According to the British press, the latest opinion polls show that 67 percent of Brits support a law on banning the Niqab in public places, along the lines of the scheme introduced in France, and other European states and cities. No doubt this is what prompted the MP to submit a proposal to parliament, to introduce legislation regarding covering one's face in public.
There is nothing new in all of this; the controversy surrounding the Niqab in European states has been longstanding, despite the fact that less than 1 percent of Muslim women wear it in these countries. And there are no indicators that suggest this figure is likely to increase either.
The interesting point, from which lessons can be drawn, is the public stance of the British political and cultural elite, which rushed to reject the mere idea of bringing about legislation in parliament, determining what people can and cannot wear. Even the Deputy who introduced the proposal knows that there is not a one in a hundred chance of passing such legislation.
The British Minister for Immigration responded in a press interview by contrasting the public attitude towards such ideas. He said that it is both unlikely and unwanted for the British parliament to attempt to issue laws imposing upon people what they should wear when they are walking down the street. This would be considered non-British, in a society based on tolerance and mutual respect. Along the same lines, another British minister said that while the public stance is still controlled by the political and cultural elite, it will reject the idea of proceeding in this manner (issuing clothing legislation). Subsequently, the dominant opinion in parliament is to reject such legislation.
Certainly the political centrists, including members of parliament, realize that there is a strong tendency amongst the electorate to oppose the Niqab and to ban it, and this is what was reflected in the opinion polls, which showed that two third of voters supported passing legislation to this effect. But those politicians prefer to emphasize the values of coexistence and diversity within British society, and standing against intolerance, instead of employing a provocative style that stimulates public emotions. Some are good at this style in Arab society, and are the first to know that it is harmful.
The elite in any society, if it actually exists, must be capable of leading and not drifting behind public sentiments, giving weight to the theories of the masses. It must be able to exercise a responsible role in protecting society from emotional situations that are usually temporary, and stress the correct opinion, even if it is not met with wholesale public support. When the elite do that, they are exercising a real role in improving society and interacting with it.
In the case of the Niqab in Britain, no one supports the phenomenon, whether from the viewpoint of the elite, or from the main thrust of public opinion. But the prevailing principle is respect for individual freedom in being able to wear what you want. Besides the Niqab issue, the reaction of the British elite to the bill proposed by the Deputy reflects their energy and self confidence, and their capability to lead society.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/28/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The fallacy here is that tolerance can be extended to include cultures that seek to destroy tolerance.
#2
When the elite do that, they are exercising a real role in improving society and interacting with it.
Whereas our current elite are bent on imposing a crock of worthless crap on their underlings.
#2
The author seems surprised at "a bit of barbarism?" Basically, Sehar, you have this 7th century mentality built into the religion and culture. Not just a bit of barbarism but a way of life; both a feature and a flaw built into the maliciousware program software.
#3
Young boys tend towards barbarism. However, there is a big difference between ignorant and obnoxious barbarism, and educated, intelligent barbarism.
Let's face it. In life you can be a "social", part of the cooperative, part of the herd, a cog in the machine; or you can be a barbarian, on your own, the sky's the limit, leaving your mark on the world of honor, strength of character, and general chutzpah.
Socials may put Marines in uniforms, make them do lots of drill and ceremonies, and practice their silly social experiments on them.
But put a Marine, tired, hungry and thirsty, covered with cuts and scrapes and crotch rot, half naked and armed with only a survival knife, deep behind enemy lines and facing overwhelming odds, and he's still going to do things only a barbarian can do. And he's going to do it all over his enemy.
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday's ruling, according to Julea Ward's attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.
Its a very dangerous precedent, Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. The ruling doesnt say that explicitly, but thats what is going to happen.
U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Wards lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the schools counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.
The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.
Christian students shouldnt be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs, said ADF senior counsel David French. To reach its decision, the court had to do something thats never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.
Eastern Michigan University hailed the decision.
We are pleased that the court has upheld our position in this matter, EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a written statement. Julea Ward was not discriminated against because of her religion. To the contrary, Eastern Michigan is deeply committed to the education of our students and welcomes individuals from diverse backgrounds into our community.
In his 48-page opinion, Judge Steeh said the university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics.
Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values, he wrote in a portion of his ruling posted by The Detroit News. In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs including homosexual relationships.
Wards attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a remediation program so that she could see the error of her ways and change her belief system about homosexuality.
The case is similar to a lawsuit the ADF filed against Augusta State University in Georgia. Counseling student Jennifer Keeton was allegedly told to stop sharing her Christian beliefs in order to graduate.
Keeton's lawsuit alleged that she was told to undergo a reeducation program and attend diversity sensitivity training.
University officials declined to comment on specifics of the lawsuit but released a statement to FOX News that said Augusta State does not discriminate on the basis of students moral, religious, political or personal beliefs.
Tedesco said both cases should be a warning to Christians attending public colleges and universities.
Public universities are imposing the ideological stances of private groups on their students, he said. If you dont comply, you will be kicked out. Its scary stuff and its not a difficult thing to see whats coming down the pike.
The Alliance Defense Fund told FOX News it will appeal the ruling.
#1
This has been going on for awhile. The ACA code is similar to that for social workers. To get through a social work training program these days, you have to endorse specifically the liberal progressive agenda. The association has worked with all the universities who train social workers to ensure that you don't have a choice in the matter.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/28/2010 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Complete and utter BS. So unles you're liberal, aka the Ruling Elite, you're mind and ethics don't count and you are garbage to be discarded. More forced social engineering.
#4
Ward's attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a "remediation" program so that she could "see the error of her ways" and change her belief system about homosexuality.
Ah. Git yer mind raht, missy. Or we'll hit you with the strobes and the Wagner...
#6
I heard about a similar case this AM at Augusta, GA. This isn't going away
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/28/2010 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
One hopes that by the same logic they don't permit Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Mormons, Wicans, New Agers, Socialists, Communists, Maoists, Taoists, Animists, .... to be counselors either!
#9
One hopes that by the same logic they don't permit Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Mormons, Wicans, New Agers, Socialists, Communists, Maoists, Taoists, Animists, .... to be counselors either!
Now now, 3dc. Those folks are minorities. They get special privilages. Just ask the DoJ.
#12
So much for Freedom Of Religion in the 1st Amendment.
This judge is obviously an idiot: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
