean that groups mingle and interact, but my son has quite a few friends who like to consider themselves Indian or West Indian (e.g. Jamaican), but who were born in the UK. I think the attitudes of the young may be making a difference, despite the horror stories that the newspapers love to get hold of and make sound as though they are the norm.


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KuX7 ... =4#PPA1,M1

I am in the process of reading it myself, but it's in a long queue of reading I am doing. Maybe I need to take a year off work to read all the damn books I buy.....

archive(dot)gulfnews(dot)com/articles/09/05/31/10318395.html

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote: you have no idea of what the word facist actually means either.

Unfortunately not only Rudeboy uses this word misplaced. It was a great Duce's idea about collaboration between Labour and Capital in national state.

Surprisingly Germans have been using this idea even after WWII upto now.

Yes that's all it means. The third way, middle path of strong government control between total laissez-faire economic theory and total state control of the means of production.

But isn't its closed one party system close to 'real life' communism in its belief in repression of protest and opposition?

Duce Mussolini had been a socialist/communist. Then he looked at how permanent strikes was destroing Italian weak economy after WWI and invented another way based on collaboration inside one nation. I think it was better than Communism. Speedy, you don't whant to understand that there is no single receipt for modernising economy. Pure capitalism of UK XiX century described by Marks doesn't exist. Socialism, Fasism, Japanese way were the ways of surviving different nations. Each big nation invented own way.

On the other hand it's mostly a question of measure. IMHO 50% of income tax is very close to socialism.

Red Chief wrote:Duce Mussolini had been a socialist/communist. Then he looked at how permanent strikes was destroing Italian weak economy after WWI and invented another way based on collaboration inside one nation. I think it was better than Communism. Speedy, you don't whant to understand that there is no single receipt for modernising economy. Pure capitalism of UK XiX century described by Marks doesn't exist. Socialism, Fasism, Japanese way were the ways of surviving different nations. Each big nation invented own way.

On the other hand it's mostly a question of measure. IMHO 50% of income tax is very close to socialism.

I have never said what I do or don't want. Now I will. I don't want to live under Communism, or at least any form currently existing in the world. Nor do I think that totally free markets work either (and you have to go back to the Brit, Adam Smith for the roots of that ideology, not Marx who came later).

I believe in a mixed economy, state control of some industries that are vital to the national economy, and free market for the rest to drive innovation and capitalisation. The UK did that well for a time, but generally as a democracy has always tilted too strongly to one side or other for a time, before being brought back the other way by the election of a different set of politicians. The problem is that some industries become 'political footballs' being kicked into nationalisation and then back out again several times by different governments, and suffer as a result. However the overall effect over a long period is a middle path and no strong final path to left or right.

Economic theory is only that; theory. In practise there is no 'correct' single solution to all problems in highly developed economies.

You may have a point about high tax but in the UK it's considered 'socialist', not 'communist', is that splitting hairs?

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:Duce Mussolini had been a socialist/communist. Then he looked at how permanent strikes was destroing Italian weak economy after WWI and invented another way based on collaboration inside one nation. I think it was better than Communism. Speedy, you don't whant to understand that there is no single receipt for modernising economy. Pure capitalism of UK XiX century described by Marks doesn't exist. Socialism, Fasism, Japanese way were the ways of surviving different nations. Each big nation invented own way.

On the other hand it's mostly a question of measure. IMHO 50% of income tax is very close to socialism.

I have never said what I do or don't want. Now I will. I don't want to live under Communism, or at least any form currently existing in the world. Nor do I think that totally free markets work either (and you have to go back to the Brit, Adam Smith for the roots of that ideology, not Marx who came later).

I believe in a mixed economy, state control of some industries that are vital to the national economy, and free market for the rest to drive innovation and capitalisation. The UK did that well for a time, but generally as a democracy has always tilted too strongly to one side or other for a time, before being brought back the other way by the election of a different set of politicians. The problem is that some industries become 'political footballs' being kicked into nationalisation and then back out again several times by different governments, and suffer as a result. However the overall effect over a long period is a middle path and no strong final path to left or right.

Economic theory is only that; theory. In practise there is no 'correct' single solution to all problems in highly developed economies.

You may have a point about high tax but in the UK it's considered 'socialist', not 'communist', is that splitting hairs?

After your rants I feel myself as an apologist of Communism for "our country and the rest of the World". I'm definitely not.
I don't force and don't encourage you to live in Communist State. I don't offer Anglsoc for UK, what Orwell was afraid of, either. I only try to indicate that both Communism and Fascism were rather efficient instruments on some stage of development of the appropriate nations. They were both more suitable in preparation of WWII at least. Nowadays China shows great economical results (much greater than Indian democracy) by mixing Communism with Japanese way. Anyway Fascism is not possible in Russia due to a lot of minorities although it would be suitable way I think.
IMHO Liberal deregulated economy is a way to bubbles and chaos what current depression shows.

Red Chief wrote:Nowadays China shows great economical results (much greater than Indian democracy) by mixing Communism with Japanese way.

Can I humbly suggest that China received an injection of adrenaline when they were given back Hong Kong, and the effects of naked capitalism immediately started to spread to the local mainland, and then even further.

I would be happy to hear more about the Japanese effect also.

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:Nowadays China shows great economical results (much greater than Indian democracy) by mixing Communism with Japanese way.

Can I humbly suggest that China received an injection of adrenaline when they were given back Hong Kong, and the effects of naked capitalism immediately started to spread to the local mainland, and then even further.

