BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:49 PM

The Younghusband expedition?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:26 PM

CarolC you were asked to provide examples where Britain forced its culture down the indigenous peoples' throats (often at the point of a gun). You didn't give us any examples as you were asked to, probably because you are too lazy and decided to let your natural ill-informed bias and misconceptions prevail. What you have given us is a list of regions:

"Parts of North America, Australia, parts of Asia, Africa, Ireland, Newfoundland, numerous smaller islands. The British either subjugated the indigenous people in these places and forced their own culture on those indigenous people, or they just wiped them out." - CarolC, 09 Mar 09 - 01:22 PM

THE BRITISH EMPIRE:

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom (UK), that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population, and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles (33,670,000 km²): approximately a quarter of Earth's total land area.

CURRENT BRITISH POSSESSIONS & DEPENDENCIES:

•        The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
o        England
o        Wales
o        Scotland
o        Northern Ireland
•        Isle of Man
•        Channel Islands (Duchy of Normandy)
o        Jersey
o        Guernsey
o        Alderney
o        Sark
•        Gibraltar, seized 1704, ceded by Spain 1713
•        British Indian Ocean Territory, created 1965
o        Chagos Archipelago
        Salomon Islands
        Peros Banhos Atoll
        Three Brothers, Eagle, and Danger Islands
        The Egmont Islands
        Diego Garcia
•        Turks & Caicos Islands, 1678, to Bahamas 1799, to Jamaica 1873, administered by Bahamas 1965 - 1973
•        Bermuda, 1609, to Virginia 1612, separate 1684
•        Cayman Islands, 1655
•        British Virgin Islands, 1666
•        Anguilla, 1650
•        Montserrat, 1632
•        Pitcairn Islands, 1838
•        Phoenix Islands, etc.
o        Phoenix Group
        Phoenix Island
        Sydney Island
        Hull Island
        Gardner Island
        Canton Island, US-UK condominium
        Enderbury Island, US-UK condominium
o        Christmas Island
o        Fanning Island
o        Washington Island
o        Starbuck Island
o        Malden Island
•        St. Helena & Dependencies
o        St. Helena Island, 1659
o        Ascension Island, 1815
o        Tristan da Cunha Group
        Tristan da Cunha Island, 1816
        Inaccessible Island
        Nightingale Island
o        Gough (Diego Alvarez) Island
•        Falkland Islands, 1765
o        South Sandwich Islands, 1775, separate from Falklands 1985
o        South Georgia, 1775, separate from Falklands 1985
•        British Antarctic Territory
o        South Shetland Islands
o        South Orkney Islands
o        Antarctic Peninsula

MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS:

In addition to the British Possessions & Dependencies detailed above the following are current members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

