Muslim mother takes legal action against school over face veil ban - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14825459
The Guardian wrote:A Muslim mother has launched legal action against her daughter’s school, after being told she could not wear a face veil on its premises.

Rachida Serroukh.jpg
Rachida Serroukh.jpg (57.72 KiB) Viewed 786 times


Rachida Serroukh, 37, a single mother of three daughters, has begun a discrimination test case against the prestigious Holland Park school, dubbed the “socialist Eton”, in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea after she was told she would not be allowed to wear a face veil at the school.

Serroukh, a devout Muslim who has worn a face veil for the past 14 years, was delighted when her 11-year-old daughter was offered a place at the school. Not only was it across the road from where they lived, Serroukh – who was born in Ladbroke Grove – had studied there, achieving good grades.

“Education is very important to me and I want to ensure that all my children get a good education,” she said. “My daughter, who will be starting at Holland Park after the school holidays, did really well in her year 6 Sats and was the top girl in her class.”

But when she attended an evening for parents of new pupils at the school on 13 June, she was shocked to be challenged over her decision to wear a face veil.

After a talk by the head teacher, Serroukh – a qualified childcare assistant who plans to return to work when her daughter is settled in school – was approached by a member of staff who asked to speak to her. She was taken into a room and told it was the school’s policy not to allow face veils on school premises.

“I was already feeling uncomfortable because I had to leave my daughter standing on her own,” said Serroukh. “As the teacher was female, I lifted my veil when we were talking together in the room.” She had already been surprised, she added, that at the welcome event for about 200 parents – including five or six who were identifiably Muslim – the head teacher said in his speech that the school was secular and did not offer prayer rooms “although it showed video footage of the school choir singing in a church”.

At first Serroukh thought that the teacher who raised the veil issue had misunderstood and thought her daughter would be attending school in a face veil. “I explained clearly that my daughter wears a headscarf and would not be coming to school in a face veil. Then I realised she was talking about me not my daughter.”

Serroukh asked several times to see the school policy banning visitors from wearing a face veil, as she was aware that a friend who also wore a similar veil had been attending school events for five years without encountering any problems.

“I had had no problem from security at the school gate when I entered the school and nobody there had mentioned a policy. I always lift my veil and show my photo ID when required to do so for security purposes,” she said. “I didn’t want to challenge the teacher until I had seen the policy.”

Serroukh said the teacher then asked her to leave the school through the back exit, but she refused, explaining she needed to collect her daughter and would be leaving through the same door she had arrived – the school’s front entrance.

“I was very shaken and was in a state of shock about what had happened,” she said. “I had never experienced anything like this before. I have experienced name calling in the street from strangers about my veil but nothing like this had ever happened before. When I got home, I just broke down.”

She wrote to the school for clarification on the face veil ban. Guidance from the Department for Education states that it is up to individual schools to decide about whether staff and pupils can wear face veils, but it says nothing about parents and other visitors.

In an email from deputy head Ross Wilson to Serroukh on 21 June, the deputy said the school did not have a written policy banning visitors wearing a face veil.

“It has not been necessary to date for the school to have this requirement stated in written policy,” wrote Wilson. “Given the concerns you have raised, we are now considering a written amendment to our health and safety policy to include this specific requirement and will follow the normal protocol of seeking the approval of the governing body.”

Replying on 12 July, Serroukh wrote: “How are you able to justify banning the face veil for all which come onto school grounds? I had shown my face prior to coming onto school grounds therefore security cannot have been a cause for concern.”

The following day, Wilson said it was a health and safety issue to be able to identify all of those on the school site, adding: “We would wish to reiterate that no offence was intended when Mrs … met with you to discuss the situation on the evening of the welcome interviews and it was the school’s intention to provide clarity and transparency.”

