Any extremist position, including and not excluding an atheist position, is just too strong for me.

But neither side seems to understand the society they actually live in. Which is 80%, don’t care. Neither side has a majority when compared to those that have declined to answer.

So the analogy would surely be that the state does not ban x but insists that x is not acceptable in state institutions (schools, hospitals, passport control etc.) Non-state institutions might reasonably look towards a similar stance. A genetics company or a university research department in paleontology could well look askance at a research assistant applicant who was unshakeably convinced that the world was around 6,000 years old, and a bank could insist that no-one enter its premises while covering their faces.

Its about balancing freedoms. I assume we are only talking about full-face covering? Objecting to head-scarves would be ridiculous. But if you choose to exercise the freedom to cover your face, some areas will be closed off.

I’d be bloody well over the moon that even an ‘Idiots Guide to Natural Selection as the Origin of the Species’ was even hinted at in primary or secondary education. It doesn’t even seem to appear much in Tertiary Education. You can get a biology degree without it being a subject of examination.

You can pass exams without even knowing about this? Which is, of course, ridiculous.

I’d argue that your informed layman probably knows as much about this subject as your average University Biological Sciences graduate, who has not educated themselves further.

My son is 10 and goes to Catholic school and they haven’t touched Darwinism or the big bang, not yet anyway

El Cid, are the teachers at your son’s school priests?

So you can understand why hiding your face can actually create social barriers in a society where the vast majority does expose their face, and expects to see your face in order to have a normal social interaction. There is no other attire that achieves such nefarious effect.

My son is 10 and goes to Catholic school and they haven’t touched Darwinism or the big bang, not yet anyway. When does the national curriculum supposedly address the big issues? Just curious

El Cid, not sure about the national curriculum because I didn’t grew up in this country. But I was 12/13 when I learned what science had to say about the big issues.

There appears to be a strong current of opinion here that says people should simply shut up about the niqab. Keep schtum. Don’t judge. Sssshh.

Who is it again that is supposed to be limiting freedom to within their comfort zone?”

No it isn’t bullshit because you are selective about what you oppose is mainly worn by dem foreigners innit mate.

No one is saying you need to stay quiet but the way you put forth your argument.

As I said Goth clothing is much more repressive in some circumstances to women but you don’t peep about that do you.

Brown women may find female skinhead garments oppresive and threatening but no one says anything about that do they.

Is a modestly dressed women more or less oppressed than a women who keeps having to pull down her skirt, check her makeup is ok?

As long as a women is making up her own mind then who gives a damn?

Equally is the wearing of certain western female clothing enforced on women? Do women who work in the business world have to dress in a certain way to get on and thus isn’t that oppresive to women?

So come on if you truely support the opposition of all repressive clothing then at least look at what women have to wear in the workplace. Which equally is repressive because they are having to do something and not necessarily what they want. The number of times at work I’ve seen women who feel uncomfortable in their work clothes but they feel they have to wear them to get on. Thus you have a different repression.

Many women I’ve spoken to hate some of the work rituals that are forced upon them so come on lets stop hiding behind the niquab and tackle the whole area.

Has femminism really brought freedom or in some areas a different type of repression?

One woman, quite senior in terms of position taht I heard speaking to some visitors once complained that she didn’t like haking hands with men but always felt she had to do it. She was English, Middle Class, well educated and she isn’t the only one I’ve heard say that.

Does Jack Straw or Michael Gove address these issues? Do they bollocks. It is always easy to criticise the East but in recent decades women feel more comfortable workingwith eastern men than western. Wonder why the bloody hell that is.

The Niqab is a false area to divert people away from the harder to tackle issue of womens rights and the politicians are just leading people down this road to divert attention from the failure to really tackle the issue of womens rights.

“Is forcing children to learn the national curricula against parent’s wishes, an illiberal or liberal measure?”

It’s an interesting question, and one that I, somewhat regrettably, don’t have a refined opinion on.

Ben

And as I’ve said, above, this cannot be aligned with prohibiting a garment/idea.

Agreed, Ben: to be 100% aligned, it would be a ban, not discouraging it. But still, it shows that there is a precedent for the government to remove the choice and freedom in order to level the playing field. Is forcing children to learn the national curricula against parent’s wishes, an illiberal or liberal measure?

This is what I am asking: where do we draw the line.

Ravi, you must surely be aware that there is a sizeable gulf between the Government discouraging and banning? It’s a difference that I’ve been trying to put across throughout this discourse.