•        Malta, 1800, independent 1964, republic 1974
•        Cyprus, 1878, independent 1960, Turkish invasion, occupation of northern Cyprus 1974
•        India, independent 1947 (Bharat, Pakistan [out of Commonwealth 1972-1989], Bangladesh 1971)
o        Princely States (Protectorates of British India)
        Hyderadbad
        Jammu & Kashmir
        Mysore
        Orchha
        Bahawalpur
        Travancore
        Rajputana (23 states)
        Jodhpur
        Jaisalmer
        Bikaner
        Jaipur
        Udaipur
        Raigarh
        Dir
        Patna
        Khairpur
        Palanpur
        Las Bela
        Morvi
        Partabgarh
        Surguja
        Changbhakar
        Korea
        Kolhapur
        Bundi
        Bastar
        Narsinghgarh
        Porbandar
        Sheopur
        Bahawalpur
        Saraikela
        Rajkot
        Kapurthala
        Rewa
        Dhenkanal
        Raj Nandgaon
        Bharatpur
        Jhabua
o        Andaman Islands
o        Nicobar Islands
o        Sikkim, Princely State, 1861, protectorate of India, 1950, annexed by India, 1975
•        Ceylon, 1795, independent 1948 (Sri Lanka)
•        Seychelles, 1810, independent 1975
o        Mahé Island
o        Amriante Isles
o        Farquhar Group
o        Cosmoledo Group
•        Maldives, 1887, independent 1965
•        Mauritius, 1810, independent 1968
o        Rodrigues
o        Cargados Carajos Shoals
o        Agalega Island
•        Malaysia, created and independent 1963
o        Straits Settlements, Crown colony 1867
        Singapore 1819, to Malaysia 1963, independent 1965
        Penang 1786, to Malaya 1948, to Malaysia 1963
        Malacca 1824, to Malaya 1948, Malaysia 1963
        Labuan, 1846, to North Bornea 1890, to Singapore 1907, to Straits Settlements 1912, to North Borneo 1946
o        Malaya, Federation 1957, independent 1963 as Malaysia
        Johore
        Kedah
        Kelantan
        Negri Sembilan
        Pahang
        Perak
        Perlis
        Selangor
        Trengganu
o        British North Borneo, 1877, to Malaysia 1963 (Sabah)
o        Sarawak, to James Brooke 1841, Crown Colony 1946, to Malaysia 1963
•        Brunei, protectorate 1888, independent 1984
•        British North America
o        Canada, dominion 1867
        Ontario (Upper Canada), 1759, autonomous 1840
        Quebec (Lower Canada), 1759, autonomous 1840
        Nova Scotia, 1717, autonomous 1854
        New Brunswick, 1759, autonomous 1854
        Prince Edward Island, 1759, autonomous 1854
        Northwest Territories
        Yukon Territory
        Manitoba
        Alberta
        Saskatchewan
        British Columbia, 1849 (Vancouver Island) 1858
o        Newfoundland, 1583, to Canada 1949
•        British Guiana, 1796/1815, independent 1966 (Guyana)
•        British Honduras, 1638/1786, independent 1981 (Belize)
•        Bahama Islands, 1670, independent 1973
•        West Indies Federation, federated 1956
o        Leeward Islands, federated 1871
        Antigua, 1632, & Barbuda, 1628, independent 1981
        St. Kitts, 1624, & Nevis, 1628, independent 1983
o        Windward Islands
        St. Lucia, 1815, independent 1979
        Grenada, 1763, independent 1974
        St. Vincent, 1763, & the Grenadines, independent 1979
        Dominica, 1763, independent 1978
o        Barbados, 1627, independent 1966
o        Jamaica, 1655, independent 1962
o        Trinidad, 1797, & Tobago, 1763, independent 1962
•        Australia, Commonwealth 1901
o        Queensland, autonomous 1859
o        New South Wales, 1788, autonomous 1855
o        Victoria, autonomous 1855
o        South Australia, autonomous 1855
o        Western Australia, 1829, autonomous 1890
o        Tasmania, 1825, autonomous 1855
o        Northern Territory
o        Coral Sea Islands Territory
o        Norfolk Island & Philip Island
o        Lord Howe Island & Ball's Pyramid
o        Cocos (Keeling) Islands & Christmas Island
o        McDonald Islands, Shag Island, & Heard Island
o        Nauru, 1914, trustee of Aus, NZ, & UK, 1947, independent 1968
o        Papua-New Guinea, independent 1964
        Papua, Queensland 1883, Australia 1901, to Papua-New Guinea
        New Guinea & Bismark Archipelago, from Germany 1914, Australia Trust Territory 1919, to Papua-New Guinea
•        Solomon Islands, protectorate 1893, independent 1978
•        New Zealand, 1769, autonomous 1853
o        Cook Islands, etc.
        Cook Islands
        Rarotonga
        Aitutaki
        Atiu
        Mitiaro
        Mangaia
        Suwarrow Atoll
        Nassau
        Palmerston Atoll
o        Niue Island
o        Tokelau Islands, etc.
        Tokelau Islands (Union Group)
        Atafu
        Nukunono
        Fakaofo
        Rakahanga (Tongareva) Atoll
        Penrhyn Atoll
        Manihiki Atoll
o        Auckland Islands & Campbell Island
o        Antipodes Islands
o        Bounty Islands
o        Chatham Islands
o        Kermadec Islands
        Raoul (Sunday) Island
        Macauley Island
        Curtis Island
        L'Esperance Rock
o        Western Samoa, from Germany 1914, independent 1962 (Samoa)
•        Tonga, protectorate 1900, independent 1970
•        Hew Hebrides, 1887, Anglo-French Condominium 1906-1980, independent (Vanuatu)
•        Gilbert Islands, 1892, independent 1979 (Kiribati)
•        Elice Islands, 1892, independent 1978 (Tuvalu)
•        Union of South Africa, 1910, Republic of South Africa, out of Commonwealth 1961-1994, rejoins Commonwealth 1994
o        Cape Colony, 1795
o        Natal, 1843
o        Orange Free State, protectorate 1848, independent 1854, annexed 1902
o        Transvaal, protectorate 1877, independent 1881, annexed 1902
o        Prince Edward Islands
o        Walvis Bay, 1884, to Southwest Africa
o        Southwest Africa, from Germany 1915, independent 1990 (Namibia)
•        Swaziland, 1890, independent 1968
•        Basutoland, 1868, independent 1966 (Lesotho)
•        Bechuanaland, 1885, independent 1966 (Botswana)
•        MOZAMBIQUE, former Portuguese colony, joins Commonwealth 1995 - never part of the British Empire
•        East Africa
o        Kenya, 1887, independent 1963
o        Tananyika, from Germany 1917, independent 1961 (Tanzania 1964)
o        Zanzibar, 1890, independent 1963 (Tanzania 1964)
o        Uganda, 1888, independent 1962
•        Rhodesia & Nyasaland
o        Northern Rhodesia, 1889, independent 1964 (Zambia)
o        Southern Rhodesia, 1888, revolt 1965-1980 (Rhodesia), independent 1980 (Zimbabwe)
o        Nyasaland, 1889, independent 1964 (Malawi)
•        West Africa
o        Sierra Leone, 1787, independent 1961
o        Gold Coast, 1662, independent 1957 (Ghana)
o        The Gambia, 1661, independent 1965
o        Nigeria, 1861, independent 1960
o        CAMEROON, former German colony & French mandate, joins Commonwealth 1995 - NEVER part of the British Empire
        British Cameroon, from Germany 1919, to Nigeria & Cameroon 1961