The incident left Serroukh feeling upset and excluded from her own community, she said: “I feel like I don’t belong here even though I live across the road and used to attend the school.” She stressed that she wanted to work with the teachers and, when she was taking qualifications to become a nursery nurse, she lifted her veil while working with children. “What has happened to me at Holland Park is discrimination. I hope we can resolve the matter amicably,” she said.

Her solicitor, Attiq Malik of Liberty Law Solicitors, said the firm had drafted a letter to the school because it was a “straightforward” test case of discrimination on the grounds of religion. “The government constantly talks about British values. To me, those values include diversity and multiculturalism. If a school in London is doing this, what might be happening elsewhere?”

The school has not yet responded to repeated requests to comment; Kensington and Chelsea referred enquiries to the school. But in Wilson’s 13 July email, he referred to Serroukh’s account of the meeting with the teacher during the parents’ welcome evening, saying “we believe [it] to be factually inaccurate”.

The Guardian
#14825573
It is odd to imagine a parent with no desire to see their school able to protect their kids by banning masked individuals from just turning up to the school from off the streets. Obviously the person in question loves their faith more than their kids, it's a real Isaac and Abraham sort of story isn't it? If she feels to strongly about living in a society that forces a barbarous right wing way of life onto women there are plenty of barbarous right wing governments in the world she could choose to live under instead.

The left of course protects people from this sort of thing, the right supports it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hujum

Hujum (Russian: Худжум; in Turkic languages, storming or assault, from Arabic: هجوم) was a series of policies and actions taken by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, initiated by Joseph Stalin, to try to have women in the Muslim majority areas of the Soviet Union remove their veils. The hujum was literally an "attack" on all manifestations of perceived gender inequality, especially on thearchaic systems of female veiling and seclusion, practised in Central Asia.[1] Thus the party recast their message of class revolution into the novel lexicon of women's liberation. By abolishing the means of oppression apparent in Uzbekistan, and heralding in women's liberation, the Soviets believed they could clear the way for the construction of socialism. The hujum campaign's purpose was to rapidly change the lives of Uzbek women so that they may participate in public life, paid work, education, and ultimately membership in the Communist Party. It was originally conceived to enforce laws that gave women in patriarchal societies equality by creating literacy programs and bringing women into the labor force.Hujum (Russian: Худжум; in Turkic languages, storming or assault, from Arabic: هجوم) was a series of policies and actions taken by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, initiated by Joseph Stalin, to try to have women in the Muslim majority areas of the Soviet Union remove their veils. The hujum was literally an "attack" on all manifestations of perceived gender inequality, especially on thearchaic systems of female veiling and seclusion, practised in Central Asia.[1] Thus the party recast their message of class revolution into the novel lexicon of women's liberation. By abolishing the means of oppression apparent in Uzbekistan, and heralding in women's liberation, the Soviets believed they could clear the way for the construction of socialism. The hujum campaign's purpose was to rapidly change the lives of Uzbek women so that they may participate in public life, paid work, education, and ultimately membership in the Communist Party. It was originally conceived to enforce laws that gave women in patriarchal societies equality by creating literacy programs and bringing women into the labor force.
#14825749
The mother did nothing wrong. It is only an issue because Europe is an essentially borderless region in which can settle anyone from anywhere around the world in a system reminiscent of a large settler colony. These incidents are the product of communal tensions which invetibaly arise in scenarios of mass settlement from different cultural zones. The great migration from the MENA region to Europe in the 20th and 21st centuries is reminiscent of the mass settlement of the Americas, Oceania and Siberia by Europeans. It is also very similar to the mass settlement of Jews in Palestine. In the greater scheme of things this will produce irreconcilable contradictions that will lead to the fracturing of European countries. The incident reported on in the article is an excellent case in point. How can two different civilisations reconcile themselves in a shared space?
#14825759
I think the face veil needs to be banned entirely in British society and those wealthy Arabs don't have to dress like characters from Arabian Nights in central London. Egypt has placed several restrictions on wearing the full veil in public places and government buildings and moderate Muslims see the face veil as a symbol of Islamic extremism.
#14825817
@ThirdTerm

