|
07 Mar 09 - 04:41 PM (#2583476) Subject: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener Unbeleivable A GYM club is being forced to close at a girls' school after Muslim parents objected to their daughters coming into contact with boys. The thriving Shirley Gymnastics Club, which has 250 members of both sexes, has been using the school hall five evenings a week for the past 14 months. But now the independent all-girls Old Palace School in Croydon, south London, has asked the gym to find new premises following complaints from parents. "It's unbelievable, " said club chairman Colin Perry. "There is a group of Muslim parents with children at the school and they are the ones putting pressure on the head. It makes me sad to say that." Mr Perry has been "working non-stop" to find a new venue since December, when head Judy Harris first told him of the objections. Now the club, which has just 36 boys among its members, has been ordered to stop using the school hall by April 3. Mr Perry said: "Some of the parents have said their children go to an independent girls' school and unfortunately they're concerned because we have got boys in the club. Mrs Harris said the school has got far more Muslim children than last year, so effectively we have to interpret that in our own way." In a bid to find a compromise, the school suggested the gym club start at 6.30pm, rather than 5pm, by which time school pupils would have left the site. But Mr Perry said this was unworkable as it would mean some sessions not ending until 9.30pm, too late for many of the club's members, some as young as five. Headteacher Mrs Harris released a statement but refused to give any further details about parents' objections. She said: "We were unable to accommodate the early starting time of the club as the school was still functioning. We had hoped that the club could be held at a later time but this was thought unworkable by the organisers." Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "It seems extreme to force out a club that appears to be doing tremendous good work for children and the community. It's very difficult to see any great grounds for ruining opportunities for children." |
|
07 Mar 09 - 06:17 PM (#2583542) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Bonzo3legs Tell them to get stuffed. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 06:29 PM (#2583551) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: SINSULL Parents who have taken care to send their daughters to an all girl school for both religious and cultural reasons have a right, in fact an obligation, to object to opening the school to boys. My 2 cents. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 06:30 PM (#2583552) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Jean(eanjay) For future parents the school should put something in its prospectus that tells them that the school hall will be used for clubs after school for both sexes and if they find that a problem then they should choose a different school for their children. For present parents the school should send out a letter saying that starting with the new school year in September the school hall will be used for clubs after school for both sexes and if they find that a problem then they have time to find a different school for their children. If the school numbers go down as a result of this then the government should step in and provide the money for the school to continue for x years until the school has chance to attract parents who will understand that it is important for school halls, gyms etc. to be used after school hours and that it is important for children to be following healthy and harmless leisure activities. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 06:32 PM (#2583553) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sleepy Rosie So, the school has bowed to the claim of the money put in its pockets from paying parents objections? The case sounds like an indictment of the private school system, which strumpets itself out to the wallet of the paying customer, rather than being concerned with the broader interests of the community (or indeed children) at large? |
|
07 Mar 09 - 07:14 PM (#2583575) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Jack Campin Source for this story? Somehow I suspect a rather drastic piece of spindoctoring by the Daily Mail or Daily Express. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 07:23 PM (#2583580) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Victor in Mapperton I can't believe this, but the story appears to be true. This country is paying the price for it's open door policy. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 07:36 PM (#2583588) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener >>Somehow I suspect a rather drastic piece of spindoctoring by the Daily Mail or Daily Express. << Daily Express - Jack I am totally against any religion telling a school what to do. If thses people don't like it, then they should go elsewhere. We are sitting back and watching these sort of things happening. We must be plain stupid. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 07:54 PM (#2583597) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Victor in Mapperton I visited a lot of countries over the years and always respected their traditions. It is what you do. If anyone wants to settle in Britain please do, but please respect our country and our traditions. Don't come in and tell us what to do. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 08:09 PM (#2583601) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sleepy Rosie Our 'tradition' in this instance is *Capitalist*, these people are *buying* a service are they not? Isn't that what our modern 'buy and get what you want' capitalist 'tradition' provides without question, or even regard for our entire society and culture (even the wellbeing of our entire planet!), to those who pay for it? Witness not merely this utterly trivial example, but the much gteater one visited upon us by Capitalism, currently panning out in the direst forms, in the entire UK and Western world as a whole... Rampant unashamed greedy capitalism, is IMO at the root of a whole plethora of cultural ills which are currently being placed at the doors of immigrants: 'Scapegoats R Us.' |