FORMER BRITISH POSSESSIONS

•        Eire 1172, independent 1921, Republic 1938, leaves Commonwealth 1949
•        Heligoland, 1807, to Germany 1890
•        Hanover, 1714, independent 1837, to Prussia 1866
•        Ionian Islands, 1809, to Greece 1864
•        Minorca, 1708-1756, 1763-1782, 1798-1802, from & to Spain
•        Egypt, shares of Suez Canal purchased 1875, country occupied 1882, protectorate 1914, independent 1922, Suez Canal occupied until 1956, Canal nationalized 1956
o        Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, condominium 1898-1956, independent 1956
•        Palestine, occupied 1917, mandate 1921, independent 1948 (Israel; Palestine to Jordan & Egypt, territories occupied by Israel 1967)
•        Transjordan, occupied 1917, mandate 1921-1946, independent 1946 (Jordan 1949)
•        Iraq, occupied 1918, mandate 1921-1932, independent 1932
•        Kuwait, protectorate 1904, independent 1961
•        Bahrain, protectorate 1882, independent 1971
•        Muscat & Oman, Treaty 1798, independent 1971
•        Qatar, protectorate 1916, independent 1971
•        Trucial States(/Coast/Oman), protectorate 1820, independent 1971 (United Arab Emirates)
o        Abu Dhabi
o        Ajman
o        Dubai
o        Al Sharqah
o        Umm al Qawain
o        Ras al Khaimah
o        Fujairah
•        Aden, 1839, independent 1967 (South Yemen)
•        Afghanistan, First Afghan War 1838-1842, Second Afghan War 1878-1880, protectorate 1880-1921, Third Afghan War 1919-1921, Soviet Russian occupation 1979-1989
•        Burma, 1826 (Arakan) 1852 (Lower Burma) 1886 (Upper Burma), independent 1948 (Myanmar 1991)
•        Weihai Wei, 1898, to China 1930
•        Hong Kong, 1841, to China 1997
•        United States of America, independent 1783
•        Mosquito Coast, 1655, to Nicaragua 1855
•        Surinam, 1651, Dutch Guiana 1668
•        Fiji, 1874, independent 1970, leaves Commonwealth 1987
•        British Somaliland, 1884, to Somalia 1960
•        Eritrea, 1941-1952, to Ethiopia 1952

Tell you what CarolC you will find very very few examples to illustrate the points you tried to make of native culture being erradicated and British culture being rammed down peoples throats, or indeed of any deliberate government policy of wiping out local populations.

You'll find very few examples of lands taken by conquest and a large number that fell into the British sphere of influence through trade. Britain was not large enough a country to "conquer" those lands we simply had not got the population to do it.

You will find a large number of "Protectorates", "Dependencies" and "Federations" not so many "colonies". For example India was never a British colony all the states of India were independent and they all became "Protectorates".

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:01 AM

"Iraq was not in breach of ceasefire terms "


False statement.

LOOK at the UN report by Blix, he states that Iraq is NOT in compliance in several aspects.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:55 AM

"the Taleban de facto ruled Afghanistan until the US bombed the country back into the stone age"

Richard, you obviously have not seen any photographs of Kabul after the Taleban had finished with it during the civil war. Air strikes called in during the ousting of the Taleban by the Northern Alliance were against military positions and not against any centres of population. Like it or not Afghanistan was already back in the stone age thanks to the efforts of the Taleban from 1994.

So it is perfectly alright "to become the constitutional rulers by right of conquest" now that's interesting in this day and age. Again you can have no objection to GWB's invasion of Iraq no matter how black the left try to paint it. That obviously ignores the simple reality that what was won by right of conquest can be lost by right of conquest - it does not only work one way - TRUE??

The conference in Bonn was called for and held under the auspices of the United Nations on the grounds that Afghanistan was a failed state without any form of government. Now tell me what "right of conquest" did it intend to legitimise??

"Hot pursuit by the request of the originally invaded country - Kuwait - would have done just fine for authority" The UN force engaged in "Desert Storm" were on shakey ground entering into Iraq as far as they did. I believe that 101st Airbourne and the 3rd French Foreign Legion were within 90 minutes of Baghdad. Read the mandate of United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to the Invasion of Kuwait to see what their mission was - Removal of Saddam Hussein from power or invading Iraq was not included as an option - Hence the "cease-fire" at Safwan.

So "Iraq was not in breach of ceasefire terms" well Richard, I believe that you are in the legal profession, I know of 602 Kuwaiti Nationals who would disagree with that statement of yours, were they still alive. They were specifically mentioned in the Safwan Agreement and in the subsequent UN Resolutions that formalised the Cease-fire for implementation. Instead of being returned to Kuwait as they should have been, Saddam Hussein had them murdered, how clear and obvious a breach of cease-fire terms has it got to be Richard before you see it??

You should read for yourself United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678; 687 and 1441 and it can be seen that Iraq was clearly in breach of the cease-fire signed in April 1991 at Safwan and as such any combatant nation who formed part of the UN coalition was at liberty to resume hostilities. Like it or not, they would not need the permission of the UN to do so, like it or not the UN cannot physically fight wars only member states can, like it or not the UN does not sign cease-fires nor armistaces only those member states engaged in hostilities can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: meself
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:48 AM

Okay, here's a comment then: when is the last time a parent was fined or sent to jail for their children missing a day or two of school? Is there any reason on earth that this "one report" should be taken seriously? Isn't this a bit like "reporting" that someone "could be" put in stocks for naming their donkey after a bishop?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:16 AM

noted without comment:

"Some parents in London could face possible court action for keeping their young children home from school to avoid lessons on gay and lesbian history. The Daily Mail reports the grade school will not excuse the absences despite objections from the parents on moral and religious grounds. They say the content is more appropriate for older students.

One story included in the lesson was a fairy tale about a prince who turns down princesses before falling in love with one of their brothers. Another had two male penguins falling in love in the New York City Zoo. Students who missed the lessons are being viewed as truants.Their parents could be fined and, one report says, possibly sent to jail."

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:55 PM

1. Like it or not, and paperwork it how you will, the Taleban de facto ruled Afghanistan until the US bombed the country back into the stone age - and for long enough to become the constitutional rulers by right of conquest.

2. The Bonn Agreement was paperwork to try to legitimate an intended conquest. Didn't work out that way did it?

3. Hot pursuit by the request of the originally invaded country - Kuwait - would have done just fine for authority. Again, like it or not, Iraq was not in breach of ceasefire terms and the pretence that it was building weapons of mass destruction was just that, a cynical pretence. Saddam Hussein was evil - but he was the legitimate ruler of Iraq and the war to remove him was an illegal invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: BobBiggart
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 02:54 PM

Spleen, I see what you're saying, sorry if I came over a bit sharply-and its true there are people like that.