I would be happy to hear more about the Japanese effect also.

Speedy, don't start it again. The permanent economical growth of P.R. of China was started after reform of Den Xiao Ping and from the beginning of 1980s it has been up 10% yearly. The presence of Hong Kong was vital even before take over. Anyway it's not a theme for DF. If you want to continue we can do it outside, drinking a couple of beer. This bloody local internet makes me mad.

Red Chief wrote: I only try to indicate that both Communism and Fascism were rather efficient instruments on some stage of development of the appropriate nations. They were both more suitable in preparation of WWII at least.

It's funny how large communist countries begin to think in terms of superiority and global domination. China certainly has similar thoughts right now.

Red Chief wrote:
Nowadays China shows great economical results (much greater than Indian democracy) by mixing Communism with Japanese way.
IMHO Liberal deregulated economy is a way to bubbles and chaos what current depression shows.

What is the Japanese way, Red Chief?
And India and China have it easy. Billion plus people, the Keynesian Cross road map is already available for governments. Whats the real challenge? In present circumstances if these countries can't achieve a positive growth rate, it would be a failure. It's so much more challenging in Western nations.
But if Obama's bailout was anything to go by, it's Viva Keynes once again.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:Nowadays China shows great economical results (much greater than Indian democracy) by mixing Communism with Japanese way.

Can I humbly suggest that China received an injection of adrenaline when they were given back Hong Kong, and the effects of naked capitalism immediately started to spread to the local mainland, and then even further.

I would be happy to hear more about the Japanese effect also.

Speedy, don't start it again. The permanent economical growth of P.R. of China was started after reform of Den Xiao Ping and from the beginning of 1980s it has been up 10% yearly. The presence of Hong Kong was vital even before take over. Anyway it's not a theme for DF. If you want to continue we can do it outside, drinking a couple of beer. This bloody local internet makes me mad.

No problem, and I agree that HK's 'regional' influence was always important to China.

But 'owning' HK has make it very much easier for Chinese mainland businesses to enter international markets. HK acts as a door (now that barriers are completely down), Chinese can easily attract big HK investors who are comfortable with them culturally and politically. American/European investors still are not so keen on China, protectionism being a main thought I guess.

Anyway, I agree we should stop as it's not relevant to the thread, and people may see we can discuss without arguing, occasionally

Speedhump wrote: people may see we can discuss without arguing, occasionally

Whose disapproval are you afraid of? It looks like that Pandora's box has a rest and is going to stay closed for a while.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote: people may see we can discuss without arguing, occasionally

Whose disapproval are you afraid of? It looks like that Pandora's box has a rest and is going to stay closed for a while.

I don't mind who approves or disapproves of me here, they can make their own minds up. It's only an Internet chat forum, it's not my mother

didnt the nazis label the jews and other nationalities in germany? how is that different from this? A muslim mother is being labelled as a security threat.

women wearing hijab are banned from schools. isnt school a public area? i give england another 5 years before they come up with laws banning muslim women from all public areas for the clothes they wear.

Thank god that the West will not give in to the stupidity of the ME and allow criminals (men) to walk through security checks and escape dressed as Muslim women because no-one will touch them.

I'd label you, as an idiot.

They want to live in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, wherever THEY MUST CONFORM.

Speedhump wrote:Thank god that the West will not give in to the stupidity of the ME and allow criminals (men) to walk through security checks and escape dressed as Muslim women because no-one will touch them.

I'd label you, as an idiot.

They want to live in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, wherever THEY MUST CONFORM.

Why do you make such a personal remark as soon as you are not a psychiatrist? Are you?

Anyway as near as I remember Jews and Christians were marked in the Mediaeval Arab Caliphate at first. It was yellow-diamond sign on their dress.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Thank god that the West will not give in to the stupidity of the ME and allow criminals (men) to walk through security checks and escape dressed as Muslim women because no-one will touch them.

I'd label you, as an idiot.

They want to live in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, wherever THEY MUST CONFORM.

Why do you make such a personal remark as soon as you are not a psychiatrist? Are you?

Anyway as near as I remember Jews and Christians were marked in the Mediaeval Arab Caliphate at first. It was yellow-diamond sign on their dress.

We have been through this before.

The word idiot was used by me in a colloquial sense, not a clinical sense. It's very common usage. Now make a note in your Moleskine this time please

Wikipedia:
In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.

If asking a Muslim woman not to wear face covering is 'marking her out' then I'm a monkey's uncle...that's why this guy is an 'idiot', posting inventions of his own mind. Also he is purely anti-British so if you would read him again, maybe you'll get on with him

Speedhump wrote:

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Thank god that the West will not give in to the stupidity of the ME and allow criminals (men) to walk through security checks and escape dressed as Muslim women because no-one will touch them.

I'd label you, as an idiot.

They want to live in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, wherever THEY MUST CONFORM.

Why do you make such a personal remark as soon as you are not a psychiatrist? Are you?

Anyway as near as I remember Jews and Christians were marked in the Mediaeval Arab Caliphate at first. It was yellow-diamond sign on their dress.

We have been through this before.

The word idiot was used by me in a colloquial sense, not a clinical sense. It's very common usage. Now make a note in your Moleskine this time please

Wikipedia:
In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.

If asking a Muslim woman not to wear face covering is 'marking her out' then I'm a monkey's uncle...that's why this guy is an 'idiot', posting inventions of his own mind. Also he is purely anti-British so if you would read him again, maybe you'll get on with him

Regardless of the quantity of cut and past you made it was a personal remark.