|
07 Mar 09 - 08:47 PM (#2583617) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Jack Campin Both sides here are buying a service (assuming the Express article has any truth in it at all, which is very risky assumption). Private school vs. private gym club for pushy parents who want to force their 5-year-old kids to do more gymnastics than the local authority is willing to pay for. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 09:14 PM (#2583628) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: nager I attended co-ed schools and colleges in my youth and to me being segregated is not the way to do things. However I tend to agree with what Sinsull said earlier in this thread. Like it or not, that's what these parents paid for and expect to get. The gym sessions should have been explained to them though before they paid their money. Couldn't they find somewhere for the little boys to do gym at 5pm and then, as the school has offered, let the others use the school gym after 6.30pm. |
|
07 Mar 09 - 09:59 PM (#2583644) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Ebbie If I understand correctly, this is a private (private in the US sense, meaning, not with federal funds) school that bills itself as "all girl". Why did the school violate its charter? There are a number of schools and classes in the US that in recent years have gone to one-sex presentations on the basis of getting better results from both sexes. A good case, they claim, can be made that everybody should go back to that. As for this 'all-girls' school, it says that it has 250 members of which only 36 are boys. Why are the boys there? Just for the revenue? A large price to pay for false advertising. If, for whatever reason, I felt it necessary for my daughter's well being to send her to a single-sex school and I was paying for that service I would be seriously miffed if I found that they were slippig others in. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 03:08 AM (#2583687) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Backwoodsman "private gym club for pushy parents who want to force their 5-year-old kids to do more gymnastics than the local authority is willing to pay for." So you'd rather they let their kids stay at home sitting on their arses in front of the TV or computer, getting fat and bone-idle, and setting out on a life-course towards diabetes, heart-disease and an early death? Why should the willingness, or otherwise, of the LA to pay for childrens' activities be the limiter of what the children do? Would you be happy to let your kid lead an unhealthy lifestyle simply because the LA wouldn't stump up the cash for them to have somewhere to take their chosen form of exercise? I wouldn't, and I didn't. When my kids were young I paid for them to attend a privately-run swimming club at our LA Swimming Pool, because the LA didn't fund swimming clubs. As a result they became excellent swimmers, swam competitively at many galas in our region, got fit, learned lifesaving, and they still have a healthy physical activity they can enjoy for the whole of their lives. But I suppose that makes me a pushy parent? |
|
08 Mar 09 - 03:29 AM (#2583694) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge In general the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not apply to single sex schools. The discrimination by the school against the few boys in th gymn club (which is separate from the school) prima facie to be lawful. It is, it seems, on purely economic grounds. Interesting, in a sort of way, that most UK single sex private schools ("public schools" in UK speak) were established by or for one religions, over time came to contain a larger proportion than the population as a whole of another religion, and now, it seems, contain a larger proportion than the population as a whole of a third. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 03:43 AM (#2583698) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Liz the Squeak There's a fine line between 'pushy parent' and 'concerned for health parent' that can easy stray over into 'paranoid basket-case parent'. I have never believed that single sex education is a good thing - I'm the product of one such school that banned us from sitting within 6ft of the fence to stop pupils talking to and kissing boys through the fence, a rule that was enforced more rigourously than the ones designed for our safety. I can see though, that many people, not just Muslims, prefer to keep their daughters away from contact with boys, particularly in a situation like a sports club, where clothing is, perforce, minimal. When we have headlines like '15yr old mum, 13yr old dad', I can appreciate that many parents want to keep their daughters as safe and healthy as possible and the way they think this will happen is to keep them apart from half the human race. This whole situation needs to be treated with respect and fairness, not going off at half cock and mouthing off about local funding, financial avarice or 'our country, our rules'. LTS |
|
