Thread: The 'Veil'

Originally Posted by surasak

When I was in Koh Phi Phi in 2004 there was a sign telling people to cover up as well rather than run about naked on the beach or without a shirt as many men do in the West. Did most of the Europeans ignore this? You bet.

I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Are you taking the piss here or using it as a legit comparison?

Originally Posted by Milkman

Do Xtians have rights in Pakistan?

.

fair enough. What's a Xtian?

^ Don't joke around:

Xtian - Christian

I hear Malays get large govenment "loans" they don't have to payback.

Originally Posted by attaboy

the child is 2 1/2 months old? they don't even have full vision do they? No wonder voice is important to the baby.

If that's the thinking then wouldn't the voice be more important than the face? Kind of proves my point considering that prenatally it's always a good idea to talk and converse with the unborn child.

In reality he's actually in the 90+ percentile for his age. He can even stand (though wobbly) with little support other than holding his hands. His vision and hearing are excellent (the eyes follow movement many feet away, the head turns towards a noise etc).

People always say I have a radio announcer voice. I think that it's more comforting to him than my wife's Issan-laced-English-speaking voice. He doesn't seem to care about our facial expressions.

It has now provoked a comment from the Commission for Racial Equality .

News

Make ntlworld my home page



Race chief in veil riot warning
The head of Britain's race relations watchdog has warned that Britain risks possible rioting if the recent row over Muslim veil wearing is not resolved.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality fears an increasingly "socially polarised" society unless growing racial tensions can be resolved.
In a warning of what could happen if his advice was ignored, he referred to the writer who correctly predicted race riots in Los Angeles and other US cities.
He added: "All the recent evidence shows that we are, as a society, becoming more socially polarised by race and faith.
"The only place where this may not be true is in our schools and the main reason is that in many of our cities things cannot get any worse."
But Mr Phillips said Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, had been right to reveal publicly that he had asked Muslim women to remove their veils during his constituency surgeries and he criticised Muslims who had attacked Straw.
________________

This is set to run for a long time over here in the UK. The key words to this debate I think are INTEGRATION into a NON MUSLIM SOCIETY.

I glad to hear your baby is alert and picking up on things going on around him. It's a kick to watch them discover new things that we take for granted.

I love the blank stares at things. The guitar in the corner behind the sofa frightens him when he sees it. They say kids see things differently than we do...I can only imagine why the guitar is so frightening.

I keep joking about him having an interest in Muay Thai...he's certainly strong for his age (he could even hold his head up at 2 weeks old if put on the stomach).

My wife has a bad temper and I've been getting onto her about that (especially due to the vocal tone). Maybe he picks up on the aggressive sound of her voice and on the calm tone of mine. I was always one to be sensitive to the tone of people's voices when I was younger.

fer fecks sake gentlemen - we are talking about a child learning a second language, it is commonly accepted practise that a young student MUST see the shape of the mouth to enunciate correctly.

we ARE NOT talking about detecting lies! totally different thing.

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by attaboy

the child is 2 1/2 months old? they don't even have full vision do they? No wonder voice is important to the baby.

If that's the thinking then wouldn't the voice be more important than the face? Kind of proves my point considering that prenatally it's always a good idea to talk and converse with the unborn child.

In reality he's actually in the 90+ percentile for his age. He can even stand (though wobbly) with little support other than holding his hands. His vision and hearing are excellent (the eyes follow movement many feet away, the head turns towards a noise etc).

People always say I have a radio announcer voice. I think that it's more comforting to him than my wife's Issan-laced-English-speaking voice. He doesn't seem to care about our facial expressions.

not a proof. and we are talking abt language acquisittion of which all of these things are a factor - none is particualrly more important than the other. but the complete absence of one hinders the overall picture.

eg: telephone converstations with a non-english speaker are much more difficult than face to face... ever wonder why?

