Did you check out the book `Race and Poverty in the UK’

(http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2006-ethnicity-poverty-UK.pdf),

that I referred you to? If so, what did you think of it? It was my attempt to persuade you that in Britain, there is, sadly, a link between ethnicity and socio-economic status. It’s not pretty, but I don’t see any benefit in pretending a link isn’t there .

You may not judge a person’s socio-economic status based on their ethnicity. Other people may not be as wise as you are. I know people (who live in the UK) who think that blacks are more likely to belong to a criminal subsection of society.

I am not sure my statement of reductio ad absurdum has nothing to do with what you were saying. But, seeing as only you know what you really meant, it’s best for me to let that one slide.

I live in Canada. I lived in the UK till the middle of 2003 and lived in Germany for one year as a student. Since moving to Canada, I have spent far too much time visiting the UK, for months at a time, usually during what passes for Summer. I shall be back again in October.

Sikhism includes both an inner discipline of meditating on the Word (NAAM-SIMRAN) and outer discipline of wearing articles of faith (BANA) including wearing the KARA (bracelet).

Some Orthodox Jews also maintain a visible outer practice. I believe that the free practice of any religion is important in a vibrant democracy because a nation is judged by how it treats minorities and learns to work with differences. This is the sign of national maturity.

The ideas of pluralism and multiculturalism arose after the Second World War when the excesses of racism became evident under the Nazis. In a post-colonial world, the idea of cultural supremacy of European states no longer made sense.

Instead new ethos took root: of people forging a national identity based on acceptance or even celebration of differences. I for one enjoy the great diversity in this world and I have never felt threatened by people who do not think, look or hold the same beliefs as me.

When we encounter difference, we have an opportunity to grow from our personal biases. Of course, the difference of culture, religion or race does not divide us unless we allow it to do so. Our humanity brings us together, for we all experience love, joy and sadness. We have shared human experiences that bind us closer than what can divide us.

Toleration is easy to proclaim when it’s convenient but we know that tolerance requires understanding, magnanimity and open-mindedness. It’s about how we treat one another and hopefully that’s in a spirit of love and respect.

Britain as a nation just like Canada, US, Australia and other countries bases rights not on ethnicity but on citizenship. Therefore, I see no problem with individuals freely practicing their religion. In fact, diversity in schools allows students to learn about different cultures and to better participate in our increasingly interconnected planet.

And if ethnic identity, which can only be hidden by surgery, make-up or a mask, is linked to socio-economic status, your attempts to make people less aware of it by imposing a uniform dress code will not be that effective.

I am glad you used “IF” in the beginning of the paragraph. Now, the only thing you need to do is to provide evidence that there is in fact strong correlation between being brown/black/white and belonging to a particular socio-economic background here in Britain, in order for your argument to be valid. If not for cues about what people wear, I would not make a call about people’s socio-economic background solely based on the colour of their skin.

And by the way, if A implies B and B leads to a contradiction, then A is false

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Harry and Ravi show, which while enjoyable for us, may be boring for many others.

Never mind. We have bored them to death, and nobody is reading this thread except you and me.

Do you live in Britain, Harry?

There may well be a link between clothing and socio-economic background, but I have not seen you attempt to provide scientific evidence for this premise. Interestingly, looking around, everyone seems to dress in a very similar way, but that’s just my casual observation.

I was merely pointing out that if your argument for having a school uniform is based on reducing people’s awareness of socio-economic status, then you may wish to investigate how effective this is. And if ethnic identity, which can only be hidden by surgery, make-up or a mask, is linked to socio-economic status, your attempts to make people less aware of it by imposing a uniform dress code will not be that effective.

And by the way, if A implies B and B leads to a contradiction, then A is false. But I think you know all this stuff and we are turning this thread into a Harry and Ravi show, which while enjoyable for us, may be boring for many others.

Yes, some `brown’ groups do better than others, so the relationship between skin tone and poverty appears to be non-monotonic. That reduces the overall correlation, but is does not make it zero or negative!

Let me tie the arguments for you, then. So, you agree that being brown and socio-economic background are not highly correlated in this country, and you don’t vouch for a causation link. On the other hand, the way you dress, I would say, is far more correlated (not to mention the likely consequence) of your socio-economic background. This I think is enough evidence that you cannot conflate race with what you wear, and use one as a counter-argument for the other.

Your logic reasoning is, therefore, to compare A with B, reduce B to absurd, and then conclude A is false. The fallacy, as I have shown, is that A and B are not equivalent, and therefore I believe your argument is invalid.

Yes, some `brown’ groups do better than others, so the relationship between skin tone and poverty appears to be non-monotonic. That reduces the overall correlation, but is does not make it zero or negative! Furthermore, the whites are still top of the tree, so to speak. And the blacks seems to be close to the bottom. I don’t like these facts, but that’s no reason to shy away from them.