Fine, I concede that I was rather careless when making my analogy. Should not have used the word “discouraged” in #53. Thanks for correcting it.

“If you want to see the difference between discouraging and banning then buy a packet of cigarettes and scratch off the warning label.”

Ben

“I am not aligning this at all, as it is rather pointless whether parents contradict or whether the child accepts.”

Of course it isn’t. The Government discourages many things – smoking, excess drinking – without (for the moment, at least) banning them.

“I am talking about government taking away the choice and having an authoritarian decision for promoting equal opportunities.”
“3) So the government FORCES children to learn the same curricula. No choice is given.”

And as I’ve said, above, this cannot be aligned with prohibiting a garment/idea. It seems that I paraphrased your opinion correctly here:

“Your allegory, then, could only be used to suggest that one either accepts all compulsory governmental initiatives or none. Either one accepts that the state can decide on all aspects of a child’s life or none of it.”

“3) So the government discourages/bans the niqab.”

Ravi, you must surely be aware that there is a sizeable gulf between the Government discouraging and banning? It’s a difference that I’ve been trying to put across throughout this discourse.

“The logic is flawless”

I hope that the points above refute this claim.

“Money quote:”

Forgive me, I assumed that you referring to the creationism of Biblical or Qur’anic literalism.

Ben

You are aligning
- School teaches child that [element of curriculem] is fact.
- Parent contradicts school.
- Child may accept either view.

Oh I dispair. I am not aligning this at all, as it is rather pointless whether parents contradict or whether the child accepts. I am talking about government taking away the choice and having an authoritarian decision for promoting equal opportunities. Here is what I am aligning with:

1) Parents want to have a choice on how their children are educated. Parents feel that the government has no right to force their children to learn the national curricula. They want choice to whom they want to educate, and how they are educated.
2) It is assumed that such choice and freedom creates a huge handicap and educational gap when kids get older: the playing field is not even!
3) So the government FORCES children to learn the same curricula. No choice is given.

—

1) …choice to wear niqab.
2) It is assumed that such choice and freedom creates a huge handicap when they get older: the playing field is not even!
3) So the government discourages/bans the niqab.

The logic is flawless, except for the assertion in 2), which I have no proof but a strong hunch that it is true. And that is why I think we need a debate and studies on that issue.

The former ‘I’m not sure that’s true’ is self-evident as you hadn’t substantiated your claim and the latter is merely an anecdote.

This is the wikipedia article on the subject. Money quote: Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Catholic schools do teach theistic evolution in their religion classes though.

“You missed the point and the analogy.”

I’m sorry to be so petulant but I haven’t, haven’t and will stamp my metaphorical foot to prove it. I have a fairly sizeable bit between my teeth and I won’t countenance the possibility of letting it go.

“The point is that the government FORCES students to go to school until they are 16 years old, and does not give parents the choice to decide what it is taught or who gets taught.”

Let us go through the analogy:

You are aligning

- School teaches child that [element of curriculem] is fact.
- Parent contradicts school.
- Child may accept either view.

With:

- Government decrees that Niqabs must not be worn.
- Parent contradicts Government.
- Child relents to the declaration of the state or becomes a criminal.

The latter is wrong, as the former can only be aligned with:

- State says not to wear Niqab.
- Parent says wear Niqab.
- Child may accept either view.

“The analogy is literal: the government plays the same role in both cases – enforcing an authoritative action to level the playing field.”

I hope I’ve shown that this is not true. In the former it is intended to level the playing field, while in the latter the levelling is forced.

Your allegory, then, could only be used to suggest that one either accepts all compulsory governmental initiatives or none. Either one accepts that the state can decide on all aspects of a child’s life or none of it.

“BenSix, I am talking about Catholic and Anglican Churches, not Evangelical – and that’s unambiguous.”

The two statements were not connected. The former ‘I’m not sure that’s true’ is self-evident as you hadn’t substantiated your claim and the latter is merely an anecdote.

With a certain petulance and a dash of determination,

Ben

But they’d still be entitled to explain to their children why the teachers are nincompoops and creationism is a scientific fact. To apply this to the Niqab, then, the Government would warn vociferously against it, but one would still be entitled to wear it.