I've never noticed a difference really. It seems like I can communicate better with my wife over the phone than in person. I've been around many foreign people (mostly Asians) and never paid attention to how the lips/mouth move when speaking. I pick up words not by seeing how they speak but by listening to how the sound is made. In fact, annoyingly, I've got several Mandarin songs stuck in my head right now and I couldn't begin to tell you how the singer speaks since I've never seen her. But the voice is there clear as day. According to you that would be impossible since I've never seen her speak or sing.

Even if there is the smallest chance that seeing the face and mouth helps learning, isn't it our duty to make sure the kids have the best possible chance? This was the attitude of the board that fired her and is commendable.

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Its more affermative action than positive discrimination.

How is one different from the other?
I would say the first is a euphemism for the second.

Originally Posted by surasak

I've never noticed a difference really. It seems like I can communicate better with my wife over the phone than in person. I've been around many foreign people (mostly Asians) and never paid attention to how the lips/mouth move when speaking. I pick up words not by seeing how they speak but by listening to how the sound is made. In fact, annoyingly, I've got several Mandarin songs stuck in my head right now and I couldn't begin to tell you how the singer speaks since I've never seen her. But the voice is there clear as day. According to you that would be impossible since I've never seen her speak or sing.

I find things completly opposite.I find communication on the phone with some Thais much more difficult than face to face.

It's bizarre. On the phone my wife sounds like someone who's been in the US for 10-20 years. In person it's more like 2 years. Sometimes it's almost unintelligible.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Its more affermative action than positive discrimination.

How is one different from the other?
I would say the first is a euphemism for the second.

I suppose you could be right. But it adverted a racial war so i guess the policy has its merits. I wasn't alive in the 50s but the race riots in Malaysia during that period are said to be some of the worst the world has ever seen. Do you really see Malaysia as some backwards, doomed country?

Not at all, but, as you have said, it has taken discrimination to stop violence.
On the BBC news today, some expert is warning about riots over this veil issue. Would you advocate discrimination by the government to stop this if riots were to break out?

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

We as far as I am concerned,I like to look at peoples faces when they are talking to me.Facial expression under normal circumstances can convey many meanings and is a way that we interact

My sentiments as well. Personally I am against the veil. I have no problem with any person and their religious beliefs and their right to follow that religion. However if I was confronted by a person wearing a veil who asked me a question, I am afraid that they would be on my ignore list. Differant kettle of fish if that happened in their own countrybut in the UK it is my choice - and unfortunately I presume I could be branded as racist. There again if that same person was wearing the jihab (sp) - the covering that leaves the face open I would reply

Originally Posted by Mhz

Originally Posted by Thetyim

Originally Posted by RDN

She attended the interview without her veil, even though a male governor was present, and did not wear it for teacher training days on taking up the post.

I am surprised that no-one has commented on this.

She doesn't have to wear a veil. She's a sham artist.

My opinion about her is that she is a fokin attention whore and wants to get some publicity, I study in a university and there are certain rules regarding uniforms. I simply comply and I never asked the university to change the rule cos it doesn't offend me in any way.

It seems that she is going to get much more publicity. According to an article in the Saturdays Daily Telegraph she is going to appeal against the decision of the tribunal and is going to apply for legal aid.
Shalib Malik the Muslim MP for Dewsbury has Called on her to drop the arguement saying 'there is no real support for it' and that the tribunals ruling against her was 'absolutely spot on'

She was compensated, wasn't she? Why compensate someone if they don't have a case? Seems contradictory.

^ This appears to be the ruling


A Muslim teaching assistant who was suspended for refusing to remove her veil during lessons has been awarded £1,100 for "injury to her feelings".

Aishah Azmi, 24, lost her claims that she was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs and that she had suffered harassment.
But an employment tribunal ruled that she had been victimised through the environment created as a result of her stance.




[quote="surasak"]She was compensated, wasn't she? Why compensate someone if they don't have a case? Seems contradictory.[/quot

That almost sounds comical. They ruled she should be compensated due to something she brought upon herself? That's nuts.