Actually, most people's experience of those who follow Islam would be yours; like most of us- most Muslim's simply want to practice their faith, work, and get on with life. I am married to a Muslim, I live a good part of the year in a moderate Islamic country- and your experience is, by and large, my experience. However, on the other hand, I think I now have an insight into the other side of the coin- fundamentalist Islam. I acknowledge that comes in many shades, but I am worried that in the UK we, and I include moderate British Muslim's- haven't got a handle on how to manage the radical element.
It is not clear as to just how far mainstream Britain is prepared to accommodate/tolerate the elements of this fundamental interpretation of the Koran. It is poorly understood and is a very divisive issue. And if I were to stand up at 'Speaker's Corner' in Hyde Park and say what I am saying here I'd most likely be branded a racist and Islamaphobic- such is the nature of this issue.

Our laws of course provide a backstop to much of it and our social norms provide the rest. My argument is that we should firmly resist, by peaceful and democratic means of course- any move, by any group or religion that would challenge the UK's hard-won secular laws, freedoms and social norms. I am afraid; there are those who are openly and actively working in the name of Islam to do just that. Old Palace School is just the tip of the iceberg.

Hysteria? No not hysteria, but a marked concern. A ways back I gave a link to a British TV channels investigation into the teachings and influence of radical Islam in many mosques in the UK- here it is again. This will give you a snapshot of some of what we are facing in the UK.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e440aa2471

This is a Channel 4 Documentary on the state of affairs in many of Britain's Mosques and gives an insight into the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:18 PM

"But, and it is the big but, it is still an invasion, and because it came too late, after control of Afghanistan had changed to the Taliban, it is unlawful under international law. In that it is like the Iraq invasion - and to be contrasted with Vietnam whre teh US went in (so far as they did) by invitation to support a lawful government, and the first missed opportunity in Iraq when "straight on to Baghdad" would have been a legitimate continuance." – Richard Bridge

1.        "It is still an invasion, and because it came too late, after control of Afghanistan had changed to the Taliban, it is unlawful under international law."

When did this "invasion" take place Richard? What were the units assigned from what countries? I hate to point this out to you but the Taleban never controlled Afghanistan, they controlled quite a lump of it but never all of it.

They fought a "civil war" against a group called the Northern Alliance which was still ongoing in late 2001, and it was that civil war situation that the Americans exploited.

As far as I am aware only three countries in the world recognized the Taleban as representing the government of Afghanistan (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, IIRC). The United Nations most certainly did not recognize the Taleban as the government of Afghanistan, and as no invasion took place it could hardly be illegal.

2.        "In that it is like the Iraq invasion - and to be contrasted with Vietnam where the US went in (so far as they did) by invitation to support a lawful government,"

Nothing remotely "like the Iraq invasion" – Ever heard of the Bonn Agreement Richard?

"In December 2001, a number of prominent Afghans met under UN auspices in Bonn, Germany, to decide on a plan for governing the country; as a result, the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) - made up of 30 members, headed by a chairman - was inaugurated on 22 December 2001 with a six-month mandate to be followed by a two-year Transitional Authority (TA), after which elections are to be held.

One of the sections of the Bonn Agreement envisaged the establishment of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force."

The first formation of troops to be sent to Afghanistan Richard, were Royal Marines of 40 & 45 Commando and SBS – their task to secure Bagram Air Base so that Hamid Karzai could return to the country for the Loya Jirga in 2002. These troops were sent on behalf of the UN and at the invitation of the Afghan leaders. The first US formation of US troops to deploy to Afghanistan was the 10th Mountain Division.

The US supported the Northern Alliance forces in their fight against the Taleban with air power and a few JTAC's – There never were any "invasion" troops.   


3.        "and the first missed opportunity in Iraq when "straight on to Baghdad" would have been a legitimate continuance."

Oh an opportunity was undoubtedly missed towards the end of "Desert Storm" in 1991.

It would not however have been a legitimate continuance as the remit of that particular assembled UN Force was clearly defined – the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

However if you do believe that "straight to Baghdad" was a legitimate continuance you can then have no objection to the US invasion of 2003 as Saddam Hussein and Iraq had failed to comply with the Safwan "cease-fire" Agreement, therefore ANY combatant was at liberty to resume hostilities.

In 1991 when "Stormin' Norman" agreed to the meeting at Safwan, the Saudi's had already told him that the Arab members of the coalition would withdraw from the coalition if any attempt was made to remove Saddam Hussein and topple his regime.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: pdq
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:02 PM

"...after control of Afghanistan had changed to the Taliban, it is unlawful under international law." ~ R. Bridge

By the start of the NATO military action, every nation on planet Earth (save one) had withdrawn recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Pakistan, the next-door neighbor, continued to recognize the Taliban in public, but worked to help remove them in private.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:01 PM

Funny, everyone is loopy about nut allergy, but I have a friend who could be killed by a tomato (not in the tin) and he has huge trouble getting it through the heads of caterers waiters and restaurateurs.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:57 PM

Bob - I'm not really thinking of your posts when I add my two pence worth, so take it easy... I've only skim-read them. However, there are a number of regular posters from the UK on Mudcat who are exactly as I describe. I suspect most of them live in areas of the country with tiny to non-existent Muslim populations. Their understanding of the issue is mediated via the right wing press and they do not have Muslim neighbours, their kids do not have Muslim playmates, and so on. It's precisely because I know a fair few Muslim families that I'm cynical about some of the hysteria about the 'threat' to 'our way of life' I keep hearing about here. It doesn't tally with the real world. Not once has anything any of them done threatened my way of life. And as I'm a left-leaning, anarchist-friendly, secular, humanist, beer drinking irreligionist, I reckon that's doing pretty well.