1. During the Abbasid Caliphate (the time period the Arabian Nights is set in) hijabs weren't even worn by a majority of the Muslims in the region let alone a face veil

2. Nothing should be banned. Banning the face veil opens up a ton of other Muslim related things that could be banned. Why not ban hijabs while we're at it? Heck, why not ban all Islam except what the state deems "moderate" Islam? Why not ban Islam in it's entirety? Why not ban anti-government speech too? Why not ban all "amoral" or "unchristian/antieuropean" speech? Why not narrow the definition of "amoral" speech to the degree that free speech isn't possible?

3. The only reason for these restrictions is due to the fact that you can't really identify say a thief, murderer, or assaulter if they're wearing a face veil.

4. I have never seen a moderate Muslim ever think that. The face veil is seen immediately as a symbol of oppression rather than Islamic terrorism

@Suntzu @Frollein

Thank god we hold Europe to higher standards than Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia jumped off a cliff, would you follow them? Kids these days...
#14825822
The face veil and other oppressive clothing forced on women in Islamic societies (and quite unfortunately to the point where many women themselves have come to defend their own inequality and oppression, like any battered housewife who defends her abuser) have no place in our society. Socialism is the only way forward.

Turcia delenda est.
#14825823
@Bulaba Jones,

I'm an opponent of face veil bans. This is cuckservative nonsense meant to prevent any movement to the real solution: the mass deportation of all Mohammedans back to their homelands.

And I don't really have a problem with the face veil. Women need to be controlled. I object to specific Islamic practices here on the grounds of aesthetics, but there doesn't seem to be all that much adultery or divorce in Islamic countries.

And what has socialism got to do with this? :eh:
#14825825
@Bulaba Jones

You do realize that it's optional. In some cases, even the hijab is optional. Outright banning something will only lead to more banning and, eventually, the destruction of free society.

This isn't a matter of oppression. No one is forcing the daughter to wear a face veil, not even her own parents. This is a matter about freedom. This mother is defending her daughters freedom to wear that face veil as she wishes.

@Dave

Islam is an ideology, not an ethnicity. What are you going to do, send all Qurans to their "homeland"?

Give me a good reason why women "need to be controlled". I would rather have lots of divorce and adultery cases while having freedom than low divorce and adultery cases and no freedom at all.

Furthermore the reasons why divorce and adultery are at minimum is because women aren't allowed to divorce their husbands despite the Quran saying otherwise and because polygamy only for men is allowed in these so called "Islamic countries".
#14825827
Oxymandias wrote:Islam is an ideology, not an ethnicity. What are you going to do, send all Qurans to their "homeland"?

In practice, it's both. No different than any other religion. Do you think most Mohammedans believe in Islam because they made a rational study of all available religions and chose, after serious inquiry, to adopt Mohammedanism? :?:

Sure, some white weirdos convert to Islam after such an effort, but the numbers are as tiny as American communists.

I would send all of the Mohammedans home. And sure, the white turncoats could be sent right along with them.

Oxymandias wrote:Give me a good reason why women "need to be controlled".

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimderogatis/p ... jjPrgBjrl4

More broadly, if you can find me any society in which females have political and economic independence and TFR exceeds 2.1 I'll be waiting with baited breath.

I'd be especially interested if you can find any such society in which the upper classes have higher fertility than the lower classes.

Oxymandias wrote: I would rather have lots of divorce and adultery cases while having freedom than low divorce and adultery cases and no freedom at all.

Muh free-dumb :roll:

I'm sure the children in such failed unions are especially delighted by this freedom. :knife:

Oxymandias wrote:Furthermore the reasons why divorce and adultery are at minimum is because women aren't allowed to divorce their husbands despite the Quran saying otherwise and because polygamy only for men is allowed in these so called "Islamic countries".