I think beliefs and whether there is evidence for them has everything to do with how we conduct this discussion. Currently, people are content to make arguments, which do not follow a logical stream of thought. They start from priors, without justifying them. Fine, but that’s no way to make important legal decisions and the Judge who presided over Sarika’s case knows that.

You asked whether I can show that there is a correlation between being “brown” and a socio-economic background in Britain. Why not take a look at `Race and Poverty in the UK’? … Seems like the white folks are on top. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I would love to know about it.

So, based on the document you presented being “brown” actually transcends different socio-economic barriers – from extreme poverty (bottom) to the top (even though Indians are not in “first place”). So the correlation between “race” and a particular socio-economic background is low.

I say this: if you want to argue that the beliefs of others are irrational

This has nothing to do with the current discussion – only a fool would engage in that sort of debate.

You asked whether I can show that there is a correlation between being “brown” and a socio-economic background in Britain. Why not take a look at `Race and Poverty in the UK’? ( http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2006-ethnicity-poverty-UK.pdf). The following is an extract:

`The review found that all identified minority ethnic groups had higher rates of poverty than the average for the population. Rates of poverty were highest for Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Black Africans, reaching nearly two thirds for Bangladeshis. Rates of poverty were also higher for those living in Indian, Chinese and other minority ethnic group households.’

Seems like the white folks are on top. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I would love to know about it.

If you want to force people to dress in a certain way, I think some scientific evidence for the benefits of doing so, would be a pretty good thing, don’t you think? And even if you do find that evidence, people have the right to ignore it and dress according to their personal wishes.

As you know from my previous posts, I am fine with all school kids wearing bracelets, as long as they want to.

I am glad you are using the phrase `I believe’. We all believe all sorts of things. Unfortunately some of those things are utter rubbish. Even secularists and atheists have their personal beliefs, some of which are just not true or, at present, unverifiable. That’s just the way human beings are–we actually need to have some beliefs, so we can make decisions and get on with life.

Yet some atheists and secularists adopt a rather condescending attitude to religious people and their beliefs.

I say this: if you want to argue that the beliefs of others are irrational, that is great, but prepare for your beliefs to be questioned too. Some people won’t like that. In fact, having your beliefs questioned can sometimes be distressing, regardless of your creed or lack thereof.

“The line has to be drawn somewhere and religious people cannot get away with anything just on the basis of belief.”

But the problem is that 1) the line is always arbitrarily drawn and 2) all religious beliefs are arguably subjective, EVEN IF THERE ARE TENETS WRITTEN DOWN IN BOOKS DEEMED AS AUTHORITATIVE. Blasphemous idea mine, yes, but I do believe that.

Anyway, I don’t really have a strong opinion to the Sarika conclusion. While I adhere to the idea that people should be able to wear what they want (especially bracelets because they are so innocuous and wearing the kara IS a big huge deal, it is seen basically like a part of your body– no one really contemplates not being there, and you would feel like you have a limb missing if you weren’t wearing one), this case seems way too politicized to me. But who knows? Maybe this case will one day become the lore of “Welsh-Sikh” heritage tales or something like that.

But if subject to having your teeth kicked out, would you persist in a gandhi-like raising of cheeks,
or would rather sense prevail in the form of say nominating a sikh to defend you ?
xstatje: they’d be easier to identify if they wore a kara.

That there is link between skin colour and GDP per capita is alas, not rubbish. It may not be a perfect correlation (Qatar has very high GDP per capita), but there is one. I am not saying it’s a causal link either.

Can you show that there is a correlation between being “brown” and a socio-economic background in Britain?

Ravi, in your experience uniforms were useful. But that’s not scientific evidence. Do uniforms really stop kids finding out who is poor and what religions people have?

I am not sure you need “scientific evidence” that it minimises socio-economic differences. As for religion, I believe there is a difference between cues such as your appearance and name that are part of ones ethnicity – which would be silly to hide, and the need to use paraphernalia to make a statement about one’s beliefs. In general, I believe schools should have the right to minimise the latter.

And in some cases, imposing a particular dress code makes it very hard for people of different faiths and no faiths to co-exist. Banning the kara will only help people who dislike such objects, be they intolerant atheists or just plain old racists. It certainly won’t help make many Sikhs feel comfortable, certainly not the ones who are posting here!

I have no problems in this case, but like I said, there should be no exceptions on the basis of religion. If the girl is allowed to wear the kara, then others should be allowed to use bracelets. I am sure you accept this.

I would certaily insist that genital jewellery remain covered while in a public space.

re the french, see the link given in #92 above for empirical evidence, if it is indeed to ascertain how egalitarian french society -or any nuclear-fixated capitalistic one- really is compared to its rhetoric.

As fro making schools secular, what of after-school activites; travelling to school and sports; genital jewelry; tattooed symbols..; why just schools – hospitals; parks and libraries..

And while we are at it, discard Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”

The Human Rights Committee confirmed this in its General Comment 22: ‘The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as… the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.’

