Let’s See These Cases Slapped Down Faster In 2013, Please…

A Greek Orthodox school is being taken to the High Court for banning a Muslim pupil from wearing a headscarf.

Oh? Gosh. I guess the parents must not have known the uniform requirements, then?

Head teacher Kate Magliocco said the uniform policy was made clear to the parents when the girl arrived in Year 3.It was not until she moved into Year 5 in September that they wanted their daughter to start wearing a hijab…

Ah. In other words, they thought to themselves ‘English law and customs? Ha! We’ll soon see about that…’

“The pupil in question came to us from a private school. Her parents actively chose us and, before she arrived, we held a meeting which included details of the uniform plan. We are the only Greek Orthodox Primary School in the whole country. The parents actively sought our school. They must have done so with their eyes open.”

No need to sound so apologetic. You dealt with them in good faith.

You should have realised, though, just who you were dealing with…

Shuiab Yusaf, trustee of Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre, urged the school to reconsider the ban.He said: “We encourage schools to be a little less strict and allow Muslim girls to wear headscarves if that is what they want to do,” he said.

Why, yes. Of course you do…

17 comments for “Let’s See These Cases Slapped Down Faster In 2013, Please…

  1. January 1, 2013 at 10:51 am

    Would a girl get away with not wearing a hijab in a Muslim school?

  2. Furor Teutonicus
    January 1, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Head scarves are not the problem. It is the fact they are still wearing their HEADS, that I object to!

  3. January 1, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    In other words, they thought to themselves ‘English law and customs? Ha! We’ll soon see about that…’

    Certainly test-casing here. I’ve been in mosques and when you go in, there are certain ways you conform to. If you don’t, you don’t go in. Simple.

  4. Offended of Mayfair
    January 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    If a western girl went to a mid-eastern school in say Saudi and wore no head scarf the poo would hit the fan big time as all must comply with their society. End of.

    When the shoe is on the other foot, our society must bend over backwards to accommodate their culture….. seems perfectly fine to me.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      January 2, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Aye. And why do they want to re-create a culture HERE, that was so bad they just HAD to escape from it, and claim asylum in Western Europe???

  5. mona
    January 1, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    It is not headscarves,hijabs, it is ownership they own the female they are property if she showed the slightest interest in boys she could be killed just developing a western mentality would be fatal, it may save her life wearing the hijab. It begs the question what the hell are they doing here.

  6. Tatty
    January 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    It was not until she moved into Year 5….

    9 years old being the Age Of Sexual Maturity in the Islamic World…evidently. 😯

    • nisakiman
      January 1, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Aisha is testament to that.

      The rather odd thing about current Islamic attitudes is that there is an unseemly scramble to wind the clock back to the 13th century. I spent some time in Iran, Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan in 1967 – 1970, and back then in Tehran, Kabul and Peshawar, although a lot of women wore the Hajib or Chador, equal numbers of women dressed in Western clothes, wore make-up and worked in good jobs. People seemed pretty relaxed about stuff like clothing choices. As long as it was decent and didn’t offend, it was considered ok.

      All that has changed now, and gone back to the Islamic strictures of yesteryear. Mind you, having said that,a similar shift has also been mirrored in the west, with a strong movement towards puritanism and authoritarianism. Which is why blogs like this exist.

      Where was the turning point, and why? I’ve been trying to put my finger on it, but without success.

      • Furor Teutonicus
        January 2, 2013 at 4:58 pm

        XX Where was the turning point, and why? I’ve been trying to put my finger on it, but without success.XX

        At the same time they started putting “Flouride” in the water….?

        Think about it. It fits. 😈

    • Ed P
      January 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm

      Yes, it certainly was for little Ayesha.

  7. Greg Tingey
    January 2, 2013 at 8:15 am

    “Delay defeats Equity”
    MUCH too late to object after several years, whem you knew the rules ….

  8. Paul
    January 2, 2013 at 9:46 am

    I hope this attempt meets much the same fate as the Shabina Begum case, or the case of Aisha Azmi from West Yorkshire, who insisted on wearing a full-face black niqab in a Church of England school only after safely being in the job for a while – no mention of wanting to dress like a ninja was ever made in the initial interview, and there’s a TV interview with the tent where she (I think it’s a she) discredits her own story live on air.

    Make no mistake: this is usually about testing the waters and time and again forcing through their beliefs, and it’s usually aided by extremist Islamist groups.

    • Woman on a Raft
      January 2, 2013 at 5:10 pm

      Correct. The complainants didn’t necessarily expect to win the case. They did, however, correctly calculate that the effort of defending the case, the upset, the sly implication of raaaaycism, making a good woman answer press queries when she’s supposed to be on holiday, the time taken, the cost of legal representation which still needs to be in place and wasting the head teacher’s time with an argument which she never, ever, sought would combine to make it rational to give in quickly.

      It’s a kind of cultural rape; it’s going to happen, you have no way of preventing it, says the attacker, and if you struggle it will be worse. The point is not the sex, not the hijab – the point is to force the host to accept the control.

      Note that having been refused the first application they have raised the stakes for a High Court application in February. The response should be to make sure that the complainants pick up the full cost of the court and the other side’s wasted time and legal costs, plus declaring them vexatious litigants which can reduce their future misuse of the court system.

      Honestly, why do we lay down and take this rubbish?