Meanwhile: "Private company bows to pressure from paying customers." It's not exactly a news story, is it?

At my son's school, the main irritant at the moment is nowt to do with religion but from the anti-nut lobby, believe it or not. Parents and school managers who think that because one or two kids suffer from nut allergies no child in the entire school should ever have any nut products in their packed lunch. There's a sledgehammer cracking a n..... ouch!

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:47 PM

"I wonder if this case is in any way more pleasing to some of those here who are saying that parents have no right to place pressure on schools and interfere in school policy?"

Not to me, Rosie. If Halal meat was a menu choice, and no-one was 'forced' to eat it, I can see no problem with it remaining on the menu, and it should have done. I can understand that some people don't like the practices employed in the slaughter of animals for Halal, but that's a different issue.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:35 PM

Well, Teri, in parts you overstretch your point. But Carol in parts you overstretch yours.

It really cannot be denied that England colonised much of the globe. Even when I was at primary school (in Australia) in the early 50s, much of the globe was still red. The sun never set on the British Empire.

But that is no longer true.

However, we see even on this thread examples of English implying if not stating that English habits are superior in general. Such a belief, I think, can only be justified where some particular welfare policy (say opposition to enforced arranged marriage, opposition to "female circumcision", standards of animal welfare, etc) is concerned. Interestingly a previous post of mine with a section to similar effect has disappeared. I emphasise - "following one's ownnative customs" may legitimatelybe - and is - unlawful in some cases. It depends on which customs, which is why Sharia Law divorces would be inapproriate as depriving those entitled to the protection of the UK courts from that protection.

Conversely, I am in no doubt that the Taleban were enforcing an inhumane and regressive set of habits on Afghanistan (I was much offended by the destruction of the wonderful Buddhist statues), so that the current American-inspired but now very largely British-borne invasion is, in truth, liberating rather than oppressive.

But, and it is the big but, it is still an invasion, and because it came too late, after control of Afghanistan had changed to the Taliban, it is unlawful under international law. In that it is like the Iraq invasion - and to be contrasted with Vietnam whre teh US went in (so far as they did) by invitation to support a lawful government, and the first missed opportunity in Iraq when "straight on to Baghdad" would have been a legitimate continuance.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:33 PM

I guess no-one noticed the link I posted to a story about the same school, which earlier this year, when placed under pressure by *non-Muslim parents*, took Halal meat off of it's school menu.

Halal meat had apparently been on the menu at this school for ten years until that point.

I wonder if this case is in any way more pleasing to some of those here who are saying that parents have no right to place pressure on schools and interfere in school policy?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: BobBiggart
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:23 PM

Mr Cringe,

'anything to take a pop'? I wish the issue could be viewed as so trite that we might think this discussion as something hackneyed and just so much hot air. But that is far from the truth of the matter.

You agree wholehearted with Sandy about the mixing of relgion and education, as I do- but you can't seem to see that this is 'exactly the point'.

A school is being pressured by parents, on religious grounds to remove a young person club (which might be considered part of education) because of a belief system that demands the segregation of the sexes outwith the family. If there is anything worthy of taking a 'pop' at, then I would say this is.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 11:31 AM

OK CarolC let's start with the obvious:

•        The people who currently live in the UK have got absolutely nothing to do with the events of the past that predate their own birth.

•        The people who live in the UK have got every right to expect those coming into "our" country to live in accordance with our laws and accept and abide by our norms of behaviour. They certainly have no right to enter "our" country and demand that we alter our laws and our way of life purely in order to pander to their own beliefs and reinforce their imported intolerance.

•        You obviously need to read and study history, for instance, it will amaze you to find out how few "colonies" per se Britain ever possessed.

•        If you are going to refer to past events in history then put them in context and apply what were the social and political mores of the day when judging them. Stop attributing the morals and practices of today on events of the past.


CarolC you were asked to provide examples where Britain forced its culture down the indigenous peoples' throats (often at the point of a gun). You didn't give us any examples as you were asked to, probably because you are too lazy and decided to let your natural ill-informed bias and misconceptions prevail. What you have given us is a list of regions:

"Parts of North America, Australia, parts of Asia, Africa, Ireland, Newfoundland, numerous smaller islands. The British either subjugated the indigenous people in these places and forced their own culture on those indigenous people, or they just wiped them out."

I will deal with that in a separate post.

You were also asked the following questions with regard to Afghanistan:

In what way is the "government of the UK going into Afghanistan" CarolC?? As far as I am aware NATO forces are present in Afghanistan at the invitiation of the Afghan Government and under the terms of a United Nations Mandate as ISAF. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

In what way are ISAF forces "preventing people from practicing" their religion, culture or customs in Afghanistan??

To which I got by way of explanation:

"The proposition that the UK went into Afghanistan was proposed by someone else in this thread. It was that person's hypocrisy that I was addressing."

That does not however answer the questions posed by me does it? Here is what you originally wrote:

"What is ironic is that people don't see the hypocrisy about the government of the UK going into Afghanistan, where strict Islam is a part of the local culture, and trying to prevent people from practicing it, while at the same time complaining about people coming into their country and practicing a foreign culture. One gets the impression that some people in the UK think they have a right to impose their culture on people in other countries, while not being willing to tolerate other cultures in their midst." – CarolC

And here CarolC are the points that you have made in your post in which you are in error:

•        The Government of the UK has not "gone into Afghanistan". The UN on the other hand has, at the invitation of the Government of Afghanistan.