The former is a correct and sound policy.

The latter is foolish, but Islam at least sets some limits on this by limiting the number of wives a man can have to four. The correct number is of course one.

And as women being allowed to take multiple husbands would ever lead to anything. :lol:
#14825831
@Dave

No and it isn't that you're either born into Islam or you aren't Muslim. People don't often rationally study every single religion and chose Islam out of all of them. Sometimes people feel that they spiritually connect with Islam and that's perfectly fine. How did you think Islam spread throughout Asia, India, Malaysia?

1. That's a Buzzfeed article, so I'm not going to click it simply because I don't want to support Buzzfeed

2. Fertility rate declines in developed countries regardless of the economic and political independence of women because in developed countries, many of the people there are educated and according to several statistics, the more smarter you are, the more likely you are to not have children.

Adultery and divorce isn't caused by women's independence, it's caused by unhappy marriages. The reason why divorce and adultery is high in Western countries is because the West is inherently individualistic and individualism does not favor marriages in which both participants require the time and effort to build their relationships together instead of focusing on their own personal lives. Removing female independence and forcing women to stay in their own unhappy marriages will only cause severe trauma as the marriage begins to get worse and worse until abuse kicks in and both the husband and wife are unsatisfied with their lives and marriages.

Why can't women divorce their husbands? What if their husbands are abusing them? They apparently can't leave? Furthermore men can abuse this policy. For example, a man can marry a women then do whatever he wants with her and afterward divorce her and throw her to the dogs financially and emotionally unstable and go on with his life.

"As if men being allowed to take multiple wives would ever lead to anything. :lol:"
#14825832
Oxymandias wrote:@Dave
No and it isn't that you're either born into Islam or you aren't Muslim. People don't often rationally study every single religion and chose Islam out of all of them. Sometimes people feel that they spiritually connect with Islam and that's perfectly fine. How did you think Islam spread throughout Asia, India, Malaysia?

It spread through conquest and the social advantages which accrued to Mohammedans in societies governed by Mohammedans.

And no, it's NOT okay to convert to Islam. That's literally joining the enemy.

Oxymandias wrote:2. Fertility rate declines in developed countries regardless of the economic and political independence of women because in developed countries, many of the people there are educated and according to several statistics, the more smarter you are, the more likely you are to not have children.

This was not true prior to the 19th century, though there were some antecedents such as the decline of fertility among the French nobility after the 17th century. Fertility rates in the Western world did not strongly decrease until the 1960s, long after universal compulsory education was adopted.

If your claim is true, which it is not, it suggests we must end the education of women. And I don't think that's what you were getting at.

Oxymandias wrote:Adultery and divorce isn't caused by women's independence, it's caused by unhappy marriages. The reason why divorce and adultery is high in Western countries is because the West is inherently individualistic and individualism does not favor marriages in which both participants require the time and effort to build their relationships together instead of focusing on their own personal lives. Removing female independence and forcing women to stay in their own unhappy marriages will only cause severe trauma as the marriage begins to get worse and worse until abuse kicks in and both the husband and wife are unsatisfied with their lives and marriages.

Women initiate two-thirds of divorces, and probably they cause many of the other third through unreasonable behavior. While there are certainly scoundrel men who drop a loyal wife in favor of a younger, hotter model in general men do not drop a women they're banging unless the bitch is seriously crazy. Have you ever stopped banging a chick for any other reason?

Strangely men and women were able to stay in these unhappy marriages without trauma for thousands of years.

The truth is that options and experience create instability. When you have lots of other items on the menu, you're going to be tempted to try another option. I've had affairs with a number of married women. Of course they all claimed their husbands were horrible blah blah blah, but upon investigation most of them were not so bad.

And since women are rarely comfortable being in love with more than one man, they're the ones most likely to seek an exit when they have the opportunity. A man can just slam a sidepiece and still be content with his wife.