      • Paul
        January 2, 2013 at 11:01 pm

        Woman on a Raft: Correct. The complainants didn’t necessarily expect to win the case. They did, however, correctly calculate that the effort of defending the case, the upset, the sly implication of raaaaycism, making a good woman answer press queries when she’s supposed to be on holiday, the time taken, the cost of legal representation which still needs to be in place and wasting the head teacher’s time with an argument which she never, ever, sought would combine to make it rational to give in quickly.

        Exactly. It’s about humiliation.

        Woman on a Raft: It’s a kind of cultural rape; it’s going to happen, you have no way of preventing it, says the attacker, and if you struggle it will be worse. The point is not the sex, not the hijab – the point is to force the host to accept the control.

        Pat Condell calls it ‘cultural terrorism’, which pretty neatly fits in with your analogy. I can’t think of any other political/religious group that is quite as violently pushy as Islam. And, given a brief look at various opinion polls surrounding what British Muslims think about UK society (they’re quite a lot more homophobic than many Muslims living in France, for a start), I think that British, and indeed Wester society has every damn right to be worried.

        If you actually mention any of this though, people on the lunatic, delusional left will call you a bigot, a racist, an Islamophobe and will hurl abuse at you forever more. As you say, it’s not specifically about the garment (whether the hijab, the nun-like jilbab or the ninja/letter-box like niqab) – it’s about control and fear and submission. That, of course, is what the very word “islam” means – submission.

        Woman on a Raft: Note that having been refused the first application they have raised the stakes for a High Court application in February. The response should be to make sure that the complainants pick up the full cost of the court and the other side’s wasted time and legal costs, plus declaring them vexatious litigants which can reduce their future misuse of the court system.

        Absolutely. A warning needs to be set to all of these grievance mongers, cultural terrorists, bigots, xenophobes, anti-Semites and racists that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated from them and, what’s more, if they insist on vexatiously complaining then they will be made to suffer so much financially and in other ways that it simply will not be worth the bother to them. That’s what we should be aiming for.

        Our justice system and legal standards are not up for sale.

        Woman on a Raft: Honestly, why do we lay down and take this rubbish?

        I honestly think that without this culture of politically correct mollycoddling and politicians bending over backwards to barbarians who rival your stereotypical Campaign for Real Ale member in the boring beardy stakes, and if people felt able to speak out openly and freely against Islam (without the left, especially those ‘liberal feminists’ and ‘anti-fascists’ either deliberately helping or passively aiding the Islamists through cowardly defence and silence), it would not be anywhere near the problem that it is here – not just in the UK or in Denmark or Sweden, but in every civilised Western country where the bigoted, murderous followers of this disgustingly hateful, dark age religion makes an appearance.

      • Paul
        January 2, 2013 at 11:02 pm

        Sorry, my comment isn’t showing.

        Woman on a Raft: Correct. The complainants didn’t necessarily expect to win the case. They did, however, correctly calculate that the effort of defending the case, the upset, the sly implication of raaaaycism, making a good woman answer press queries when she’s supposed to be on holiday, the time taken, the cost of legal representation which still needs to be in place and wasting the head teacher’s time with an argument which she never, ever, sought would combine to make it rational to give in quickly.

        Exactly. It’s about humiliation.

        Woman on a Raft: It’s a kind of cultural rape; it’s going to happen, you have no way of preventing it, says the attacker, and if you struggle it will be worse. The point is not the sex, not the hijab – the point is to force the host to accept the control.

        Pat Condell calls it ‘cultural terrorism’, which pretty neatly fits in with your analogy. I can’t think of any other political/religious group that is quite as violently pushy as Islam. And, given a brief look at various opinion polls surrounding what British Muslims think about UK society (they’re quite a lot more homophobic than many Muslims living in France, for a start), I think that British, and indeed Wester society has every damn right to be worried.

        If you actually mention any of this though, people on the lunatic, delusional left will call you a bigot, a racist, an Islamophobe and will hurl abuse at you forever more. As you say, it’s not specifically about the garment (whether the hijab, the nun-like jilbab or the ninja/letter-box like niqab) – it’s about control and fear and submission. That, of course, is what the very word “islam” means – submission.

        Woman on a Raft: Note that having been refused the first application they have raised the stakes for a High Court application in February. The response should be to make sure that the complainants pick up the full cost of the court and the other side’s wasted time and legal costs, plus declaring them vexatious litigants which can reduce their future misuse of the court system.

        Absolutely. A warning needs to be set to all of these grievance mongers, cultural terrorists, bigots, xenophobes, anti-Semites and racists that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated from them and, what’s more, if they insist on vexatiously complaining then they will be made to suffer so much financially and in other ways that it simply will not be worth the bother to them. That’s what we should be aiming for.

        Our justice system and legal standards are not up for sale.

        Woman on a Raft: Honestly, why do we lay down and take this rubbish?

        I honestly think that without this culture of politically correct mollycoddling and politicians bending over backwards to barbarians who rival your stereotypical Campaign for Real Ale member in the boring beardy stakes, and if people felt able to speak out openly and freely against Islam (without the left, especially those ‘liberal feminists’ and ‘anti-fascists’ either deliberately helping or passively aiding the Islamists through cowardly defence and silence), it would not be anywhere near the problem that it is here – not just in the UK or in Denmark or Sweden, but in every civilised Western country where the bigoted, murderous followers of this disgustingly hateful religion makes an appearance.

  9. David A. Evans
    January 2, 2013 at 9:51 am

    I foresee the crusades MkII

    DaveE.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      January 2, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      You mean, except for the fact they were already up to about ten, when they LAST gave up?

      (Crusades did not JUST happen in the middle East! Latvia, Lithuania, even Poland and FRANCE were targets!!)

Comments are closed.