•        "Strict Islam" is not universally part of the culture of Afghanistan it was only ever "strictly" adhered to in certain tribal districts of Afghanistan based purely on the whim of the tribal leader which tended to vary greatly. It was the Taleban who sought to impose their beliefs and culture on the whole population of Afghanistan. It was they who tried to ram it down the throats of the general population of Afghanistan, killing thousands in the process. That was why in 2001 they were still engaged in an ongoing civil war against the Northern Alliance. Examples; education of female children; music; dress; the statues of Buddha at Bamyan. They had stood there for 1500 years in this supposedly "Strict Islamic" State of yours – Who was it blew them up CarolC? When? And why? That is ramming your culture down people's throats and it wasn't the "big bad West" in the form of NATO/ISAF/US that did it – TRUE??.

•        The Government of the UK, not being in Afghanistan, is not preventing, or attempting to prevent anybody from practicing their religious beliefs, customs or way of life, neither are any member states involved in NATO/ISAF. It is the Taleban who are attempting to do that, as we have seen demonstrated recently in the Swat Valley in Pakistan.

•        No-one in Britain is being prevented from practicing their religion, following their own native customs or using their own native language.

•        Britain, most certainly does not believe that it is politically acceptable to impose their culture on people in other countries. Your impression that people in the UK think they have right to do so is ill-founded in fact and as such cannot be supported.

•        Tolerance of all shades of religious and political belief has been a cornerstone of British democracy for at least the last 200 years and remains so to this day. I will stack Britain's record up against that of any other country on earth.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 11:03 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with Sandy about mixing religion and education. It's just interesting that if the 'culprits' are Muslims, suddenly a bunch of other people who never normally give a fig about equality of opportunity, multiculturalism, secularism and so forth (in fact, the same people who'd usually dismiss it as political-correctness-gone-mad) suddenly crawl out of the woodwork to defend it. Anything to take a pop. I'm a supposedly dogmatic atheist but even I can see what's going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:41 AM

I am strongly against any mixing of religion with education. Religions of all types have a long history of terrible acts and practices which should be placed in the dumpster.
Schools should be all public and a place where children from early age can mix and make friends with ones of other colours, sexes, religions and cultures. There they can grow up knowing and accepting that people who are different from themselves are of a worth equal to their own.
There is much good to be said for religious teaching as well, but parents and sometimes clergy, generation after generation, pass on hatred and bigotry to their children. To allow segregated schools, private or otherwise to exist is a mistake if it helps this dogma survive!

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:16 AM

Hello Backwoodman, thanks, and yes I should, and will.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:02 AM

Bob, your posts are very interesting and well-constructed. Why not become a member (it's free and anonymous) and then you won't have the problem of remembering to put your name on every post! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:57 AM

Mr Cringe

Far as I can see most of 'em are no better or worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other bunch of modern medievalists.

You're right, but, and it's a big but! there is a radical and agressive form of fundamental Islam in Britain which, if not resisted is going to divide our society even more that it is. I really think its worth a bit of everyboys time to examine this issue and decide if we find this acceptable.

and medievalists there are...

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:42 AM

"I am lead to believe that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday ( I don`t know which Wednesday) to get out of Australia...."

'Nup, not so. Australia has it's share of bigots but nothing like this has been said in recent times'

Freda, it is those who would impose their fundamental Islamic and Sharia laws on a liberal and democratic society that are guilty of bigotry. Intolerance, in any form is objectionable; but do we tolerate the intolerant? There is a movement afoot which is pushing fundamental Islamic values which are simply not compatible with our society, our laws and social norms. We really need to ask ourselves, is this acceptable? I don't think it is and I believe, at least in the UK, that we are in for major problems with this if it is not resisted. And by we, I also include moderate Muslims who themselves, would choose a liberal democratic society over Sharia Law. I feel it their voice that is not being heard- it must grow louder.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:34 AM

Bubblyrat, go and lie down. You'll hurt yourself. You wouldn't give a shit what some stuck-up private school was doing to maximise profits if not for the chance to take a pop at Muslims. Far as I can see most of 'em are no better or worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other bunch of modern medievalists.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:24 AM

So how can Muslims legally insist on their daughters not having any contact with,and being actively segregated from,boys ?? Is this not flagrant SEXISM,not to mention discrimination,and therefore ILLEGAL ?? Are Muslims not aware of our country's laws before they come to live here,or are they playing the "Racist" trump-card to force their customs and religious views on us ??The next thing you know,they'll be trying to get alcohol and fish-net stockings banned.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 08:12 AM

Well it's changed since my partner attended the school, at which time it was run by nuns.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM

"As Ebbie and Sinsull said, an all girls school should be an all girls school"

And so it is Freda, no boys in class. Except those attending an indendently-run and funded club taking place out of school hours. The parents who are complaining would be completely within their rights if boys were introduced to classes/activities during the hours of normal school operation. Out of hours, it's none of their business, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:36 AM

"I am lead to believe that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday ( I don`t know which Wednesday) to get out of Australia...."

Nup, not so. Australia has it's share of bigots but nothing like this has been said in recent times.

As Ebbie and Sinsull said, an all girls school should be an all girls school.

The war in Afghanistan is just as horrible as any war, but..
The Taliban are not a pretty bunch, and were committing genocide against the Hazara minority, prior to the intervention by western forces. The Taliban were funded, trained and groomed in Pakistan and imposed a far more violent and intolerant version of Islam than that practised previously in Afghanistan. Hazaras who were lucky enough to escape were asking whoever could listen for a UN intervention there, to save their families, their homes and their future.