You missed the point and the analogy. The point is that the government FORCES students to go to school until they are 16 years old, and does not give parents the choice to decide what it is taught or who gets taught. This goes against freedom of parents/community. As a liberal, I support such decision because I believe that such “authoritative” action is necessary to level the playing field. Similarly, I would support the government action to ban people from conceiling their faces in public *if* that hinders the playing field, integration and equal opportunity. (I am not sure about the exact effect of the niqab, though I have a strong feeling about it).

The analogy is literal: the government plays the same role in both cases – enforcing an authoritative action to level the playing field.

I’m not sure that that’s true. I went to an evangelic church myself and, as the patrons were undecided, they avoided the issue altogether.

BenSix, I am talking about Catholic and Anglican Churches, not Evangelical – and that’s unambiguous. If you got Catholic schools, priests teach Darwinism/Evolution in school, and only teach Creationism in religion classes. I know, because I’ve studied in a Catholic school and they taught the national curricula unchanged. I also went to Sunday school, and Creationism was taught as God creating men using evolution as a tool.

“No, it is really apples and apples. Perhaps green and red apples. ”

I believe that you’re wrong, but that still made me laugh.

“It is not about belief in creationism as faith, but as science (hence I wrote “creationism as a scientific fact) – in other words, parents might object their kids to be taught evolution as part of the national curricula, which they believe goes against their religious beliefs.”

But they’d still be entitled to explain to their children why the teachers are nincompoops and creationism is a scientific fact. To apply this to the Niqab, then, the Government would warn vociferously against it, but one would still be entitled to wear it.

Of course, we’re still trying fruitlessly to align the subjective and the – unless we’re going to slip too far into epistemology – objective. Still, it’s your allegory.

As long as the government funds schools, it exerts control over schools.

“In case you are wondering, Catholics and Anglicans accept both versions Evolution and Creationism. Evolution as part of the national curricula, and Creationism in Sunday school.”

I’m not sure that that’s true. I went to an evangelic church myself and, as the patrons were undecided, they avoided the issue altogether.

“I contend that covering your face in public or at work does not level the field, it hinders equal opportunity, social interaction and cohesion with the larger community.”

Well, why stop there. Hoods would have to go for similar reasons, multi-coloured clothes are far too conspicuous and a single, one-piece black garment would have to be worn, to ensure that class differences are not highlighted.

Respectfully,

Ben

Apples and oranges.

No, it is really apples and apples. Perhaps green and red apples.

Belief in creationism – and, indeed, pontificating to one’s children on the subject of creationism – is entirely legal.

It is not about belief in creationism as faith, but as science (hence I wrote “creationism as a scientific fact) – in other words, parents might object their kids to be taught evolution as part of the national curricula, which they believe goes against their religious beliefs.

This is the point: what should a liberal like Sunny and Rumbold do? Agree with the authoritative state to force a version of the truth against parents wishes, or accept that in the long-term, forcing students of all genders to study the same curricula allows them to compete, interact and level the field when they are older? In case you are wondering, Catholics and Anglicans accept both versions Evolution and Creationism. Evolution as part of the national curricula, and Creationism in Sunday school.

I contend that covering your face in public or at work does not level the field, it hinders equal opportunity, social interaction and cohesion with the larger community. I think it would be wrong to ban niqab to 1st gen immigrants who were born and raised elsewhere completely covered. But it is cruel that such practice is propagated to 2nd and 3rd gen, who are born and raised in this country.

Apples and oranges.

Belief in creationism – and, indeed, pontificating to one’s children on the subject of creationism – is entirely legal. Therefore, in this rather loose allegory one would be allowed to emphasise the importance of the Niqab – and, indeed, wear it – despite warnings against it.

This would, of course, lump the Niqab in with high calorie foods.

Respectfully,

Ben

I am in favour of compulsory education up to 16, and if we have to have a national curriculum, then anyone should be taught it.

Oh, let me see if I can do it as well as you and Sunny:

“As a liberal I defend the right for parents to choose how they want to educate their children. Just because you and the majority of people are intent to find it offensive that girls are not given an education, or that some teach that Creationism is a scientific fact, does not give you the right for an authoritarian state and a xenophobic society to force their version of knowledge to them, if they choose not to accept it. I defend that freedom, and if you don’t, then shame on you for being a bigot – just mind your own business – and stop harassing them!”.

What would you do about the niqab?

I would start by having an honest debate about people concealing their faces in public, and a long-term study on whether it hinders the prospect of normal social interaction with other communities, and the prospect of employment and equal opportunity. I particularly would like to see the effects on 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants would are born and raised here.