The right to freely express ones religion is a fundamental human rights issue. As is the Sikh turban for boys. Will people now suggest they take off their turbans at the school gates? If so, you may unwittingly forced them to opt for the Sikh-only schools. Is that really what you would like to see?

So Harry, yes – largely wasting your time when the likes of a ravi ‘rubbishes’ any correlation between wealth and skin colour,
or a maid marrion proclaims a judgement to be wrong then hides behind this being an opinion thread.

It is indeed true that generally, those not suffering from a discrimination fail to ‘get’ it, yet once it’s addressed, many of them become sensitive to the issue in a bleating way.

Perhaps it’s better to examine the objective limits of meaningful discourse in terms of how far apart any positions may be, and ackowledge there is a place fro abuse and ad hominism.

Liberals want to both have and eat the cake. They claim to abhor POLPot yet that’s exactly the programme they require to effect their facile ideologies. At least France has sounder grounds to claim secularity compared to here, but the evidence alone as cited is damning.

An amoronic, ie sincere materialist, against any sort of religion, sees that religions predate nation-states, therefore there must either be a year-zero, as the liberals require but dare/cannot[+ even then without certainty of outcome],
or on the other hand, in a clean and improving society they will wither.

At which point Dalbir I disagree with you: this is an era of reaction, with an increase in religiosity, but of the shit-stirring kind, with problems being created for reactionaries to catalyse morons everywhere: that’s why you see an increase in the attitudes you cite; to which certain types say “diddums”, = passive incitement from those who don’t mind ‘42 days’ stepping on some racially demarcated toes [paraphrased].

It’s for similar reasons of internal ‘cohesion’ that externally their claims for armed humanitarian interventions are lies, for they use their poorest scum to fight, armed with technology from the largest firms.. + all the while mythogise their ’serving’ the country – utter bullshit: quicker and cheaper to train a million volunteers able to fight with civil skills and local language than to airbomb and occcupy a place for decades.

To any one thinking this is rambl/ranting and off-’thread’, put some distance between you + your mindless conceits and start using your brain.

Anyway, just to be clear, I don’t believe being white makes people richer. There is a deeper explanation than that–you have probably heard of the book, Guns, Germs and Steel.

Ravi, in your experience uniforms were useful. But that’s not scientific evidence. Do uniforms really stop kids finding out who is poor and what religions people have? When I was at school I knew who the Sikhs where, because of (1) the names Singh and Kaur, (2) despite their short hair, they made sure people knew they were Sikhs—they seemed pretty damn happy about being Sikhs. Same for the Muslims and Hindus, the Irish Catholics and so on. Did we get on better because of our silly ties and blazers. I cannot say, because we never lived any other way. I still claim that people base their arguments for uniforms on a `belief’ that it helps, rather than sound evidence.

There is no such thing as a belief-neutral environment, unless everyone is brain-dead. A bigot will be a bigot regardless of his clothing. I will believe in evolution whatever I wear. My beliefs are part of me and they change because I decide to change them, not because someone declares some place to be secular. How do we even monitor the beliefs of people in a public building or school? Is there some brain-scanning device I am unaware of? That part of your definition seems kind of weird.

The part of about having a space where people of different faiths and no faiths co-exist sounds great. We can have that without clothing regulations. And in some cases, imposing a particular dress code makes it very hard for people of different faiths and no faiths to co-exist. Banning the kara will only help people who dislike such objects, be they intolerant atheists or just plain old racists. It certainly won’t help make many Sikhs feel comfortable, certainly not the ones who are posting here!

Absolutely right. With the onus of measuring the degree of the “piety” falling on the shoulders of legally trained, not religiously trained, judges.

What a farce.

Whether that is true or not, it is still an attention-seekers’ charter. The idea that someone being prepared to suffer for something somehow makes everything OK rather sounds like a hostage to fortune.

For what it’s worth I don’t have strong feelings either way on school uniforms, but this verdict to my mind comes dangerously close to placing religious piety primus inter pares.

I often, wrongly, feel it is better to be lucky than it is to be good.

I think the judge did a pretty good job of explaining why the verdict was correct. I do hope you have read his verdict. Of course, you might think it’s rubbish and that’s fair enough.

In my personal opinion no one has the right to force another human to comply with some dress code, whether it’s religious, secular or neither of the two. The Sikh girl has won the right to wear her Kara, partly because she was prepared to suffer for it. If others want the same rights, they will unfortunately have to go through the same process. I think this is a shame, but we live in an imperfect world and we need brave people, like Sarika, to help improve it.

As you can see from my previous posts, I am against enforcing school uniforms. If children want to comply fine and if they don’t, that’s fine too. I know that’s not how things have been done in many schools in the UK. But I have not seen any evidence to show that strictly imposing a uniform improves exam results or leads to happier children (and the UK has some pretty unhappy kids relative to other Western European countries).

Please don’t waste your time in checking your spelling .

Whilst luck is good to have, I place my trust in logical thought .