08 Mar 09 - 05:04 AM (#2583716) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "If I understand correctly, this is a private (private in the US sense, meaning, not with federal funds) school that bills itself as "all girl". Why did the school violate its charter?" "As for this 'all-girls' school, it says that it has 250 members of which only 36 are boys. Why are the boys there? Just for the revenue? A large price to pay for false advertising." Two statements by Ebbie, who clearly has the wrong end of the stick. If she were to read the opening post to this thread she would have picked up on the fact that it is: "The thriving Shirley Gymnastics Club, which has 250 members of both sexes, has been using the school hall five evenings a week for the past 14 months." So no charter has been "violated". There has been no "false advertising". What the school quite rightly is doing is to make most use of its facilities. Answer here though seems simple. You have a group of parents who object to this club using the schools facilities and want it closed. The Club no doubt pays the school for the use of its facilities. You therefore have a number of parents dictating what the school can and cannot do. You have a clear loss of income. As Head of Governors I would invite those parents to stump up if you want to cost the school revenue and give the Gymnastics Club a reasonable interval to find new premises. It would be interesting to know how many of the Gymnastics club members are also children who attend the school. I would imagine that there are a few and the 36 boys, particularly the younger ones are probably the little brothers of the girl pupils. Stopping the activities of the Club at the school will no doubt increase the logistical problems of those who wish to attend and those of the parents who wish to attend. When my children were attending school their various clubs, etc sometimes meant that either my wife or I drove 140 miles a day delivering them and picking them up. Had those clubs been dictated to in the way that it would appear this one has then my children would have followed half the sporting interests that they did. Actual best way forward is that the parents are told in no uncertain terms that they do not run the school and that if they don't like it they can withdraw their children from the school and send them elsewhere where the cultural and religious constraints of the parents can be pandered to. The state of education in the UK is such that a "good" school is quite a rarity and if you've found one you cling onto it for the sake of your children. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 05:09 AM (#2583718) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener We are poor, but we paid for gymnastic lessons and swimming lessons for our oldest daugher. It stretched our budget, but we felt it was good for her. It was a mixed class on both occasions. Never had any issues. Again, although we can't really afford it, we pay for both our daughters to have professional trampoling lessons every week and is mixed. They love it and really look forward to it each week. All of the above have helped to look after their health. It also teaches them respect and discipline. I agree with BWM, they are at least not sitting on the settee, slumming it. And yes, I still disagree totally with their decision. >>I visited a lot of countries over the years and always respected their traditions. It is what you do. If anyone wants to settle in Britain please do, but please respect our country and our traditions. Don't come in and tell us what to do. << Well said Victor in Mapperton. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 05:11 AM (#2583720) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener Well said Teribus |
|
08 Mar 09 - 05:16 AM (#2583721) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Backwoodsman Ebbie, if I've got it right, there are no boys attending the school, only girls. The complainers are parents of girls who are students at the school, and they are complaining about boys attending a gymnastics club which is privately-run, and which hires the school hall out of school hours. It's yet another case of the tail trying to wag the dog and, as usual, they'll get their way because the authorities are so short in the testicles department they won't stand up to the troublemakers. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 07:16 AM (#2583765) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Jean(eanjay) Attending an all-girls school means being educated with girls, it does not mean zero contact with boys. It would be wrong to suggest that a 16 year old boy who has left school should be excluded from working in the grounds of the school just in case he has some very limited contact with the pupils. There was a problem last year at the same school over Halal food. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 07:56 AM (#2583784) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: VirginiaTam Extended Schools and the Every Child Matters initiative is a central government creation. The core offer includes: . A varied range of activities including study support, sport and music clubs, combined with childcare in primary schools . Parenting and family support . Swift and easy access to targeted and specialist services . Community access to facilities including adult and family learning, ICT and sports grounds Schools will need to work closely with parents, children and others to shape these activities around the needs of their community and may choose to provide extra services in response to demand. This however does not strictly apply to independent (private) schools. They can simply offer other after school activities which will placate the complaining parents and satisfy the Ofsted requirements. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 08:04 AM (#2583788) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: 3refs My country is quite young(142 years old),considering that some others have been around for many centuries with some others being called the cradle of civilization. I enjoy other cultures and diversity, but I prefer to live in and promote what's considered the free and open society that my predecessors fought and died for and I don't pretend for one second that we are perfect!. I can understand that a person might feel their individual rights are being stomped on and to you I say "I'm sorry! I'm quite sure that the mode of transportation that brought you here has improved somewhat and your trip back will likely be more comfortable! CANADA PENSION - A Must Read. Only in Canada . Do not apply for your old age pension... Apply to be a refugee. It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2, 470.00. This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. Furthermore if you had the wisdom to have a RRSP and made other income generating investments you may have earned the right to receive nothing from the Federal Government as they claw your Old Age Pension back because in their opinion you do not need it!!!!! Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees! So, let's get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to the Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 08:47 AM (#2583803) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: McGrath of Harlow There seems to be a spin put on this by the Daily Express (surprise, surprise...)to make it appearis that this is purely and simply a matter of Muslim parents. I suspect that some of those preferring to keep boys out of the school, even for out of hours activities, might well not in fact be Muslims. Without knowing a lot more about it than we do it's wrong to jump to the assumption that all those "complaints from parents" were necessarily unreasonable. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM (#2583806) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie Old Palace School. Intersting in the light iof the accent upon Muslim parents in the news article, that this school has a Christian foundation! |
|
08 Mar 09 - 09:32 AM (#2583829) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge Ah! Whitgift! It has always pretended to be Dulwich, but never succeeded. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 09:35 AM (#2583831) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus The religion of the parents is irrelevant, parents of children attending a school do not run the school and have got no business telling a school what it can or cannot do. If they do not like what is going on, then their course of action is quite clear, withdraw their children from the school and enroll them elsewhere. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 09:58 AM (#2583838) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: artbrooks The school's "authorities", by asking the gym club to find someplace else to practice, are clearly making a choice between their students' parents' concerns and complaints and those of the gym club. Both, presumably, pay for the privilege of being there. The schools' educational mission has, one assumes, been on-going for many years, while the gym club has been there for slightly over a year. Why should the needs of an after-hours club trump those of the school's students? |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:03 AM (#2583840) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sleepy Rosie Any parent has the *right* to complain to a school when they object to anything the school is doing. In fact any paying customer, has the right to complain about a service that they are paying for. The school also has the *right* to ignore them if it CHOOSES to (so long as it is not breaking any legally binding agreement.) In this instance the school obviously CHOSE out of financial self-interest, to retain the paying custom of these parents... I guess like most private services, the school wishes to provide a service that will satisfy it's customers, and not have them taking their custom and coin, elsewhere. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:18 AM (#2583843) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie Just to clarify one thing, the Muslim pupils are there because it's a girls only school, not because it's a Muslim school. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:26 AM (#2583847) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Joe Offer Teribus says:
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!" -Joe- |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:39 AM (#2583853) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: SINSULL "parents of children attending a school do not run the school and have got no business telling a school what it can or cannot do." Parents have a moral obligation to speak up if their child's school is endangering their physical or moral welfare. This is true whether the school is public or private. Recently, a young girl committed suicide when the abusive teasing and bullying over pictures her mean-spirited ex-boyfriend circulated at school. The mother tried to get the school to intervene. They offered minimal efforts.The attacks were both verbal and physical. I would have been there with a lawyer and sorted out the little shits really quickly. I hope the school is sued and the adults who refused to take charge are held personally responsible. If our children, by law, have to attend school then parent have a right and obligation to ensure that the school is safe according to their beliefs and standards. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:51 AM (#2583859) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge Well, no, not necessarily "according to their beliefs and standards". Parents might sincerely believe that their child was a vampire and that unless it was allowed to eat human flesh at school it would die. In this case parents, apparently believing the dictates of their religion, seem to object to their daughters being able to meet boys at all. I have some worry whether that is objectively in the best interests of their daughters. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 11:35 AM (#2583878) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,patty o'dawes I know this school very well. It is hugely over subscribed and the few parents making the complaint are imo exploiting this fact, to use strong arm tactics to show their might. Boys attending an after school club have NO effect on their daughters education. If their presence has an adverse effect on their daughters moral being, then the problem lies with the family. Ridiculous situation brought upon by knee jerk parents, who believe money triumphs over commonsense. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 11:35 AM (#2583879) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie Whole new can of worms, |
|
08 Mar 09 - 12:06 PM (#2583895) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,John from Kemsing If this had happened in Australia there may have been uproar. 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....