I don't accept that the way forward is to liaise with the "moderate" Taliban, there aren't any.   But, I also don't have a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST, Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:09 AM

Hi Joe

I've just seen your note regarding using a name- sorry accidentally missed it out on those other posts, got the hang of this forum software now.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:33 AM

Mr Cringe, yes I also went to a school where boys and girls we seperated into sexes class- but we were not segregated. At every step of the way- girls and boys were considered equals. We shared the same playground, went to school dances, swimming classes- and in my last years at school we had girls in our classes. That is NOT part of fundamental Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:26 AM

3. The political-correctness-gone-mad brigade digging up yet another excuse to have a pop at Muslims, people who should 'follow our rules' if they 'come over here' (which presumably includes voting Tory, saying your prayers, not rocking the boat, keeping your nose clean, being a good citizen - just like the rest of us, I don't think!)

Mr Cringe, I don't think my comments, as I think you are refering to, would be considered PC in anyones book, exact oppostite. And as for having a pop at Muslims; no- just calling it as I see it.

We could go around in circles forever about each nation and group's hypocracies. In this case, you need only ask yourself what sort of society you want to live in and make your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:15 AM

I went to a single sex state school. Not a Muslim in sight. Bet the people railing against 'Islamic doctrine' here would also like to bring back grammar schools, wouldn't they? Okay when 'we' are doing it, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 06:11 AM

Lox- Do a simple search online and you find this story has been covered by, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Guardian, the Croydon News and many other websites; it is being discussed on many other fora such as this. As well as the here on Jihadwatch a US based website run by Robert Spencer http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025125.php

Joe- my point and concern, is that this issue at Old Palace is symptomatic of a serious and ever growing problem that the UK is facing; that is the concerted effort by some, and I stress some- fundamental and radical Muslims to demand that we accommodate their religious beliefs, which in most cases are simply at odd with British society and our norms. They are fostering a radical and hateful version of Islam and the problem needs tackled at every level in Britain- and this, seemingly minor issue at Old palace, is part of the problem and must be challenged. Spend a few minutes and look over this link and you hear them in their own words, you'll see what I mean;

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e440aa2471    A C4 Documentary on the state of affairs in a large number of British Mosques gives an insight into the problem.

I am not Islamaphobic (see my earlier post)- but I am waiting for someone here to label me as such. Look, we need to wake up to this threat; we need to take a firm stance against those that would demand we accept ways that are foreign and incompatible with British values, laws and our way of life.

There is no place in Britain for the 'segregation' of the sexes based on Islamic or any other doctrine for that matter doctrine. It is wrong to foster a culture where women are subjugated. This issue at Old Palace is indeed part of the wider Islamist agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 05:42 AM

1. The religiously-minded believing they have they right to foist their views on others.

2. The (relatively) wealthy assuming they have the right to get their own way because they have the money to do so.

Middle class white Christians have been doing both the above for centuries. No-one bats an eyelid.

3. The political-correctness-gone-mad brigade digging up yet another excuse to have a pop at Muslims, people who should 'follow our rules' if they 'come over here' (which presumably includes voting Tory, saying your prayers, not rocking the boat, keeping your nose clean, being a good citizen - just like the rest of us, I don't think!)

All three groups leave me wondering what we've come to, but at least the first two aren't hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 04:43 AM

For posters who believe that parents have *no right* to interfere in the running of the school which they send their children to, I thought that this was an interesting and extrememly similar story from the very same school, where complaining parents got their way again..

Parents Complaining and Successfully Changing School Policy

I wonder whether these parents who objected to a *Ten Year Long* standing policy at this School, should have simply shut up, withdrawn their children and sent them elsewhere?
Is this case in any way different?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:32 AM

"It seems to me that if private all-girls' schools are legal, then the parents who pay to send their daughters to the school, ought to get a school with only girls in it. Their reason for the request is immaterial." - Joe Offer

Private education is perfectly legal in the UK, some say it relieves the some of the burden of the state to provide education to all, it is a matter of choice and wealth. Single sex education is also perfectly legal and according to results a great deal more effective academically than co-ed schools. The parents select the school of their choice for various reasons and in doing so accept the charter and rules of the establishment they are entrusting their children's education to - the parents are paying for the education of their children, nothing more, and have no say whatsoever in the running, or business of that school. It is simply a case of the children having joined that school, the parents have not bought any share or part of that school.

In this particular case the parents have elected to sent their daughters to an all girls school and that is where their daughters go. There are no boys in the school apart from in the nursery pre-school section (3 months to 4 years). How the school markets and utilises its facilities outside of school hours has got nothing whatsoever to do with the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:16 AM

So, Bob, if those parents used other grounds for complaining about boys being in their daughters' all-girls' school, that would have been OK?

What if they were zealous feminists, and wanted their daughters raised with feminist ideals and without the nuisance of boys hitting on them, would that have been OK?

It seems to me that if private all-girls' schools are legal, then the parents who pay to send their daughters to the school, ought to get a school with only girls in it. Their reason for the request is immaterial.

-Joe-

---

Click here for other articles and Web pages on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:24 PM

The school's founding funders were overtly Christian, and one block in its mission statement claims "developing, throughout the community, supportive and constructive relationships based on mutual respect and understanding, upholding the values and Christian ideals of our Founders."

It doesn't seem to be strongly affiliated with any religious organization on the surface of things - i.e from a glance at the web page. But note: The Muslim parents who send their children can hardly be Islamist zealots, can they?