Oxymandias wrote:Why can't women divorce their husbands? What if their husbands are abusing them? They apparently can't leave? Furthermore men can abuse this policy. For example, a man can marry a women then do whatever he wants with her and afterward divorce her and throw her to the dogs financially and emotionally unstable and go on with his life.

We could lawyer all sorts of objections to permanent, irrevocable marriage here. Probably some are valid and perhaps should be permitted.

And lol at the abusers line. Women will drop a boring beta every time before a sexy man who flies off the handle from time to time and beats them up.

But as a general rule the family is the foundation of society, and social structures which weaken the family are anti-civilization.
Last edited by Dave on 22 Jul 2017 03:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14825844
@Dave

That was only in the Middle East, not Asia. The Caliphate didn't conquer China for christ's sake.

Um, you're more likely to be killed by a far-right extremist than a Muslim in the US. Furthermore Islam as an ideology poses no threat to the West at all. At least your idea of "the West" given that you agree with some of what you perceive to be Islam (despite the Quran disagreeing with you on numerous fronts).

Correlation does not equal causation. Unless you have hard proof that universal compulsory education is the cause of low fertility rates then your argument is invalid. I have statistics and long term research on my side.

If my claim isn't then don't say that to me, say that to the thousands of great scientists who spent decades working hard to research and find out the cause of low fertility
rates.

***

Oh boy. I think you have being hanging around Red Pill too much.

1. "Probably" you have no sources to back that up. Women initiate two thirds of divorce because women focus much more on social relationships than men and therefore are more likely to see something wrong in their marriage.

2. You assume that the only reason someone would divorce is because they cheated or something. That is naive of you. Divorce is simply a mechanism. There are many reasons why someone would divorce another outside adultery.

3. Yes, I have. I did it because I feel that same love I felt when I first hooked up with her and the feeling was mutual. We said our goodbyes and that was it.

4. Where is the proof that there was no trauma at all? I don't think they had the ability for large scale statistics, research, and polls in the 4th century.

5. I would like sources for everything you said. Choices in fact, do not cause stress rather whether or not you can take back those choices is testament to what causes stress. Furthermore, you have no proof that people who divorce don't do it because they didn't love their partners.

6. Wat. You have affairs with numerous married women? I assume you mean sexual affairs? Anyway... The types of women who have affairs aren't really representative of most women.

7. S O U R C E S. I have seen many women in the Bay Area who have polygamous relationships and are fine and good individuals who are perfectly ok with being in a relationship with several men.

***

1. That's an excuse not to tackle these issues. The answers to these questions and lack thereof determine whether or not your idea of "permanent marriage" holds any water.

2. Given that I know you visit Red Pill and identify with many of it's ideas I will ask for sources again and to read this blog post that deconstructs everything about Red Pill which of course you won't read:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/20/oz ... tiste-faq/

3. That is completely and utterly subjective on your part.
#14825850
Ultra-conservative social mores are an paradox for the liberal West, accepting oppression in the name of religious tolerance. The fact that there are many women arguing for the continuation of such practice says very little of the nature of the beast. If one takes FGM for example (a disgusting crime that ruins many women's lives) is also defended by many women as part of tradition.

Where is the line to be drawn between respecting an individual's freedom of choice and safe guarding the continued evolution of socially progressive values?

If i for a second believed that every woman wearing a face veil did so of her own volition, I would be more supportive of the individuals right to choose. Presently, I see the face veil as one more example of men trying to control a womans place in society as well as her sexuality. An individual choice that really is not, as the cost of breaking these social mores could range from ostracization to death.
#14825853
@MadMonk

I have never seen a Muslim women defend FGM in my entire life and especially western Muslim women. Just because you perceive Muslim women as "brainwashed and oppressed" doesn't mean your perception reflect reality. Admit it, the only thing you have to prove for this is an assumption based on this news article.