I would be interested to know if "Aussie" catters recognise orn have heard above? |
|
08 Mar 09 - 12:17 PM (#2583901) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Ebbie snip "The thriving Shirley Gymnastics Club, which has 250 members of both sexes, has been using the school hall five evenings a week for the past 14 months." snip "Now the club, which has just 36 boys among its members, has been ordered to stop using the school hall by April 3. " Now, which end of the stick was that again? I'm waiting. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 12:19 PM (#2583903) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie This alleged speech, has been circulating on the seamier side of the internet for some time, and it's typical BNP type fodder. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 12:27 PM (#2583910) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge "Most Australians believe in God"? Really? How quaint. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 12:59 PM (#2583926) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "As for this 'all-girls' school, it says that it has 250 members of which only 36 are boys. Why are the boys there? Just for the revenue? A large price to pay for false advertising." - Ebbie The Girls school does not have 250 members of which 36 are boys, the Girls School Ebbie will have a damn sight more than 250 PUPILS and according to their web-site only amongst those enrolled in the nursery play-school will you find any boys. As to how the school is run, I would doubt very much it would be over-subscribed if the school was endangering the physical or moral welfare of anybody. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 01:46 PM (#2583949) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Jean(eanjay) If the school is over-subscribed then they can afford to lose people who are not happy with the way it is run. One of my pevious headteachers had removed a girl from lessons because she would not wear the correct uniform. She said that her mother said that she could go to school wearing the clothes she was in. The headteacher said "WE make the rules here" - end of matter. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 02:55 PM (#2583987) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,patty o'dawes "If the school is over-subscribed then they can afford to lose people who are not happy with the way it is run." Yes, so it would seem, however in these credit crunch times public education is believed to be in for a shake up, in so much as the affluent parents will not be quite so affluent. The school will not wish to do anything to harm it's present and future revenue. Letting parents believe they have the power to influence policy will do the school no harm financially. Ironically the only harm could be to the girls themselves - who are being disproportionately protected form a non existent threat. Money talks. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 03:28 PM (#2584016) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge This is NOT public education. It is private education. Therefore money talks. It may not best serve the isolated pupils, but money talks. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 04:12 PM (#2584054) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,patty o'dawes apologies - of course I meant private. |
|
08 Mar 09 - 07:03 PM (#2584189) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Dave the Gnome This is about some people who believe that their children are best served by keeping them from real life and paying for the right to do so. Why even mention that they are Moslems? A young man ran drove his car into the back of mine when I was on Sainsbury's car park the other day. It is neither use nor ornament to mention that he was black. He was just an inexperienced driver. If I said that a an inexperienced driver ran into me it would not make the news. Yet people are happy to read that young drivers cause accidents or that a black man caused some distress at a supermarket. Sorry but this type of biased tripe is why I stopped buying newspapers. DeG |
|
08 Mar 09 - 07:52 PM (#2584221) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener Nero fiddled whilst Rome burnt DeG |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:10 PM (#2584290) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC People in the UK who complain about other cultures contaminating the indigenous culture in the UK are ignoring Britain's long history of going into other peoples' lands and forcing the British culture down the indigenous peoples' throats (often at the point of a gun). |
|
08 Mar 09 - 10:21 PM (#2584298) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Joe Offer I went to an all-boys Catholic high school - a seminary, in fact. We let nuns from a neighboring convent use our swimming pool. One time, I walked in on a bunch of nuns in the locker room. I left in a hurry, before anybody saw me and before I saw anything I wasn't supposed to see. I was embarrassed, but I survived. I dunno. Don't you people in the UK have one-gender schools and one-gender locker rooms, or is that considered unwholesome? -Joe- |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:05 AM (#2584383) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: 3refs I have a tendency to look at the big picture, and even if I haven't got a freakin clue, I'll voice my opinion, if asked! I learned through the "school of hard knocks" that "It is better to remain silent and thought the fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! I also know that if you keep your mouth shut, you'll never be heard! If you don't ask, you might never know! Why is it that we all must live together? |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:18 AM (#2584385) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: 3refs I took a real beating tonight refereeing a hockey game in Barrie. I had my feet taken out from behind me and(as I was told by the observers)it looked like I laid out the biggest Randy "Macho Man" Savage elbow you ever saw! The meds are working fine.......just fine! That's why I'm asking (previous post) if I don't like that, what can I do? Hypothetically speaking, if I want to live where hockey fans live and I find that place, what can I do if a non-hockey-fan moves in and finds my likings offensive? Trying not to offend anyone!!! |