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM

I have little use for religious schools or private schools. I believe in public education, period. However, that said, if it was an all girls school, then I expect the parents have a say in this. THAT said, I wonder if any of those girls take the subways or busses with boys? If so, wtf is THAT all about, ya know? And THAT SAID, I don't give a rat's ass about their religion. Islam has proven it is no better than any other religion that takes the words of its prophets/gods out of context. Bastards all who do that.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:30 PM

"as reported in many newpapers and online"

links/sources please.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM

"I do think the use of the term "Muslim" in the thread title, puts an unnecessary "spin" on the story

No, that IS the very point of this story as reported in many newpapers and online; that Muslim parents objected to Old Palace School, on the grounds of their faith- that their daughters cannot come in contact with the boys, who were at the Shirley Gymnastics Club in the schools facilites.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Rasener
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM

>>I live much of the year in a moderate Islamic country; I am married to Muslim lass who shares my views. Every morning I see little Muslim boys and girls going hand in hand to school, where they study just as children in Britain study. Women drive cars and work as they please and I can get a beer in the local pub with my local friends. That's the sort of Islam which I do think is compatible with our western values.
<<

That to me is very acceptable. I have no issue with Muslims in that situation. We all need to live in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: PoppaGator
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:46 PM

Joe's mention of his locker-room experience made me think of one aspect of this controversy that no one has mentioned:

If the school in question is, and always has been, and all-girls institution, does the buiding include separate locker rooms, showers, etc., for both sexes?

Probably not. That small handful of boys participating in the after-school gymnasitics program have probably been changing clothes in the loo and going home dirty and sweaty, without being able to shower.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:40 PM

Joe said,

"I do think the use of the term "Muslim" in the thread title, puts an unnecessary "spin" on the story. What if you titled it: "Gym in Private Girls' School Closed to Boys"? In many places in the world, that wouldn't even be news. People would yawn and say, "So what?" or "Well, DUH!""

And hit the nail squarely on the head.

When you add to joes point the fact that ithis information comes fromt the express it just makes you think " ... hmmm ... cup of tea would be nice ..."

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:16 PM

He was just an inexperienced driver. (Dave the gnome)

If the colour of skin of that person is irrelevant (a thought I agree with) why do you mention their sex?

Perhaps because young male drivers cause many more guilty accidents than their proportion in the population. "Inexperienced" is a bad replacement for "young", for drivers who get the license at a later age are NOT involved in accidents more than other males in their age group despite being inexperienced in the first few years.

If any group is involved in an activity (good or bad) considerably more or less than their percentage in the population that is relevant news.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM

The warlords that the Western countries have been using as proxies are no less strict in their practice of Islam than the Taliban. There's really not much difference. And obviously, not all Afghans want the help of Western countries. If they did, the Western countries wouldn't be meeting with so much resistance.

The reason there is so much resistance, both in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, is because a large number of the people of those countries do not want Western culture (which they consider to be immoral) to be forced on them and their children, and from their perspective, the Western countries are trying to force Western culture down the throats of the people in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:34 PM

CarolC

The Afghan people want our help- most don't want a return to Taliban fundamentalist Islam. Further, there is a distinct difference between moderate Islam and extreme interpretations of Islamic values and Sharia law. The NATO forces in Afghanistan are not trying to impose anything on the Afghans, save peace- and least of all our Judeao-Christian religion and values.

But back to the issue. Look, if I went to Saudi Arabia (as I have) do you think I would have the freedom to challenge their social Wahhabi Islamic based norms- I can tell you absolutely not, I wouldn't last five minutes. So when I am there, I live in an isolated compound, behind brick walls and keep myself to myself. And although I cannot subscribe to their way of life and social norms, we get on famously. We have had Muslim's living harmoniously in Britain for a very long time, most follow a moderate version of Islam and integrate well into our society and I count many of them as my friends. However, what we are seeing in recent years is a concerted effort, by some- to push the boundaries of our society and introduce fundamental Islam and Sharia laws into mainstream British culture. This is socially divisive as these fundamental Islamic values are simply incompatible with our culture and way of life- or if you like, the things that make Britain British. But don't take my word for it- do some research for yourself.

Should we, for example - accept that it is OK for girls and boys to be denied an education that includes art, music, drama, swimming, mixed sports? Well if the Muslim's who follow their religion according to a strict interpretation of the Koran have their way- then that's the way it would be. Should we tolerate that sort of thinking in our nation? I say no, we shouldn't. My issue is with values which are not compatible with mainstream Britain society; we are not a multi-cultural nation, despite what many would have you believe. Multi-culturalism hasn't worked- if it had we wouldn't be having this debate now would we.

But back to the original topic; if the press reports I am reading regarding Old Palace School are accurate; then these Muslim parents, who have kicked off this fuss about boys- of all things, being in proximity to their daughters; are pushing for a British school to adopt a fundamental principle of Islamic culture, i.e. the segregation of the sexes outside of the family. That, in a British public or private girl's school for that matter, is not acceptable and I am shocked that a school such as the Old Palace as part of the Whitgift Foundation has capitulated to this pressure.

I live much of the year in a moderate Islamic country; I am married to Muslim lass who shares my views. Every morning I see little Muslim boys and girls going hand in hand to school, where they study just as children in Britain study. Women drive cars and work as they please and I can get a beer in the local pub with my local friends. That's the sort of Islam which I do think is compatible with our western values.

---

Hi, Bob - please remember to use a consistent name when you post. We had to delete a couple of messages where you didn't include your name.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:31 PM

One for instance of British culture that was forced on indigenous people would be the concept of land ownership. This concept was entirely foreign to the Indigenous North Americans. But when the British started colonizing North America, they established this concept, and they enforced it with weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:22 PM

Parts of North America, Australia, parts of Asia, Africa, Ireland, Newfoundland, numerous smaller islands. The British either subjugated the indigenous people in these places and forced their own culture on those indigenous people, or they just wiped them out.

The proposition that the UK went into Afghanistan was proposed by someone else in this thread. It was that person's hypocrisy that I was addressing.