Furthermore wearing a face veil is a choice and is simply a piece of clothing. It isn't even required in Islam at all, it's optional. Not only that, but the parents didn't force the daughter into wearing the face veil, she chose it out of her own freedom. If she wants to wear a face veil she can wear a fucking face veil and I can't say anything to tell her otherwise.

You seem to not understand the article at all and are combining the situation for Muslims in the West with those in the Middle East. Your essentially generalizing Muslims just like all other right wingers and neo-conservatives. This is in the West where the motives for banning the face veil are insidious and xenophobic, where you can't die from not wearing a face veil, and where wearing one at all is a choice. The parents never forced their child into wearing the face veil at all and are simply defending her ability to do so. These parents are far more western than your stereotypical western individual.
#14825854
Oxymandias wrote:@MadMonk

I have never seen a Muslim women defend FGM in my entire life and especially western Muslim women. Just because you perceive Muslim women as "brainwashed and oppressed" doesn't mean your perception reflect reality. Admit it, the only thing you have to prove for this is an assumption based on this news article.

Furthermore wearing a face veil is a choice and is simply a piece of clothing. It isn't even required in Islam at all, it's optional. Not only that, but the parents didn't force the daughter into wearing the face veil, she chose it out of her own freedom. If she wants to wear a face veil she can wear a fucking face veil and I can't say anything to tell her otherwise.

You seem to not understand the article at all and are combining the situation for Muslims in the West with those in the Middle East. Your essentially generalizing Muslims just like all other right wingers and neo-conservatives. This is in the West where the motives for banning the face veil are insidious and xenophobic, where you can't die from not wearing a face veil, and where wearing one at all is a choice. The parents never forced their child into wearing the face veil at all and are simply defending her ability to do so. These parents are far more western than your stereotypical western individual.


My example of FGM was not directed at Muslims, I'm well aware that it is practiced by many different people and religion is not the major factor in its practice. I used it as an example of what the West will never tolerate but many woman still defend, and I view FGM as brain washing. As for the face veil, I admit that the situation is not as clear-cut as many would like to wish it to be.
#14825856
Oxymandias wrote:@Bulaba Jones

You do realize that it's optional. In some cases, even the hijab is optional. Outright banning something will only lead to more banning and, eventually, the destruction of free society.

This isn't a matter of oppression. No one is forcing the daughter to wear a face veil, not even her own parents. This is a matter about freedom. This mother is defending her daughters freedom to wear that face veil as she wishes.


I thought it was clear from my post I was talking about cases where it's not optional. That's why I made a specific reference to "Islamic societies," since there are Muslim-majority countries in the world that maintain repressive, reactionary policies towards women. Even in the West, there are husbands, families, and communities of Muslims who enforce those same kinds of repression through coercion. If you think people raised in strict religious households, Muslim or not, aren't being told how to dress and how to think... This of course isn't a problem limited only to Muslims, but this thread is specifically about Islamic dress codes and social mores.

Outright banning something will only lead to more banning and, eventually, the destruction of free society.


That's just silly and, frankly, one of the most retarded things I've read all day anywhere on the internet. Banning repressive dress codes won't destroy society. :roll: As Decky points out, the situation was handled rather nicely in the Soviet Union, and even in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which banned face veils and Islamic full-body shame wear, while enjoying many progressive social policies.

You're being overly and aggressively defensive towards myself and other people in this thread when it's not been justified in most cases. I think you should think things through and consider that when people criticize extremist Islamic practices, they're not all promoting hatred towards Muslims. Condemning reactionary policies towards women from Islamic authorities/communities is not the same as saying "we should deport them all" or "Islam is inherently barbaric." If you can't distinguish criticism from hatred, you'll keep writing posts being aggressive towards certain people you only imagined said hateful things.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

I agree. ....and tet you have completely ign[…]

I'm not confused at all about both of you whining[…]

I see. You have no argument. Just feelings. An[…]

Revolutionary Hope

Well, since you aren't going to argue your side a[…]