Sunday 5th of May 2024
Home » content

Religious expression in schools and rules

The big issue in relation to the Auburn School girl who won the right to wear the Mantoo is something that I feel is interesting. Anita Quigley did an article today in the Daily telegraph and I tend to agree with her.

I wrote this email to her today.

I just want to congratulate you on your article on the real issues behind the Mantoo.

My daughter who is in Year 9 in a Public School tells me that the uniform doesn’t suit her beliefs and feelings - she hates it.

She is an individual and she resents dressing in school uniform as it makes her feel like she is in Prison and that she is a picture copy of every other student doing time. It really bothers her as an individual and it stifles her. She feels she is not afforded the respect that she deserves as an individual whilst she is in a silly uniform that makes her look like a young kid in a stifled school puppet dress.

If the public system is so into accepting difference, then why do they want them all to dress, learn, and look the same.

It seems that the Muslim community always seems to have a special set of rules for them. I wonder what would happen if my daughter put on her jeans and jumper and went off to school demanding an exception because of her strong belief in her individuality and rights.

She often asks me how I would feel if I walked into a building and everywhere you turned everybody was dressed exactly the same as you. As per usual she has a point!

I believe that it is about power and respect. This Auburn school girl now has the power and with it respect. Now the other Muslim girls will feel the pressure. Soon we might all have to wear Mantoo's. The rest of the non-Muslim school kids have to take their place in the paddock with all the other sheep despite the fact that the school uniform rules dont suit them or their beliefs.

Of course I do believe that some sort of happy medium would be good. Western girls are too uncovered and Muslim girls are too covered up. Why do we only know how to function at the extremes?

I wonder what other people on this forum think?

Re: Faith

Jolanda, a "dear john" letter! Well it had to happen some time I guess.

I accept what you have to say Jolanda. I have no wish to offend you and if you treat everyone with respect as you say that's fair enough for me.

But we can't put Australian society into a time capsule and keep it unchanged forever. Nor can we put it in a time machine and take it back an imagined uptopia of yore as John Howard would like to do.

Our society is in a constant state of change and evolution, some of it bad, some of it good.

Have a nice day Jolanda.

cutting starts here

Jolanda, I cut a bit from your comment, and nearly didn't publish it at all. If anyone wants to use this thread to start villifying 'Muslims' further than I think you already are, it won't be published. This site is committed to democracy, which means all of us. Even if you are certain you have a real point to make about an inconsistency that has emerged in legal precedent, please think about what you are doing in our current political climate.

I want to make a suggestion as well. If your daughter wants to use the freedom the Muslim girl got as a lever for her campaign to be able to wear jeans, that's fine. But tactically, she'd be much better off leading with an affirmation that indeed the Muslim girl does have the right to wear what she feels is appropriate, and hence so should she, rather than using the fact that she can't wear jeans to attack the freedom someone else has gained.

That's my view.

There are laws against racial villification, and so there should be. If anyone wants to make generalised attacks on races or religions here, I'll be pretty ruthless with the scissors.

Why?

I dont understand Hamish how you can say that I am attacking a religion or vilifying Muslims - I dont understand how you can come to that conclusion.

Its you that is attacking my freedom of speech. I am not a racist person and I resent you trying to make me appear like one. I Just believe that my rights are just as important and worthy of expression and support as anyone elses and I do not write with abuse, never have.

My post did not contain bad language, it didn't insult anybody - the part you cut off did not vilify anybody it was just my opinion in relation to an issue that is Public. Equal rights should mean that I have an equal right to express my concerns and opinions without getting the chop.

final word from me here

This is the last time I will post on this thread. If other people want to take up the discussion, I ask you to be mindful of what you say.

Jolanda, the key line I cut from your last post, arguably for legal reasons, was, "(Muslims) do not accept the Australian way". Whether you intended it or not, it's racial vilification, and is the sort of comment that incites hatred. It's also a huge generalisation and not true in my opinion, but as you indicate that is not the point of free speech. Safety and tolerance is though.

Disagree with the horrible editor as much as you want. There are laws that we can't break.

Vilification

Hamish, Wouldn't it only be vilification if it wasn't true? To Accept and to Tolerate are two different words with totally different meanings. The majority of Muslims might tolerate the Australian way but they do not accept it. Of course there are always some that have. That is just my personal opinion and not meant to insult or upset anybody. My brother in law is Muslim and I love him and I have an adorable Muslim nephew that I also love dearly.

We need to open debate about the fact that we are so different in our beliefs and culture and make it okay to disagree without being accused of being racist etc.

I agree with you Hamish

I agree with you Hamish because emotion is intertwound with fact and fact with emotion, and someone gets hurt in trying to untangle that mess. Race and religion is bound together and can be a stronger bond that life itself. Fact becomes opinion and someone's opinion is someone's fact when it can not be.

It is like trying to debate how Australians feel about Aborigines. The minority gets hurt just because they are a minority and has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or fact or fiction.

Here is the Code of Ethics, according to Australian journalists. There is no such thing as free speech because to have free speech means to defame at least one person even if that person is the writer.

Defamation is decided by the courts.

Point 2 of the Australian Journalism Code of Ethics:
2. They shall not place unnessesary emphasis on gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability.

When those subjects are a legal minefield it means the courts decide what free speech is, not the writer, and who wants to go to court just to say that he/she was right when the courts may have a different ruling? It is the courts who can vilify by taking your house.