|
09 Mar 09 - 02:10 AM (#2584398) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: meself Nothing. You learn to live with each other. (The wives inviting each other over for tea is a good way to start). |
|
09 Mar 09 - 05:14 AM (#2584436) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Dave the Gnome Nero fiddled whilst Rome burnt DeG What on earth is that supposed to mean? Anyone can quote meaningless platitudes. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. See, even I can quote bollocks when I like:-) The question I aksed, still unanswered, is why even mention that they are Moslems? DeG |
|
09 Mar 09 - 05:28 AM (#2584448) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener Well I didn't, the newspaper did. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 05:44 AM (#2584454) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie I think the story would still have some news interest, even were the added element of Muslims not involved. Imagine it as an all girls school, [which it is]. Who rents out part of it's facilties to a gymnastic club [which it does]. The girl's mothers object to the fact that there are males present in an all female environment at a time which means their girls MAY come in contact with said boys, [which they did] There you have it, insularity, unreality, and intolerence. That's the way of the world. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 06:12 AM (#2584472) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob Isn't it supremely ironic that we have our British troops fighting in Afghanistan against an enemy that would and has, introduced fundamental Islam and Sharia law on its nation- Yet, here in south London we see a Christain based school capitulate in the face of- yes you guessed it... fundamental Islam! The Governor's of Old Palace and the Whitgift Foundation need to overturn this decsion, find a new head and re-establish the principles upon which this school was founded. It is for those who choose to follow fundamental Islam to adapt to British social norms and values, not the other way around. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 07:10 AM (#2584516) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 07:20 AM (#2584520) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie Carol, at the risk of being boring. The British AND American troops in Afghanistan are NOT preventing the indigenous people from practicing their religion. They are helping the country to resist the malign influences of the Taleban, who under the guise of religion, have killed artistic expression, stopped the education of women, and increased the production and sale of opium, in order to fund this zealotry. I don't know what's hypocritical about that. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 08:02 AM (#2584546) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC It was suggested by another poster in this thread that the UK government is fighting people who have "imposed" strict Islam on the people of their country. The attitude that it's ok for the UK government to do that, but that it's not ok for people to practice their own culture in the UK is what is hypocritical. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:04 PM (#2584773) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "People in the UK who complain about other cultures contaminating the indigenous culture in the UK are ignoring Britain's long history of going into other peoples' lands and forcing the British culture down the indigenous peoples' throats (often at the point of a gun)." - CarolC Care to name them CarolC, or is this just a bit of good ol' American invention?? Give you a hint - while the British had Hawaii there was no "assault" on the local culture, customs or language. The US took over and damn near wiped the lot out to such an extent that a concerted effort was required to revive all three. The British held onto Fiji and no such effort had to be made because we tended not to ram our culture down peoples throats. "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 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?? In what way are people in the UK averse to people coming to our country and practicing their own cultures and religions?? We do quite rightly object if we welcome people to our shores and then have those people come into our country and attempt to enforce changes on us in order that they can practice their own cultures and religions. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM (#2584780) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener >>We do quite rightly object if we welcome people to our shores and then have those people come into our country and attempt to enforce changes on us in order that they can practice their own cultures and religions. << Hear hear. Support this 100% |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:11 PM (#2584784) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: goatfell when you're in Britian follow our rules and laws as everyone else has to do I would do the same in a muslim country I would follow their rules and laws when in Rome... |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:22 PM (#2584800) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:31 PM (#2584803) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:34 PM (#2584807) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob 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.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
09 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM (#2584817) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: CarolC 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 02:16 PM (#2584838) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
09 Mar 09 - 02:40 PM (#2584853) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,lox 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 ..." |
|
09 Mar 09 - 02:46 PM (#2584856) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: PoppaGator 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM (#2584860) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Rasener >>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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM (#2584925) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob "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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 06:30 PM (#2585091) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,lox "as reported in many newpapers and online" links/sources please. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM (#2585115) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Peace 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. |
|
09 Mar 09 - 07:24 PM (#2585149) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,heric 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? |
|
10 Mar 09 - 01:16 AM (#2585304) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Joe Offer 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 01:32 AM (#2585310) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 04:43 AM (#2585353) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sleepy Rosie 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? |
|
10 Mar 09 - 05:42 AM (#2585382) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Spleen Cringe 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 06:11 AM (#2585396) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 06:15 AM (#2585399) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Spleen Cringe 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? |
|
10 Mar 09 - 06:26 AM (#2585404) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 06:33 AM (#2585409) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 07:09 AM (#2585436) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST, Bob 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 |
|
10 Mar 09 - 07:36 AM (#2585452) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: freda underhill "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM (#2585463) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Backwoodsman "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 08:12 AM (#2585479) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: John MacKenzie Well it's changed since my partner attended the school, at which time it was run by nuns. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 09:24 AM (#2585532) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: bubblyrat 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 09:34 AM (#2585538) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Spleen Cringe 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 09:42 AM (#2585543) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 09:57 AM (#2585558) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob 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... |
|
10 Mar 09 - 10:02 AM (#2585566) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Backwoodsman 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! :-) |
|
10 Mar 09 - 10:16 AM (#2585581) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,Bob Hello Backwoodman, thanks, and yes I should, and will. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 10:41 AM (#2585603) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sandy Mc Lean 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! |
|
10 Mar 09 - 11:03 AM (#2585618) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Spleen Cringe 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 11:31 AM (#2585638) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:23 PM (#2585672) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: BobBiggart 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:33 PM (#2585683) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Sleepy Rosie 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? |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:35 PM (#2585688) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:47 PM (#2585699) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Backwoodsman "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:57 PM (#2585713) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Spleen Cringe 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! |
|
10 Mar 09 - 12:58 PM (#2585716) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge 100 |
|
10 Mar 09 - 01:01 PM (#2585723) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 01:02 PM (#2585726) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: pdq "...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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 01:18 PM (#2585741) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 02:54 PM (#2585819) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: BobBiggart 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. |
|
10 Mar 09 - 07:55 PM (#2586022) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
11 Mar 09 - 12:16 AM (#2586137) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,heric 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." |
|
11 Mar 09 - 12:48 AM (#2586147) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: meself 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? |
|
11 Mar 09 - 01:55 AM (#2586158) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus "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. |
|
11 Mar 09 - 06:01 AM (#2586237) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: GUEST,beardedbruce "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. |
|
11 Mar 09 - 12:26 PM (#2586431) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Teribus 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". |
|
11 Mar 09 - 01:49 PM (#2586492) Subject: RE: BS: School Gym forced to shut by Muslims UK From: Gervase The Younghusband expedition? |